METHOD: A cross-sectional study was conducted with convenience sampling employed across five different departments. The departments were a department of medical, surgical, orthopedics, emergency and rehabilitation. The samples were selected according to a minimum of two years of clinical experience without any history of low back surgery. An instrument consists of socio-demographic background, knowledge on body mechanics and Owestry Low Back Pain Disability Index Questionnaire was used in this study.
RESULTS: A total of 139 HCPs were recruited including medical officers, staff nurses, community health nurses, assistant medical officers, physiotherapists, and assistant nurses. A self-administered questionnaire pertaining to knowledge revealed that 73.4% of HCPs had inadequate knowledge of musculoskeletal body mechanics. Among all, 90.6% (minimal: 9.4%, moderate: 43.2%, severe: 42.4%, crippled: 5.0%) of HCPs showed moderate to crippled disability using Oswestry Disability Index classifications indicating the poor practice of body mechanics while working.
CONCLUSION: The findings of this study indicate that a lack of knowledge among healthcare professionals lead to the inadequate practice of preserving musculoskeletal health while carrying out duty in caring patients. It is suggested that enforcing and emphasizing health education for healthcare professionals is urgently needed towards reducing the risk of the musculoskeletal problem among healthcare professionals.
Aim: The present research was conducted to identify site-specific pain resulting from musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) among practicing dentists and determine its impact on their quality of life.
Setting and Design: A cross-sectional questionnaire study conducted among practicing dentists of Puducherry Taluk, Puducherry, India.
Method and Materials: A closed-ended, self-administered questionnaire was distributed to 95 practicing dentists to identify site-specific MSP from the study subjects. Data on pain due to MSDs, frequency of pain, its impact on quality of life, relieving factors, patients attended per day, working hours per day, and awareness on ergonomics were also recorded.
Statistical Analyses: The data were analyzed for descriptive statistics, and Chi-square tests was used for proportions.
Results: Almost all respondents experienced pain due to MSDs. Approximately, 11.1% "always" experienced elbow pain; 5.6% "always" experienced pain in neck and back. Approximately, 83% "sometimes" experienced pain in the back. Pain in elbow was significantly associated with gender (P = 0.036), qualification (P = 0.029), and years of practice (P = 0.032). Approximately, 36% reported having an impact on their life.
Conclusion: The magnitude of the problem is slowly shifting from "sometimes" to "always." Although small in proportion, pain due to MSDs has an impact on dental practitioners' quality of life, and elbow pain was reportedly higher in the study setting. Measures need to be implemented before MSD becomes a career limiting occupational hazard.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the relationship between specific physical and psychosocial factors and/or ergonomic conditions on MSD symptoms among dentists in Malaysia.
METHODS: A group of 85 dentists was asked to complete a questionnaire to determine whether their complaints were related to physical and psychosocial factors and/or ergonomic conditions in their practices.
RESULTS: Among the nine reviewed body areas, the shoulders were most often affected by symptoms of MSDs (92.7%). Moreover, MSDs of the neck and upper back were most likely to prevent these practitioners from engaging in normal activities (32.9%). In general, no significant differences were found in the prevalence of MSD symptoms in relation to gender, age, body mass index, years in practice, number of patients, and frequency of breaks.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results were consistent with those reported in other studies that focused on MSD problems among dentists in other countries. To reduce the prevalence of MSDs, more attention should be paid to instituting ergonomically sensible approaches in the dental practice setting.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of physical, cognitive and organisational ergonomic interventions, or combinations of those interventions for the prevention of work-related upper limb and neck MSDs among office workers.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science (Science Citation Index), SPORTDiscus, Embase, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health database, and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, to 10 October 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ergonomic interventions for preventing work-related upper limb or neck MSDs (or both) among office workers. We only included studies where the baseline prevalence of MSDs of the upper limb or neck, or both, was less than 25%.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We included studies with relevant data that we judged to be sufficiently homogeneous regarding the interventions and outcomes in the meta-analysis. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each comparison using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 RCTs (2165 workers). We judged one study to have a low risk of bias and the remaining 14 studies to have a high risk of bias due to small numbers of participants and the potential for selection bias.Physical ergonomic interventionsThere is inconsistent evidence for arm supports and alternative computer mouse designs. There is moderate-quality evidence that an arm support with an alternative computer mouse (two studies) reduced the incidence of neck or shoulder MSDs (risk ratio (RR) 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.99), but not the incidence of right upper limb MSDs (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.66); and low-quality evidence that this intervention reduced neck or shoulder discomfort (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.41; 95% CI -0.69 to -0.12) and right upper limb discomfort (SMD -0.34; 95% CI -0.63 to -0.06).There is moderate-quality evidence that the incidence of neck or shoulder and right upper limb disorders were not considerably reduced when comparing an alternative computer mouse and a conventional mouse (two studies; neck or shoulder: RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.19 to 2.00; right upper limb: RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.72), and also when comparing an arm support with a conventional mouse and a conventional mouse alone (two studies) (neck or shoulder: RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.12 to 6.98; right upper limb: RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.58 to 1.96).Workstation adjustment (one study) and sit-stand desks (one study) did not have an effect on upper limb pain or discomfort, compared to no intervention.Organisational ergonomic interventionsThere is very low-quality evidence that supplementary breaks (two studies) reduce discomfort of the neck (MD -0.25; 95% CI -0.40 to -0.11), right shoulder or upper arm (MD -0.33; 95% CI -0.46 to -0.19), and right forearm or wrist or hand (MD -0.18; 95% CI -0.29 to -0.08) among data entry workers.Training in ergonomic interventionsThere is low to very low-quality evidence in five studies that participatory and active training interventions may or may not prevent work-related MSDs of the upper limb or neck or both.Multifaceted ergonomic interventionsFor multifaceted interventions there is one study (very low-quality evidence) that showed no effect on any of the six upper limb pain outcomes measured in that study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found inconsistent evidence that the use of an arm support or an alternative mouse may or may not reduce the incidence of neck or shoulder MSDs. For other physical ergonomic interventions there is no evidence of an effect. For organisational interventions, in the form of supplementary breaks, there is very low-quality evidence of an effect on upper limb discomfort. For training and multifaceted interventions there is no evidence of an effect on upper limb pain or discomfort. Further high-quality studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of these interventions among office workers.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of workplace ergonomic design or training interventions, or both, for the prevention of work-related upper limb and neck MSDs in adults.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL, AMED, Web of Science (Science Citation Index), SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Occupational Safety and Health Review Group Database and Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register to July 2010, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health database, and International Occupational Safety and Health Information Centre database to November 2010.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ergonomic workplace interventions for preventing work-related upper limb and neck MSDs. We included only studies with a baseline prevalence of MSDs of the upper limb or neck, or both, of less than 25%.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We included studies with relevant data that we judged to be sufficiently homogeneous regarding the intervention and outcome in the meta-analysis. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each comparison using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs (2397 workers). Eleven studies were conducted in an office environment and two in a healthcare setting. We judged one study to have a low risk of bias. The 13 studies evaluated effectiveness of ergonomic equipment, supplementary breaks or reduced work hours, ergonomic training, a combination of ergonomic training and equipment, and patient lifting interventions for preventing work-related MSDs of the upper limb and neck in adults.Overall, there was moderate-quality evidence that arm support with alternative mouse reduced the incidence of neck/shoulder disorders (risk ratio (RR) 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.99) but not the incidence of right upper limb MSDs (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.66); and low-quality evidence that this intervention reduced neck/shoulder discomfort (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.41; 95% CI -0.69 to -0.12) and right upper limb discomfort (SMD -0.34; 95% CI -0.63 to -0.06).There was also moderate-quality evidence that the incidence of neck/shoulder and right upper limb disorders were not reduced when comparing alternative mouse and conventional mouse (neck/shoulder RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.19 to 2.00; right upper limb RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.72), arm support and no arm support with conventional mouse (neck/shoulder RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.36 to 1.24; right upper limb RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.51 to 2.29), and alternative mouse with arm support and conventional mouse with arm support (neck/shoulder RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.30 to 1.12; right upper limb RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.36 to 2.36).There was low-quality evidence that using an alternative mouse with arm support compared to conventional mouse with arm support reduced neck/shoulder discomfort (SMD -0.39; 95% CI -0.67 to -0.10). There was low- to very low-quality evidence that other interventions were not effective in reducing work-related upper limb and neck MSDs in adults.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found moderate-quality evidence to suggest that the use of arm support with alternative mouse may reduce the incidence of neck/shoulder MSDs, but not right upper limb MSDs. Moreover, we found moderate-quality evidence to suggest that the incidence of neck/shoulder and right upper limb MSDs is not reduced when comparing alternative and conventional mouse with and without arm support. However, given there were multiple comparisons made involving a number of interventions and outcomes, high-quality evidence is needed to determine the effectiveness of these interventions clearly. While we found very-low- to low-quality evidence to suggest that other ergonomic interventions do not prevent work-related MSDs of the upper limb and neck, this was limited by the paucity and heterogeneity of available studies. This review highlights the need for high-quality RCTs examining the prevention of MSDs of the upper limb and neck.
METHODS: A cross sectional study was conducted in northeastern Malaysia involving 321 town service workers who were subjected to answer an interviewer-guided validated questionnaire which consists of sociodemographic, knowledge, attitude and practice information. Data were entered and analyzed using SPSS Version 20.
RESULTS: All of the respondents were Malay with mean (SD) age of 40.6 (10.28) years old. The mean (SD) duration of employment was 12.1 (9.62) years. Fifty four respondents (16.8%) had never heard of leptospirosis. Among the respondents, 215 (67.0%) of them had poor knowledge on leptospirosis. Meanwhile, 167 (52.0%) and only 128 (39.9%) of them had satisfactory attitude and practice respectively. It was found that knowledge on risk factors for leptospirosis was lacking. There were high risk attitudes such as drinking habit and protective equipment used during working with the favourable answers ranged from 67.3% to 89.1%. The weakest area identified in their practice was also on the use of protective equipment.
CONCLUSIONS: The workers' level of knowledge and practice were relatively poor despite an overall good practice on leptospirosis. This finding might expose them to an increased risk of contracting leptospirosis. Identified weak areas in their knowledge, attitude and practice will assist the policy makers to develop a focused and well-directed intervention program on leptospirosis infection.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective case review of pilots diagnosed with CAD at the Institute of Aviation Medicine (IAM), Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) in October 2020.
RESULTS: Thirteen cases of CAD were included in the review. Ten pilots were diagnosed after developing acute coronary syndrome; the remaining three pilots were diagnosed during a routine medical examination via an exercise stress test. Twelve pilots required a revascularization procedure. A total of 11 pilots (84.6%) were recertified for flying duties, while another two were disqualified. The duration to recertification for these 11 pilots was between three months and one year.
CONCLUSIONS: The risk assessment was initiated with initial risk-stratification using population-appropriate risk calculator combined with the 4 × 4 aeromedical risk matrix. The reassessment of return to flying after coronary artery disease must be carried out no sooner than six months after the event. Pilots must be hemodynamically stable with no evidence of significant inducible ischemic left and a minimum 50% of ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). A follow-up is recommended at the initial six months after recertification and then annually with a routine noninvasive cardiac assessment.