METHODS: The SB and MPTD activities were performed by seven nurses on a simulated patient. The nurses' facial expressions were recorded during the trial. The NASA Task Load Index and technology acceptance questionnaire were also assessed.
RESULTS: The MPTD significantly reduced the mean overall NASA-TLX score by 68.7% (p = 0.004) and increased the overall acceptance score (median = 8.30) by 21.2% (p = 0.016) when compared to the SB (median = 6.85). All the subjects reported positive feelings towards MPTD. However, facial expression analysis showed that the nurses had a significantly higher peak density of fear while using MPTD (p = 0.016). Besides, there was no improvement in the negative valence and contempt emotion compared to the SB.
CONCLUSION: Overall, nurses showed positive perceptions and acceptance of MPTD even when they experienced negative emotions.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONThe Motorised Patient Transfer Device (MPTD) reduced the perceived workload of nurses and showed a higher acceptance level compared to the commonly used baseline device (SB).Factors that attributed to the nurses' negative emotions can be used to improve technology and patient transfer processes.More training should be given to familiarise the health practitioners with the new assistive device to reduce their fear of technology.
OBJECTIVE: The three main objectives are to analyze published pen-and-paper observational methods, to extract and understand the risk levels of each method and to identify their associated health effects.
METHODOLOGY: The authors searched scientific databases and the Internet for materials from 1970 to 2013 using the following keywords: ergo, posture, method, observational, postural angle, health effects, pain and diseases. Postural assessments of upper arms, lower arms, wrists, neck, back and legs in six pen-and-paper-based observational methods are highlighted, extracted in groups and linked with associated adverse health effects.
RESULTS: The literature reviewed showed strengths and limitations of published pen-and-paper-based observational methods in determining the work activities, risk levels and related postural angles to adverse health effects. This provided a better understanding of unsafe work postures and how to improve these postures.
CONCLUSION: Many pen-and-paper-based observational methods have been developed. However, there are still many limitations of these methods. There is, therefore, a need to develop a new pen-and-paper-based observational method for assessing postural problems.
METHODS: Participants (N=142) in this randomized controlled trial were office workers aged 20-50 years old with neck, shoulders, and lower back pain. They were randomly assigned to either the ergonomic modification group, the exercise group, the combined exercise and ergonomic modification group, or the control group (no-treatment). The exercise training group performed a series of stretching exercises, while the ergonomic group received some modification in the working place. Outcome measures were assessed by the Cornell Musculoskeletal Disorders Questionnaire at baseline, after 2, 4, and 6 months of intervention.
RESULTS: There was significant differences in pain scores for neck (MD -10.55; 95%CI -14.36 to -6.74), right shoulder (MD -12.17; 95%CI -16.87 to -7.47), left shoulder (MD -11.1; 95%CI -15.1 to -7.09) and lower back (MD -7.8; 95%CI -11.08 to -4.53) between the exercise and control groups. Also, significant differences were seen in pain scores for neck (MD -9.99; 95%CI -13.63 to -6.36), right shoulder (MD -11.12; 95%CI -15.59 to -6.65), left shoulder (MD -10.67; 95%CI -14.49 to -6.85) and lower back (MD -6.87; 95%CI -10 to -3.74) between the combined exercise and ergonomic modification and control groups. The significant improvement from month 4 to 6, was only seen in exercise group (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: To have a long term effective on MSDs, physical therapists and occupational therapists should use stretching exercises in their treatment programs rather than solely rely on ergonomic modification.
CLINICAL TRIAL ID: NCT02874950 - https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02874950.