Write your message
Volume 7, Issue 3 (Iranian Journal of Ergonomics 2019)                   Iran J Ergon 2019, 7(3): 33-43 | Back to browse issues page


XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Ordudari Z, Fadaei F, Habibi E, Hassanzadeh A. Relationship Between Workload and Prevalence of Wrist Disorders in Assembly Line Workers of Manufacturing Industry. Iran J Ergon 2019; 7 (3) :33-43
URL: http://journal.iehfs.ir/article-1-584-en.html
1- MSc, Department of Occupational Health Engineering, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Iran
2- Department of Occupational Health Engineering, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Iran
3- Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Iran
Full-Text [PDF 642 kb]   (9507 Downloads)     |   Abstract (HTML)  (9648 Views)

It was revealed that mental load was high in assembly lines of the manufacturing industry and this result was also confirmed by physical evaluation. This study indicated that overall score of SMWL can affect the incidence of MSDs. That is why mental workload should be considered as a risk factor for MSDs.


Extended Abstract:   (792 Views)
Introduction

Repeatedly performing a particular activity or performing in an inappropriate physical condition may cause musculoskeletal disorders [5]. The Occupational Repetitive Actions Index (OCRA) can be used to assess the risk factors associated with work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSCs). This method has been suggested for analyzing the risk factors of repetitive upper limb movements [10].
Mental workload can be defined as the amount of mental effort that a person makes while performing a task, given his or her mental capacity to receive information, process and make decisions [14]. There are several methods of assessing subjective load, the NASA-TLX (National Aeronautics and Space Administration-Task Load Index) tool is one of these self-report tools related to cognitive tasks.
This study aims to investigate the subjective workload and prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders in female assembly workers and, based on the results, provide measures to control workload and ultimately c.


 

Materials and Methods

This study is a cross-sectional study that was conducted on a simple random sampling method on 120 female assembly workers of a Chinese plates manufacturing industry. Subjects were selected according to inclusion criteria (having at least one year of work experience, no history of hand surgery, no osteoporosis, no fractures or abnormalities in the hands, no pregnancy and no diabetes). In the second stage, demographic data were collected and the variables studied, including the question whether they were right or left handed. The prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders was assessed using Nordic wrist and hand questionnaires and interviews with individuals. It is worth mentioning that the reliability and validity of this questionnaire has been confirmed in Persian by various studies [33, 2]. Thereafter, the NASA-TLX questionnaire (NASA-TLX Index is a powerful tool for assessing subjective workload [26], whose reliability and validity were confirmed by Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.83 by Seraji et al. [28]) were filled and information was received from individuals at the end of the shift. OCRA musculoskeletal load assessment was also performed during the worst posture, information on OCRA factors was collected in a checklist and then evaluated in ErgoIntelligence -UEAsoftware. Data analysis was done using SPSS 20 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL., USA), independent t-test, paired t-test, Spearman correlation coefficient, Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney test and P-value <0.05 was considered significant.


 

Results

The mean and standard deviation of age and work experience of participants were 33.16±6.80 years and 7.06±5.35 years, respectively. Descriptive statistics of qualitative variables and demographic data of the subjects are presented in Table 1.
 

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the qualitative variables of the subjects

% N Grouping Qualitative variables
15.0 18 Single marital status
 
85.0 102 Married
12.5 15 Yes sports program
 
87.5 105 No
88.3 106 Right The dominant hand
 
11.7 14 Left
73.3 88 High school diploma Education
10.8 13 College degree
15.0 18 Bachelor’s degree
0.8 1 Master


The results of the Nordic questionnaire are presented in Figure 1.


Figure 1. Percentage of pain intensity experienced in workers with ankle pain

Table 2. Duration and consequences of wrist and hand problems

People with trouble experience at hand Grouping %
Duration of wrist and hand discomfort over the past 12 months
 
Zero days 0
1 to 7 days 25.8
8 to 30 days 22.5
More than 30 days but not every day 12.5
everyday 2.5
Percentage of decline in job activity over the past 12 months due to wrist and hand discomfort - 53.3
Percentage decline in daily recreation over the past 12 months due to wrist and hand discomfort - 31.7
Duration of daily activities due to wrist and hand discomfort over the past 12 months
 
Zero days 0.8
1 to 7 days 36.7
8 to 30 days 23.3
More than 30 days 2.5
Percentage of referrals to a doctor in the past 12 months due to wrist and hand discomfort - 21.7


The results of physical evaluation of OCRA workload are presented in Table 3.
 

Table 3. Percentage of OCRA Risk Levels in Right and Left Hand and Comparison in Both Hands of Assembler Women

Wilcoxon test Left hand
(N=120)
Right hand
(N=120)
Grouping Level of risk
 
P=0.001 35.0% 2.5% Green
30.8% 24.2% Green-yellow
25.8% 40.0% Yellow
8.3% 33.3% Red
Paired-t-test Left hand
(N=120)
Right hand
(N=120)
Statistical indicators OCRA index
P=0.001 1.92 3.92 Average
1.45 2.92 Standard deviation
0.48 0.65 Minimum value
7.41 15.43 The maximum amount

The correlation between OCRA and wrist pain is also shown in Figure 2.


Figure 2. Relationship between OCRA risk levels and wrist pain

Table 4. Results of the NASA TLX questionnaire on assembly women

NASA TLX variables M SD Minimum value Maximum value
Intellectual and mental burden 63.17 22.398 5 100
Physical load 78.79 19.562 5 100
Performance and Performance 40.25 19.304 5 95
Time pressure 74.54 19.370 20 100
Attempt and effort 78.37 20.002 20 100
Feeling discouraged and frustrated 64.08 25.421 5 100
Total mental load 69.78 12.32 36.67 95


Table 5 presents the correlations of the mean of six subscales of mental workload and wrist pain.
 

Table 5. Relationship between the mean of the six sub-scales of the NASA TLX Index and wrist pain in female assembly workers

NASA TLX variables
 
Total )N=120) With wrist pain )N=76) Without wrist pain )N=44) P-Value
Mean±SD
Intellectual and mental burden 63.17±22.3 24.8±62.83 17.72 ±63.75 P= 0.83
Physical load 19.2±78.79 18.5±81.05 20.04±74.89 P= 0.045
Performance and Performance 19.3±40.25 18.5±35.92 18.37±47.73 P= 0.001
Time pressure 19.3±74.54 20.6±74.93 17.18±73.86 P= 0.77
attempt and effort 20±78.38 18.4±80.72 22.06±74.32 P= 0.046
Feeling discouraged and frustrated 25.4±64.08 26.4±65.66 23.51±61.36 P = 0.37
Total mental load 12.3±69.78 13±71.54 10.50±66.74 P = 0.039


Spearman correlation coefficient showed that there was a direct relationship between wrist pain intensity and OCRA risk index (P= 0.001) and total NASA score (r = 0.223, P<0.05).

 

Conclusion

In general, the results of the present study showed that the workload was physically and psychologically increased in the assembly lines, followed by the wrist disorders. This study showed that overall mental workload score can influence the incidence of MSDs. Understanding the risk factors involved in the development of MSDs, especially psychological factors, is an important issue. Since MSDs have become an important health issue for industries and communities today, the results of these risk factors can be of great help to industrial health professionals in providing preventive and control strategies. One of these risk factors seems to be mental workload scales. For this reason, mental workload should be assessed and considered as a risk factor for MSDs.


 

Acknowledgements

This research is part of an approved research plan with the number 396350 and code of ethics IR.MUI.REC.1396.3.350. The authors are grateful for the cooperation of the university and all participants.

 

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declared no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this article.


 

Type of Study: Research | Subject: Other Cases
Received: 2018/11/28 | Accepted: 2019/12/22 | ePublished: 2020/01/12

References
1. Anap DB, Iyer C, Rao K. Work related musculoskeletal disorders among hospital nurses in rural Maharashtra, India: a multi centre survey. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences. 2017; 1(2):101-7. [DOI:10.5455/2320-6012.ijrms20130513]
2. Bandpei MAM, Ehsani F, Behtash H, Ghanipour M. Occupational low back pain in primary and high school teachers: prevalence and associated factors. Journal of Manipulative & Physiological Therapeutics. 2014; 37(9):702-8. [DOI:10.1016/j.jmpt.2014.09.006] [PMID]
3. Bennett GF. Safety and Health for Engineers. Berlin: Elsevier; 2006. [Google Scholar]
4. Bernard BP, Putz-Anderson V. Musculoskeletal disorders and workplace factors; a critical review of epidemiologic evidence for work-related musculoskeletal disorders of the neck, upper extremity, and low back. Journal ?. 1997; Volume ?(Number ?):Pages?. [Google Scholar]
5. Boerner K, Scherf C, Leitner-Mai B, Spanner-Ulmer B. Field study of age-differentiated strain for assembly line workers in the automotive industry. Work. 2012; 41(Supplement 1):5160-6. [DOI:10.3233/WOR-2012-1002-5160] [PMID]
6. Buckle P. Upper limb disorders and work: the importance of physical and psychosocial factors. Journal of psychosomatic research; 1997; 43(1):17-25. [DOI:10.1016/S0022-3999(96)00394-7]
7. Buckle PW, Devereux JJ. The nature of work-related neck and upper limb musculoskeletal disorders. Applied Ergonomics. 2002; 33(3):207-17. [DOI:10.1016/S0003-6870(02)00014-5]
8. Cao A, Chintamani KK, Pandya AK, Ellis RD. NASA TLX: Software for assessing subjective mental workload. Behavior Research Methods. 2009; 41(1):113-7. [DOI:10.3758/BRM.41.1.113] [PMID]
9. Chen CJ, Dai YT, Sun YM, Lin YC, Juang YJ. Evaluation of auditory fatigue in combined noise, heat and workload exposure. Industrial Health. 2007; 45(4):527-34. [DOI:10.2486/indhealth.45.527] [PMID]
10. Cheshmehgaz HR, Haron H, Kazemipour F, Desa MI. Accumulated risk of body postures in assembly line balancing problem and modeling through a multi-criteria fuzzy-genetic algorithm. Computers & Industrial Engineering. 2012; 63(2):503-12. [DOI:10.1016/j.cie.2012.03.017]
11. Cho CY, Hwang YS, Cherng RJ. Musculoskeletal symptoms and associated risk factors among office workers with high workload computer use. Journal of Manipulative & Physiological Therapeutics. 2012; 35(7):534-40. [DOI:10.1016/j.jmpt.2012.07.004] [PMID]
12. Choobineh A, Daneshmandi H, Poor AF, Fard HR. Ergonomic assessment of musculoskeletal disorders risk level among workers of a petrochemical company. Iran Occupational Health. 2013; 10(3): Pages?. [Article] [Google Scholar]
13. Choobineh A, Lahmi M, Shahnavaz H, Khani Jazani R, Hosseini M. Musculoskeletal symptoms as related to ergonomic factors in Iranian hand-woven carpet industry and general guidelines for workstation design. International Journal of Occupational Safety And Ergonomics. 2004; 10(2):157-68. [DOI:10.1080/10803548.2004.11076604] [PMID]
14. Colombini D, Occhipinti E. Preventing upper limb work-related musculoskeletal disorders (UL-WMSDS): New approaches in job (re) design and current trends in standardization. Applied Ergonomics. 2006; 37(4):441-50. [DOI:10.1016/j.apergo.2006.04.008] [PMID]
15. Colombini D, Occhipinti E. Results of risk and impairment assessment in groups of workers exposed to repetitive strain and movement of the upper limbs in various sectors of industry. La Medicina del lavoro. 2004; 95(3):233-46. [Article] [Google Scholar]
16. Darvishi E, Maleki A, Giahi O, Akbarzadeh A. Subjective mental workload and its correlation with musculoskeletal disorders in bank staff. Journal of Manipulative & Physiological Therapeutics. 2016; 39(6):420-6. [DOI:10.1016/j.jmpt.2016.05.003] [PMID]
17. De Waard D. The measurement of drivers' mental workload: Groningen University. Netherlands: Traffic Research Center; 1996. [Article] [Google Scholar]
18. Eatough EM, Way JD, Chang CH. Understanding the link between psychosocial work stressors and work-related musculoskeletal complaints. Applied Ergonomics. 2012; 43(3):554-63. [DOI:10.1016/j.apergo.2011.08.009] [PMID]
19. Grieco A. Application of the concise exposure index (OCRA) to tasks involving repetitive movements of the upper limbs in a variety of manufacturing industries: preliminary validations. Ergonomics. 1998; 41(9):1347-56. [DOI:10.1080/001401398186351] [PMID]
20. Habib RR, Hamdan M, Nuwayhid I, Odaymat F, Campbell OM. Musculoskeletal disorders among full-time homemakers in poor communities. Women & Health. Year ?; Volume ?(Number ?):Pages?. [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI]
21. Habibi E, Karimi S, Hasanzadeh A. Evaluation of ergonomic risk factors by OCRA method in assembly industry. Journal ?. 2008; Volume ?(Number ?):Pages?. [Google Scholar]
22. Hart SG, Staveland LE. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In editors ?. Advances in Psychology. Berlin: Elsevier; 1988. [DOI:10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9]
23. Holmström E, Engholm G. Musculoskeletal disorders in relation to age and occupation in Swedish construction workers. American Journal of Industrial Medicine. 2003; 44(4):377-84. [DOI:10.1002/ajim.10281] [PMID]
24. Hughes LE. The influence of multiple risk factors on WMSD risk and evaluation of measurement methods used to assess risks: Virginia Tech; Journal ?. 2007; Volume ?(Number ?):Pages?. [Article] [Google Scholar]
25. Islam M. Common work related musculoskeletal disorders among the pediatric physiotherapists at CRP: Department of Physiotherapy, Bangladesh Health Professions Institute. City ?: CRP; 2012. [Article] [Google Scholar]
26. Jansen K, Luik M, Reinvee M, Viljasoo V, Ereline J, Gapeyeva H, et al. Musculoskeletal discomfort in production assembly workers. Acta Kinesiologiae Universitatis Tartuensis. 2012; 18:102-10. [DOI:10.12697/akut.2012.18.11]
27. Junior JRV, Pereira RM, da Silv RP. Veronesi index of ergonomic risk for activities repetitive of members upper limbs. Procedia Manufacturing. 2015; 3:4456-63. [DOI:10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.457]
28. Karl K, Henrike K, Katrin K. Ergonomics: how to design for ease and efficiency. New Jersey: Publisher ?; 2001. [Google Scholar]
29. Karwowski W, Marras WS. Fundamentals and Assessment Tools for Occupational Ergonomics. City ?: CRC Press; 2006. [Google Scholar]
30. Kazemi Z, Mazloumi A, Saraji JN, Hussaini M. Assessing the workload and its relationship to fatigue in the Driving section of railway traction Islamic Republic of Iran. Journal of Safety and Health at Work. 2012; 2(1):1-8. [Google Scholar]
31. Keir PJ, Brown MM. Force, frequency and gripping alter upper extremity muscle activity during a cyclic push task. Ergonomics. 2012; 55(7):813-24. [DOI:10.1080/00140139.2012.668947] [PMID]
32. Kerr M. Workplace Psychosocial Factors and Musculoskeletal Disorders. Toronto, Ontario: Institute for Work & Health; 1999.
33. Khandan M, Maghsoudipour M. Survey of workload and job satisfaction relationship in a productive company. Iran Occupational Health. 2012; 9(1):30-6. [Article] [Google Scholar]
34. Kromark K, Dulon M, Beck BB, Nienhaus A. Back disorders and lumbar load in nursing staff in geriatric care: a comparison of home-based care and nursing homes. Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology. 2009; 4(1):33. [DOI:10.1186/1745-6673-4-33] [PMID] [PMCID]
35. Lee H, Ahn H, Park CG, Kim SJ, Moon SH. Psychosocial factors and work-related musculoskeletal disorders among Southeastern Asian female workers living in Korea. Safety and Health at Work. 2011; 2(2):183-93. [DOI:10.5491/SHAW.2011.2.2.183] [PMID] [PMCID]
36. Mazloumi A, Ghorbani M, Nasl Saraji G, Kazemi Z, Hosseini M. Workload assessment of workers in the assembly lines of a car manufacturing company. Iran Occupational Health. 2014; 11(4):44-55. [Article] [Google Scholar]
37. Mehta RK, Agnew MJ. Subjective evaluation of physical and mental workload interactions across different muscle groups. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene. 2015; 12(1):62-8. [DOI:10.1080/15459624.2014.942455] [PMID]
38. Nordander C, Ohlsson K, Balogh I, Hansson G-Å, Axmon A, Persson R, et al. Gender differences in workers with identical repetitive industrial tasks: exposure and musculoskeletal disorders. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health. 2008; 81(8):939-47. [DOI:10.1007/s00420-007-0286-9] [PMID]
39. Noyes JM, Bruneau DP. A self-analysis of the NASA-TLX workload measure. Ergonomics. 2007; 50(4):514-9. [DOI:10.1080/00140130701235232] [PMID]
40. Otto A, Scholl A. Incorporating ergonomic risks into assembly line balancing. European Journal of Operational Research. 2011; 212(2):277-86. [DOI:10.1016/j.ejor.2011.01.056]
41. Punnett L, Gold J, Katz J, Gore R, Wegman D. Ergonomic stressors and upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders in automobile manufacturing: a one year follow up study. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2004; 61(8):668-74. [DOI:10.1136/oem.2003.008979] [PMID] [PMCID]
42. Razavi S, Fallahi M, Hekmat SR, Akaberi A. Prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders and it's risk factors among, mothers'home working. Journal ?. 2013; Volume ?(Number ?):Pages?. [Google Scholar]
43. Rubio S, Díaz E, Martín J, Puente JM. Evaluation of subjective mental workload: A comparison of SWAT, NASA‐TLX, and workload profile methods. Applied Psychology. 2004; 53(1):61-86. [DOI:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00161.x]
44. Sharma G, Sood S, Sharma V. Early diagnosis of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS) in Indian patients by nerve conduction studies. Internet Journal of Medical Update. 2010; 5(2) : Pages?. [DOI:10.4314/ijmu.v5i2.56156]
45. Shuval K, Donchin M. Prevalence of upper extremity musculoskeletal symptoms and ergonomic risk factors at a Hi-Tech company in Israel. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2005; 35(6):569-81. [DOI:10.1016/j.ergon.2005.01.004]
46. Van Galen GP, Müller ML, Meulenbroek RG, Van Gemmert AW. Forearm EMG response activity during motor performance in individuals prone to increased stress reactivity. American Journal of Industrial Medicine. 2002; 41(5):406-19. [DOI:10.1002/ajim.10051] [PMID]
47. Werner RA, Franzblau A, Gell N, Ulin SS, Armstrong TJ. Predictors of upper extremity discomfort: a longitudinal study of industrial and clerical workers. Journal of occupational rehabilitation. 2005; 15(1):27-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-005-0872-1 [DOI:10.1007/s10926-005-0871-2]
48. Wiebe EN, Roberts E, Behrend TS. An examination of two mental workload measurement approaches to understanding multimedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior. 2010; 26(3):474-81. [DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2009.12.006]
49. Yassi A. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Current Oopinion in Rheumatology. 2000; 12(2):124-30. [DOI:10.1097/00002281-200003000-00006] [PMID]
50. Yeung SS, Genaidy A, Deddens J, Sauter S. The relationship between protective and risk characteristics of acting and experienced workload, and musculoskeletal disorder cases among nurses. Journal of Safety Research. 2005; 36(1):85-95. [DOI:10.1016/j.jsr.2004.12.002] [PMID]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2024 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Iranian Journal of Ergonomics

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb |