4.2 Article

Evaluation of the working posture and prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms among medical laboratory technicians

Journal

Publisher

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/BMR-140466

Keywords

Posture; musculoskeletal disorders; medical laboratory technicians and occupational problems

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Technological advancement in the medical laboratories has exposed the laboratory technicians to various ergonomic hazards due to nature of their work. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to analyze the working postures, to find out the prevalence of work related musculoskeletal disorders and to investigate the relationship between musculoskeletal disorders with individual factors, work characteristics and the working postures. METHODS: The study was conducted among 60 medical laboratory technicians. Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire (NMQ), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and RULA were used for this study. RESULTS: Mean and SD of age, BMI and work experience of the technicians were 28.6 +/- 9.04 years, 22.07 +/- 4.5 and 7.1 +/- 8.2 years respectively. The overall prevalence of musculoskeletal problems experienced by the technicians was 73.3% and the major affected areas were trunk, knees, neck and ankles/feet. Statistical analysis shows significant associations between musculoskeletal symptoms and VAS scores. Also a significant difference was found between the means of pre and post work shift scores of neck, low back and knee pain. Postural analysis showed that the subject's mean Score A, B and Grand Score were found to be 3.98 +/- 0.8, 4.95 +/- 1.6 and 6 +/- 1.02 respectively. The final RULA score 6 +/- 1.02 emphasizes on poor workstation design which resulted in unnatural posture. CONCLUSIONS: The study highlighted the prevalence of postural and musculoskeletal problems among medical laboratory technicians. Intervention of administrative and engineering controls can significantly reduce ergonomic hazards.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available