4.1 Article

Prevalence of musculoskeletal disorder among workers in Taiwan: A nationwide study

Journal

JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Volume 46, Issue 1, Pages 26-36

Publisher

JAPAN SOC OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
DOI: 10.1539/joh.46.26

Keywords

musculoskeletal disorder; back pain; neck pain; shoulder pain; metal industry; construction; epidemiology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) is a common problem among workers. In spite of the numerous reports on MSD in various specific groups of workers, few data on the prevalence in the general working population are available except for back pain. We analyzed the information collected through a nationwide survey in Taiwan in 1994 to estimate the prevalence of MSD by age, gender, and education level and identify high-risk industries. In the survey, a standard questionnaire was distributed to a representative sample of 22,475 non-self-employed workers in Taiwan. National estimates were obtained by applying a weight to each participant. Among the sampled workers, 18,942 (84.3%) participated, and 37.0% (standard error=0.4%) had MSD. Female workers had a significantly higher overall prevalence than male workers (39.5% vs. 35.2%, p<0.05). Education and age also had significant associations with MSD (p<0.001 in both genders). Lower back and waist were the most frequently affected body parts (18.3% among males and 19.7% among females), but the prevalence of MSDs of the neck, shoulders, hands and wrists were also above 10%. The top ten high-risk major industries for MSD of various body parts for each gender were identified, and some industries, including Basic Metal Industries and Buildings Construction, were among the top ten for multiple body parts. Our study showed that MSDs of body parts other than the back are also prevalent, especially in the neck, shoulders, hands and wrists. We also identified high-risk industries for further research and intervention.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available