4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Work-related musculoskeletal disorders in physical therapists: Prevalence, severity, risks, and responses

期刊

PHYSICAL THERAPY
卷 80, 期 4, 页码 336-351

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL THERAPY ASSOC
DOI: 10.1093/ptj/80.4.336

关键词

musculoskeletal disorders; occupational injury; physical therapy; risk factors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose. Physical therapists are at risk for work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs). Little is known of how therapists respond to injury or of what actions they take to prevent injury. The purpose of this study was to investigate the prevalence and severity of WMSDs in physical therapists, contributing risk factors, and their responses to injury. Subjects. As part of a larger study, a systematic sample of 1 in 4 therapists on a state register (n=824) was surveyed. Methods. An 8-page questionnaire was mailed to each subject. Questions investigated musculoskeletal symptoms, specialty areas, tasks and job-related risk factors, injury prevention strategies, and responses to injury. Results. Lifetime prevalence of WMSDs was 91%, and 1 in 6 physical therapists moved within or left the profession as a result of WMSDs. Younger therapists reported a higher prevalence of WMSDs in most body areas. Use of mobilization and manipulation techniques was related to increased prevalence of thumb symptoms. Risk factors pertaining to workload were related to a higher prevalence of neck and upper-limb symptoms, and postural risk factors were related to a higher prevalence of spinal symptoms. Conclusion and Discussion. Strategies used to reduce work-related injury in industry may also apply to physical therapists. Increased risk of thumb symptoms associated with mobilization techniques suggests that further research is needed to establish recommendations for practice. The issues for therapists who move within or leave the profession are unknown, and further research is needed to better understand their needs and experiences.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据