Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add filters








Year range
1.
Rev. Univ. Ind. Santander, Salud ; 49(1): 57-74, Marzo 20, 2017. tab, graf
Article in Spanish | LILACS | ID: biblio-897090

ABSTRACT

RESUMEN Introducción: Los desórdenes musculoesqueléticos (DME) constituyen una de las principales causas de enfermedad relacionadas con el trabajo. Numerosos esfuerzos se han realizado a fin de prevenir su aparición; por tanto, múltiples instrumentos de evaluación ergonómica han sido usados. Esta revisión tiene como objetivo identificar la información disponible en bases de datos sobre evaluación del riesgo biomecánico (RULA) y percepción de DME en trabajadores de diversos sectores económicos (Cuestionario Nórdico), para el periodo 2004-2015. Materiales y Métodos: Se realizó una revisión sistemática de los estudios recientes enfocados en la evaluación del nivel de riesgo ergonómico y percepción de DME. Asimismo, fueron tenidas en cuenta las recomendaciones de la declaración PRISMA, tras obtener los artículos en las bases de datos Science direct, Scopus, Pubmed, Springer link, Embase y Ebsco. 13 estudios que cumplieron con los criterios de selección fueron incluidos; se identificaron dos tipos de estudios: de diagnóstico y de intervención. Resultados: Prevalencias altas en espalda alta-baja, cuello, tronco, hombros, mano/ muñeca y rodilla fueron evidenciadas, siendo el género femenino el más afectado. Conclusiones: Los hallazgos sugieren asociación entre índice de masa corporal, edad (≥ 25 años), antigüedad en el trabajo (≥ 3 años), trabajo por destajo, horas de trabajo diario ≥ 8 horas, número de pacientes atendidos, RULA (nivel 3 y 4) y DME en cuello, tronco, brazos, antebrazos, espalda baja y zonas corporales del grupo B.


ABSTRACT Introduction: Musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) are one of the main causes of work-related diseases; numerous efforts have been made in order to prevent its occurrence. Therefore, multiple ergonomic evaluation instruments have been used. This review aims to identify the available information in databases related to biomechanical risk assessment (RULA) and perception of DME in workers from various economic sectors, period 2004-2015 (Nordic Questionnaire). Materials and Methods: A Systematic review about the recent studies focused on the evaluation of the level of ergonomic risk and perception of DME was performed. The recommendations of the PRISMA statement were taken into account after obtaining the studies from the Science Direct, Scopus, Pubmed, Springer link, Embase and Ebsco databases. 13 studies that complied the selection criteria were included; 2 types of studies were identified: diagnosis and intervention. Results: High prevalence in upper and lower back, neck, trunk, shoulders, hand/wrist, and knee were evidenced, being the female gender the most affected. Conclusions: These findings suggest an association between body mass index, age (≥ 25 years), seniority at work (≥ 3 years), piecework, daily hours of work ≥ 8 hours, number of patients attended, RULA (level 3 And 4) and DME in the neck, trunk, arms, forearms, lower back and group B body areas.


Subject(s)
Humans , Ergonomics , Musculoskeletal Abnormalities , Public Health , Computer Terminals , Occupational Groups
2.
Article in Portuguese | LILACS | ID: lil-574521

ABSTRACT

O processo de seleção dos métodos observacionais de avaliação do risco de LER/DORT é complexo, mas fundamental para a gestão do risco. Em Setúbal, no período de 2004 a 2005, numa empresa portuguesa da indústria automobilística, onde a avaliação do risco foi previamente efetuada, reaplicou-se o método OCRA checklist (avaliação do risco de LER/DORT ao nível dos membros superiores) em postos de trabalho (n=152) montagem final e pintura classificados de risco moderado/elevado (OCRA ?16,5). Nas situações em que se reconfirmou a presença de risco (n=71), aplicaram-se três outros métodos: RULA, SI e HAL. Registraram-se sequências em vídeo da atividade de trabalho para avaliar a validade preditiva dos métodos. Revelam-se divergências entre os métodos na classificação dos postos de trabalho de risco elevado: OCRA 34 postos; HAL 35 postos; SI 31 postos; RULA 7 postos. A análise do efeito de cada variável independente (fator de risco) nos scores finais dos métodos (regressão linear multivariada) revela distintos contributos e processos de ponderação/avaliação do risco de LER/DORT. A análise dos registros em vídeo evidencia diversas validades preditivas relativamente aos fatores de risco integrantes dos métodos aplicados. Os resultados indicam a necessidade de uma seleção do método de avaliação do risco de LER/DORT adequada a cada situação (real) de trabalho, baseada no maior conhecimento dos métodos.


The process for selecting observational methods for evaluating work-related upper limb musucloskeletal disorders (WRULMSDs) is complex, but essential to risk management. In a Portuguese automotive industry plant (Setúbal, 2004-05), where all jobs had been previously analyzed, OCRA checklist was reapplied (final assembling and painting) in workstations (n=152) classified as moderate/ high risk (score 16.5 OCRA). In all risk confirmed cases (n=71) three other methods were applied: RULA, SI, and HAL. Sequences of working activities were recorded on video to estimate the predictive validity of the methods. The results show differences in the final scores of the methods in the same workstations: OCRA reveals 34 workplaces with high risk; SI only ranked 31 positions with high risk; HAL has 35 high risk workplaces, and RULA only 7. Analysis of the effect of each independent variable (risk factor) in the final scores of the methods, based on linear regression analysis, reveals different contributions and, consequently, different ways of assessing WRULMSD risk. The video analysis also highlights different predictive validities for the risk factors in each method. These results indicate the need to select the appropriate WRULMSD risk assessment instrument adequate to each real work situation.


Subject(s)
Cumulative Trauma Disorders , Industry , Occupational Diseases , Risk Assessment , Methods
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL