Validity of "OfficeCheck": A self-musculoskeletal assessment tool for screening work-related musculoskeletal disorders in office workers.

BACKGROUND: Early self-assessment for work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) is crucial in preventing severe symptoms and long-term consequences. Accessible tools are necessary for proactive management. OBJECTIVE: To validate the OfficeCheck web application as a screening tool to classify office workers as capable of self-management for specific symptoms of WMSDs or requiring professional consultation. METHODS: This study was conducted to determine the criterion-related validity of OfficeCheck using physical therapy assessment as the reference standard. In total, 223 office workers who work with a computer more than two hours a day with or without symptoms of WMSDs participated in this study. All of them were classified by self-assessment on the OfficeCheck process flow (Kappa = 0.841) and physical therapy assessment, respectively. For statistical analysis, classification numbers were calculated for sensitivity, specificity, false positive rate (FPR), false negative rate (FNR), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). RESULTS: A total of 223 workers with a mean age of 38.9±9.0 years and mean body mass index (BMI) of 24.3±5.2 kg/m2 were illustrated. The most common areas of complaint were neck/upper back and lower back/hip. The results indicated that OfficeCheck had high sensitivity (95.1%), low specificity (42.0%), low PPV (38.0%), and high NPV (95.8%). The FPR was 58.0% and the FNR was 4.9%. CONCLUSION: OfficeCheck was found to have high sensitivity to classify office workers as capable of self-management for specific symptoms of WMSDs or requiring professional consultation. The use of OfficeCheck is thus recommended for self-detection and management to stop the consequences of WMSDs.

The Effects of Ramp Gradients and Pushing–Pulling Techniques on Lumbar Spinal Load in Healthy Workers

Background@#Many tasks in industrial and health care setting are involved with pushing and pulling tasks up or down on a ramp. An efficient method of moving cart which reduces the risk of low back pain should be concerned. This study aimed to investigate the effects of handling types (HTs) and slope on lumbar spinal load during moving a cart on a ramp. We conducted a 2 × 2 × 4 factorial design with three main factors: 2 HTs, 2 handling directions of moving a cart and 4 degrees of ramp slope. @*Methods@#Thirty healthy male workers performed 14 tasks consist of moving a cart up and down on the ramp of 0°, 10°, 15°, and 20° degrees with pushing and pulling methods. Joint angles from a 3D motion capture system combined with subject height, body weight, and hand forces were used to calculate the spinal load by the 3DSSPP program. @*Results@#Our results showed significant effect of HT, handling directions and slope on compression and shear force of the lumbar spine (p < 0.001). When the ramp gradient increased, the L4/5 compression forces increased in both pushing and pulling (p < 0.001) Shear forces increased in pulling and decreased in pushing in all tasks. At high slopes, pulling generated more compression and shear forces than that of pushing (p < 0.01). @*Conclusion@#Using the appropriate technique of moving a cart on the ramp can reduce the risk of high spinal load, and the pushing is therefore recommended for moving a cart up/down on ramp gradients.

Determining Sincerity of Effort Based on Grip Strength Test in Three Wrist Positions

BACKGROUND: Several grip strength tests are commonly used for detecting sincerity of effort. However, there is still no widely accepted standardized sincerity of effort test. Therefore, this study aimed to examine whether grip strength test in three wrist positions could distinguish between maximal and submaximal efforts. METHODS: Twenty healthy individuals (10 men and 10 women) with a mean age of 26.7 ± 3.92 years participated in this study. All participants completed two test conditions (maximal and submaximal efforts) in three wrist positions (neutral, flexion, and extension) using both hands. Each participant exerted 100% effort in the maximal effort condition and 50% effort in the submaximal effort condition. The participants performed three repetitions of the grip strength test for each session. RESULTS: The results showed that there is a significant main effect of the type of effort (p < 0.001), wrist position (p < 0.001), and hand (p = 0.028). There were also significant types of effort and wrist position interactions (p < 0.001) and effort and hand interactions (p < 0.028). The results also showed that grip strength was highest at the wrist in neutral position in both the maximal and the submaximal effort condition. Grip strength values of the three wrist positions in the maximal effort condition were noticeably greater than those in the submaximal effort condition. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study suggest that grip strength test in three wrist positions can differentiate a maximal effort from a submaximal effort. Thus, this test could potentially be used to detect sincerity of effort in clinical setting.