The Composite Strain Index (COSI) and Cumulative Strain Index (CUSI): methodologies for quantifying biomechanical stressors for complex tasks and job rotation using the Revised Strain Index.

The Composite Strain Index (COSI) quantifies biomechanical stressors for complex tasks consisting of exertions at different force levels and/or with different exertion times. The Cumulative Strain Index (CUSI) further integrates biomechanical stressors from different tasks to quantify exposure for the entire work shift. The paper provides methodologies to compute COSI and CUSI along with examples. Complex task simulation produced 169,214 distinct tasks. Use of average, time-weighted average (TWA) and peak force and COSI classified 66.9, 28.2, 100 and 38.9% of tasks as hazardous, respectively. For job rotation the simulation produced 10,920 distinct jobs. TWA COSI, peak task COSI and CUSI classified 36.5, 78.1 and 66.6% jobs as hazardous, respectively. The results suggest that the TWA approach systematically underestimates the biomechanical stressors and peak approach overestimates biomechanical stressors, both at the task and job level. It is believed that the COSI and CUSI partially address these underestimations and overestimations of biomechanical stressors. Practitioner Summary: COSI quantifies exposure when applied hand force and/or duration of that force changes during a task cycle. CUSI integrates physical exposures from job rotation. These should be valuable tools for designing and analysing tasks and job rotation to determine risk of musculoskeletal injuries.

The Revised Strain Index: an improved upper extremity exposure assessment model.

The Revised Strain Index (RSI) is a distal upper extremity (DUE) physical exposure assessment model based on: intensity of exertion, frequency of exertion, duration per exertion, hand/wrist posture and duration of task per day. The RSI improves upon the 1995 Strain Index (SI) by using continuous rather than categorical multipliers, and replacing duty cycle with duration per exertion. In a simulation of 13,944 tasks, the RSI and 1995 SI showed good agreement in risk predictions for 1995 SI scores ≤3 (safe) and >13.5 (hazardous). For tasks with 1995 SI scores of >3 and ≤13.5, the two models showed marked disagreement, with the RSI providing much greater discriminations between 'safe' and 'hazardous' tasks for various combinations of force, repetition and duty cycle. We believe the RSI is a substantially improved model that will be useful for DUE task analysis, intervention and design. Practitioner Summary: RSI is a substantial improvement over the 1995 SI. It should be a valuable tool for designing and analysing tasks to determine risk of musculoskeletal injuries. RSI is applicable to a wide variety of tasks including very low force and very high repetition tasks such as keyboard use.

Association between lifting and use of medication for low back pain: results from the Backworks Prospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate relationships between lifting and lowering of loads and risk of low back pain resulting in medication use (M-LBP). METHODS: At baseline, worker demographics, psychosocial factors, hobbies, LBP history, and lifting and lowering (quantified using the Revised NIOSH Lifting Equation) were assessed. A cohort of 258 incident-eligible workers was followed up for 4.5 years to determine new M-LBP cases and changes in lifting/lowering requirements. Proportional hazards regression with time-varying covariates was used to model associations. RESULTS: Factors predicting M-LBP included peak lifting index (PLI) and composite lifting index (PCLI), LBP history, anxiety, and housework. In adjusted models, PLI and PCLI showed exposure-response relationships with peak hazard ratios of 3.8 and 4.3, respectively (P ≤ 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Lifting of loads is associated with increased risk of M-LBP. The PLI and PCLI are useful metrics for estimating the risk of M-LBP from lifting.

Prevalence of low back pain by anatomic location and intensity in an occupational population.

BACKGROUND: Low Back Pain (LBP) is a common and costly problem, with variation in prevalence. Epidemiological reports of rating of pain intensity and location within the low back area are rare. The objective is to describe LBP in a large, multi-center, occupational cohort detailing both point and 1-month period prevalence of LBP by location and intensity measures at baseline. METHODS: In this cross-sectional report from a prospective cohort study, 828 participants were workers enrolled from 30 facilities performing a variety of manual material handling tasks. All participants underwent a structured interview detailing pain rating and location. Symptoms in the lower extremities, demographic and other data were collected. Body mass indices were measured. Outcomes are pain rating (0-10) in five defined lumbar back areas (i) LBP in the past month and (ii) LBP on the day of enrollment. Pain ratings were reported on a 0-10 scale and subsequently collapsed with ratings of 1-3, 4-6 and 7-10 classified as low, medium and high respectively. RESULTS: 172 (20.8%) and 364 (44.0%) of the 828 participants reported pain on the day of enrollment or within the past month, respectively. The most common area of LBP was in the immediate paraspinal area with 130 (75.6%) participants with point prevalence LBP and 278 (77.4%) with 1-month period prevalence reported having LBP in the immediate paraspinal area. Among those 364 reporting 1-month period prevalence pain, ratings varied widely with 116 (31.9%) reporting ratings classified as low, 170 (46.7%) medium and 78 (21.4%) providing high pain ratings in any location. Among the 278 reporting 1-month period prevalence pain in the immediate paraspinal area, 89 (32.0%) reported ratings classified as low, 129 (46.4%), medium and 60 (21.6%) high pain ratings. CONCLUSIONS: Pain ratings varied widely, however less variability was seen in pain location, with immediate paraspinal region being the most common. Variations may suggest different etiological factors related to LBP. Aggregation of different locations of pain or different intensities of pain into one binary classification of LBP may result in loss of information which may potentially be useful in prevention or treatment of LBP.

The NIOSH lifting equation and low-back pain, Part 1: Association with low-back pain in the backworks prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate relationships between the revised NIOSH lifting equation (RNLE) and risk of low-back pain (LBP). BACKGROUND: The RNLE is commonly used to quantify job physical stressors to the low back from lifting and/or lowering of loads. There is no prospective study on the relationship between RNLE and LBP that includes accounting for relevant covariates. METHOD: A cohort of 258 incident-eligible workers from 30 diverse facilities was followed for up to 4.5 years. Job physical exposures were individually measured. Worker demographics, medical history, psychosocial factors, hobbies, and current LBP were obtained at baseline. The cohort was followed monthly to ascertain development of LBP and quarterly to determine changes in job physical exposure. The relationship between LBP and peak lifting index (PLI) and peak composite lifting index (PCLI) were tested in multivariate models using proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Point and lifetime prevalences of LBP at baseline were 7.1% and 75.1%, respectively. During follow-up, there were 123 incident LBP cases. Factors predicting development of LBP included job physical exposure (PLI and PCLI), history of LBP, psychosocial factors, and housework. In adjusted models, risk (hazard ratio [HR]) increased per-unit increase in PLI and PCLI (p = .05 and .02; maximum HR = 4.3 and 4.2, respectively). PLI suggested a continuous increase in risk with an increase in PLI, whereas the PCLI showed elevated, but somewhat reduced, risk at higher exposures. CONCLUSION: Job physical stressors are associated with increased risk of LBP. Data suggest that the PLI and PCLI are useful metrics for estimating exposure to job physical stressors.

The NIOSH lifting equation and low-back pain, Part 2: Association with seeking care in the backworks prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between the revised NIOSH lifting equation (RNLE) and risk of seeking care for low-back pain (SC-LBP). BACKGROUND: The RNLE is commonly used to quantify low-back physical stressors from lifting/lowering of loads in workplaces. There is no prospective study on relationship between RNLE and SC-LBP. METHOD: A cohort of 258 incident-eligible workers from 30 diverse facilities was followed for up to 4.5 years. Job physical exposures were individually measured. Worker demographics, medical history, psychosocial factors, hobbies, and current low-back pain were obtained at baseline. The cohort was followed monthly to ascertain SC-LBP and quarterly to determine changes in physical exposure. Associations between SC-LBP and both the peak lifting index (PLI) and peak composite lifting index (PCLI) were tested in multivariate models using proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: SC-LBP lifetime prevalence at baseline was 31.9%, and there were 24 incident cases during follow-up. Factors predicting SC-LBP included job physical exposure (PLI and PCLI), history of low-back pain, age, female gender, and lower body mass index. In adjusted models, risk (hazard ratio [HR]) increased per unit increase in PLI and PCLI (p = .03 and .02, and maximum HR = 23.0 and 21.9, respectively). Whereas PCLI suggested a continuous increase in risk with an increase in PCLI, the PLI showed elevated, though somewhat reduced, risk at higher exposures (HR = 14.9 at PLI = 6). CONCLUSION: Job physical stressors are associated with increased risk of SC-LBP. Data suggest that both the PLI and PCLI are useful metrics for estimating exposure to job physical stressors.

Low-back pain ratings for lifetime, 1-month period, and point prevalences in a large occupational population.

OBJECTIVE: This manuscript systematically quantifies multiple measures of low-back pain (LBP) prevalence by pain rating in a large, multisite cohort of workers. BACKGROUND: Published LBP prevalence rates vary. Studies rely on one measure of LBP and none report prevalence stratified by pain rating. METHOD: Cross-sectional analyses of baseline data from a multicenter prospective cohort study were performed to evaluate differences in lifetime prevalence, 1-month period prevalence, and point prevalence of LBP. Workers were from 28 different employment settings in 4 diverse U.S. states. All workers completed computerized questionnaires and structured interviews. LBP prevalence measures were stratified by pain ratings. RESULTS: A total of 828 subjects had complete health data at baseline. Lifetime prevalence, 1-month period prevalence, and point prevalence for any LBP (> or = 1/10) were 63.4%, 44.0%, and 20.8% respectively. Prevalence of LBP decreased with increasing pain ratings. As an example, using a threshold of LBP > or = 3/10 pain, prevalence measures were 61.0%, 37.6%, and 16.7% respectively. A threshold of LBP > or = 5/10 had prevalence measures of 51.2%, 22.9%, and 9.9% respectively. Age, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and tobacco use were statistically significantly related to lifetime prevalence of LBP. CONCLUSION: Lifetime LBP prevalence, 1-month period prevalence, and point prevalence stratified by pain ratings demonstrate a wide variation of prevalence measures of LBP and self-reported pain ratings. Higher pain rating thresholds yield lower prevalence measures and may impact assessments of risk factors. Differences in pain ratings may allow for focused surveillance within an occupational cohort.

Study protocol title: a prospective cohort study of low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Few prospective cohort studies of workplace low back pain (LBP) with quantified job physical exposure have been performed. There are few prospective epidemiological studies for LBP occupational risk factors and reported data generally have few adjustments for many personal and psychosocial factors. METHODS/DESIGN: A multi-center prospective cohort study has been incepted to quantify risk factors for LBP and potentially develop improved methods for designing and analyzing jobs. Due to the subjectivity of LBP, six measures of LBP are captured: 1) any LBP, 2) LBP ≥ 5/10 pain rating, 3) LBP with medication use, 4) LBP with healthcare provider visits, 5) LBP necessitating modified work duties and 6) LBP with lost work time. Workers have thus far been enrolled from 30 different employment settings in 4 diverse US states and performed widely varying work. At baseline, workers undergo laptop-administered questionnaires, structured interviews, and two standardized physical examinations to ascertain demographics, medical history, psychosocial factors, hobbies and physical activities, and current musculoskeletal disorders. All workers' jobs are individually measured for physical factors and are videotaped. Workers are followed monthly for the development of low back pain. Changes in jobs necessitate re-measure and re-videotaping of job physical factors. The lifetime cumulative incidence of low back pain will also include those with a past history of low back pain. Incident cases will exclude prevalent cases at baseline. Statistical methods planned include survival analyses and logistic regression. DISCUSSION: Data analysis of a prospective cohort study of low back pain is underway and has successfully enrolled over 800 workers to date.

A validation study comparing two self-reported upper extremity symptom surveys with clinical examinations for upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the validity of two self-report symptoms surveys with two disorder classification protocols. PARTICIPANTS: 100 graduate students at a private school in the Southwest United States. METHODS: Study participants completed two self-report upper extremity musculoskeletal symptoms surveys: a nine item 10 cm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and a nine item Likert categorical scale anchored from "None" to "Very severe". Clinical examinations were administered using two musculoskeletal disorder classification protocols. RESULTS: For the nine body regions, concordance between the two self-report symptoms scales ranged from 0.49-0.75. Overall there was greater than 80% agreement for the two disorder classification protocols. Using either symptom survey with either disorder classification protocol provided high sensitivities and specificities (Youden's J ≥ 0.70). Three of possible six symptom survey/classification protocol pairings provided high sensitivities and specificities across all disorder groups. CONCLUSION: In this graduate student sample, none of the self-report symptom survey-classification protocol pairings was demonstratively more useful than any other pairing for studies of musculoskeletal disorders among computer users.

Workplace interventions to prevent musculoskeletal and visual symptoms and disorders among computer users: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The literature examining the effects of workstation, eyewear and behavioral interventions on musculoskeletal and visual symptoms among computer users is large and heterogeneous. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature used a best evidence synthesis approach to address the general question "Do office interventions among computer users have an effect on musculoskeletal or visual health?" This was followed by an evaluation of specific interventions. RESULTS: The initial search identified 7313 articles which were reduced to 31 studies based on content and quality. Overall, a mixed level of evidence was observed for the general question. Moderate evidence was observed for: (1) no effect of workstation adjustment, (2) no effect of rest breaks and exercise and (3) positive effect of alternative pointing devices. For all other interventions mixed or insufficient evidence of effect was observed. CONCLUSION: Few high quality studies were found that examined the effects of interventions in the office on musculoskeletal or visual health.

Postural versus chair design impacts upon interface pressure.

An investigation of postural and chair design impacts upon seat pan interface pressure has been performed in an effort to identify whether differences in posture or chair design result in greater pressure differences. Investigation of postural variables focused on trunk-thigh angle and use of armrests. Twelve ergonomic office chairs were used to assess chair design differences. Both male and female subjects were included. Gender effects were controlled through use of a repeated Latin square design, with squares defined by gender. Significant gender-based interaction was observed amongst postural treatments and chair effects. Postural treatments, chairs designs, and participant effects all resulted in significant interface pressure differences, though gender-based interaction yielded some non-additivity of results between males and females. The final conclusion drawn from the results is that chair design differences had the greatest effect on seat pan interface pressure, followed by participant effects, and lastly postural treatments.

Inter-rater reliability of the strain index.

The Strain Index is one of several tools available to evaluate exposure to musculoskeletal stressors in the workplace in order to predict whether workers are at an increased risk of developing distal upper extremity disorders. The purpose of this study was to determine the inter-rater reliability of the Strain Index. Fifteen raters initially estimated or measured data for five Strain Index task variables: (1) intensity of exertion, (2) duration of exertion, (3) efforts per minute, (4) hand/wrist posture, and (5) speed of work, using a computer to view 61 video segments of single task jobs. Video segments were organized to provide a balanced number for each of the five variables under study, where each segment was used to provide data for a single variable. Raters then assigned rating values to each task according to published procedures. For an additional 12 segments, raters performed complete Strain Index analyses, including calculation of Strain Index scores, which were used to determine hazard classifications. Raters assessed the tasks both as individuals and as members of five three-person teams. Inter-rater reliabilities of the procedures leading to and including the Strain Index scores were assessed using an intraclass correlation coefficient, (ICC(2, 1)). Inter-rater reliability for the dichotomous hazard classification was assessed using Kuder-Richardson-20 (KR-20, an ICC for dichotomous data). For task variables and estimated data, ICC(2, 1) varied between 0.66-0.84 for individuals and 0.48-0.93 for teams. The Strain Index score had an ICC(2, 1) of 0.43 and 0.64 for individuals and teams, respectively. For the most important variable, hazard classification, KR-20 was 0.91 for the individuals and 0.89 for the teams.

Biomechanical models for the pathogenesis of specific distal upper extremity disorders.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge of the pathogenesis of most disorders that occur in the distal upper extremity is generally lacking. The individual roles of postulated etiologic factors, such as biomechanical or psychosocial exposures, are poorly understood and their potential interactions even less so. This article proposes biomechanical or physiological models of pathogenesis for specific distal upper extremity disorders. METHODS: Tendon entrapment of the dorsal wrist compartments (tenosynovitis), peritendinitis, lateral epicondylitis, and carpal tunnel syndrome are common specific neuromusculoskeletal disorders of the upper extremities observed among workers. The normal anatomy and function of the targeted structures is considered the initial state; their pathology is considered the final state. Using biomechanical or physiological principles combined with clinical observations and experimental studies, pathways leading from the initial state to the final state are proposed. Each model defined a critical biomechanical or physiological attribute that was considered to best characterize 'dose.' Two temporal patterns of exposure (duration vs. repetition) were used to characterize 'dosage.' The roles of long-term exposure vs. unaccustomed work were mentioned, but not incorporated into the models. RESULTS: Compressive force transmitted to the extensor retinaculum was considered the critical factor in the model for tendon entrapment at the dorsal wrist compartments. Two models were proposed for lateral epicondylitis. One emphasized the role of eccentric exertions; the other emphasized contact pressure from the radial head. The model for peritendinitis relied on localized muscle fatigue. Seven plausible models were presented for carpal tunnel syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to propose biologically plausible models of pathogenesis that are both coherent with current knowledge of tissue responses and consistent with clinical observations; however, more than one model was plausible for some conditions. Additional research is needed to determine which, if any, of the proposed models might be correct. Such models may be useful to health care providers and ergonomists in the context of primary, secondary, or tertiary prevention.

Predictive validity of the strain index in manufacturing facilities.

The Strain Index is a job analysis method for determining if workers are exposed to increased risk of developing distal upper extremity disorders. Its predictive and external validity was initially demonstrated in a pork processing plant. The purpose of this study was to evaluate its predictive validity in two manufacturing plants. While blinded to health outcomes, investigators analyzed the right and left sides of 28 single-task jobs using the Strain Index and classified them as "hazardous" or "safe" based on the Strain Index score. Subsequently, OSHA 200 logs were used to ascertain the occurrence of distal upper extremity disorders retrospectively. If at least one such disorder occurred on the right or left side during the prior three years, that side was classified as "positive." If no such disorder was reported during the prior three years, that side was classified as "negative." When comparing sides, symmetry between morbidity and hazard classification was required. When comparing jobs, such symmetry was not required. Evidence of association between the hazard classifications and the morbidity classifications for the 56 sides and the 28 jobs was evaluated using 2 x 2 contingency tables. For the sides, the association between hazard classification and morbidity classification was statistically significant with an empirical odds ratio of 73.2. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 1.00, 0.84, 0.47, and 1.00. Similar results were noted for the jobs--the empirical odds ratio was 106.6, and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 1.00, 0.91, 0.75, and 1.00. While these results provide additional evidence of the Strain Index's external validity and predictive validity, it should be noted that these jobs involved the performance of single tasks.