A Systematic Review of Ergonomics Risk Assessment Methods for Pushing and Pulling Activities at Workplace

IF 0.6 Q3 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
Hari Krishnan Tamil Selvan, Mohd Nasrull Abdol Rahman
{"title":"A Systematic Review of Ergonomics Risk Assessment Methods for Pushing and Pulling Activities at Workplace","authors":"Hari Krishnan Tamil Selvan, Mohd Nasrull Abdol Rahman","doi":"10.47836/pjst.31.6.29","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is vital to assess workplace pushing and pulling (PP) activities to manage musculoskeletal injuries among employees. However, there is still no clearly-suited risk assessment method. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of risk assessment methods for PP activities at the workplace. Thus, the review employed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Two primary journal databases were searched, namely Scopus and Science Direct. Furthermore, to ensure the robustness of the study, the searches were expended via handpicking, snowball identification, and consultation with ergonomics experts. Atlas.ti version 8 software was used to analyse the identified articles thematically. The search resulted in nine articles eligible for the systematic analysis. From the articles, six assessment methods used force measurement as the main indicators, while three assessment methods used the weight of the load as measurement indicators. The assessment tools did not cover all the risk factors for PP activities. Besides, there was a lack of evidence showing the assessment tools or methods' reliability, validity, and usability. This systematic review highlighted the advantages and limitations of existing assessment methods, and no one method fits all. The findings showed that the assessment methods for PP activities still needed a force measurement and did not cover all the significant risk factors associated with PP. In addition, no clarifications were presented regarding the assessment methods’ reliability, validity, and applicability.","PeriodicalId":46234,"journal":{"name":"Pertanika Journal of Science and Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pertanika Journal of Science and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47836/pjst.31.6.29","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

It is vital to assess workplace pushing and pulling (PP) activities to manage musculoskeletal injuries among employees. However, there is still no clearly-suited risk assessment method. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of risk assessment methods for PP activities at the workplace. Thus, the review employed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Two primary journal databases were searched, namely Scopus and Science Direct. Furthermore, to ensure the robustness of the study, the searches were expended via handpicking, snowball identification, and consultation with ergonomics experts. Atlas.ti version 8 software was used to analyse the identified articles thematically. The search resulted in nine articles eligible for the systematic analysis. From the articles, six assessment methods used force measurement as the main indicators, while three assessment methods used the weight of the load as measurement indicators. The assessment tools did not cover all the risk factors for PP activities. Besides, there was a lack of evidence showing the assessment tools or methods' reliability, validity, and usability. This systematic review highlighted the advantages and limitations of existing assessment methods, and no one method fits all. The findings showed that the assessment methods for PP activities still needed a force measurement and did not cover all the significant risk factors associated with PP. In addition, no clarifications were presented regarding the assessment methods’ reliability, validity, and applicability.
工作场所推拉活动的人体工程学风险评估方法系统综述
评估工作场所推拉(PP)活动对管理员工的肌肉骨骼损伤至关重要。然而,目前还没有明确适用的风险评估方法。本系统综述旨在概述工作场所PP活动的风险评估方法。因此,本综述采用了系统评价和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)。检索了两个主要的期刊数据库,即Scopus和Science Direct。此外,为了确保研究的稳健性,通过手工挑选,雪球识别和咨询人体工程学专家来进行搜索。阿特拉斯。采用Ti version 8软件对鉴定出的文章进行专题分析。检索结果为9篇符合系统分析条件的文章。从文章中可以看出,六种评估方法以力测量为主要指标,三种评估方法以载荷重量为衡量指标。评估工具没有涵盖PP活动的所有风险因素。此外,缺乏证据表明评估工具或方法的可靠性,有效性和可用性。这篇系统的综述突出了现有评估方法的优点和局限性,没有一种方法适合所有的情况。研究结果表明,PP活动的评估方法仍然需要进行力测量,并且没有涵盖所有与PP相关的重要风险因素。此外,评估方法的信度,效度和适用性没有得到澄清。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pertanika Journal of Science and Technology
Pertanika Journal of Science and Technology MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
16.70%
发文量
178
期刊介绍: Pertanika Journal of Science and Technology aims to provide a forum for high quality research related to science and engineering research. Areas relevant to the scope of the journal include: bioinformatics, bioscience, biotechnology and bio-molecular sciences, chemistry, computer science, ecology, engineering, engineering design, environmental control and management, mathematics and statistics, medicine and health sciences, nanotechnology, physics, safety and emergency management, and related fields of study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信