Search

Fire-fighters use informal strategies to manage risks to health and safety during operations. It is not known whether such strategies are used during the high-risk alarm response period. The aim of this study was to determine if informal risk management strategies are employed by Australian firefighters during the alarm response procedure, and if these strategies differ between salaried and retained personnel. Forty-six metropolitan firefighters (all male; mean age 38 years ± 10 years; 22 salaried; 24 retained) participated in semi-structured group interviews. A general inductive data analysis approach revealed that firefighters use multiple informal risk management strategies. Some similar themes were reported by both salaried and retained personnel, for example leveraging team dynamics, communication about sleep and fatigue, stress adaptation, informal debriefs, and enhancing physical preparedness. These findings could be used by fire services to tailor risk management approaches during the alarm response period. Practitioner summary: Identifying informal risk management strategies firefighters use during alarm response will allow their development, refinement and dissemination, and may help other firefighters and emergency service workers to manage these risks. This qualitative study reveals multiple informal strategies that firefighters employ during alarm response to keep themselves and their team-mates safe.

This study examined firefighters' sleep quantity and quality throughout multi-day wildfire suppression, and assessed the impact of sleep location, shift length, shift start time and incident severity on these variables. For 4 weeks, 40 volunteer firefighters' sleep was assessed using wrist actigraphy. Analyses revealed that the quantity of sleep obtained on fire days was restricted, and pre- and post-sleep fatigue ratings were higher, compared to non-fire days. On fire days, total sleep time was less when: (i) sleep location was in a tent or vehicle, (ii) shifts were greater than 14 h and (iii) shifts started between 05:00 and 06:00 h. This is the first empirical investigation providing objective evidence that firefighters' sleep is restricted during wildfire suppression. Furthermore, sleep location, shift length and shift start time should be targeted when designing appropriate controls to manage fatigue-related risk and preserve firefighters' health and safety during wildfire events. Practitioner Summary: During multi-day wildfire suppression, firefighters' sleep quantity was restricted, and pre- and post-sleep fatigue ratings were higher, compared to non-fire days. Furthermore, total sleep time was less when: (i) sleep occurred in a tent/vehicle, (ii) shifts were >14 h and (iii) shifts started between 05:00 and 06:00 h.

The aim of this study was to examine the associations between firefighters' physical activity levels across consecutive wildfire suppression shifts and to determine whether sleep duration moderated these associations. Forty volunteer firefighters (31 males, 9 females) wore an activity monitor to concurrently measure physical activity and sleep duration. Sedentary time and time spent in light- (LPA), moderate- (MPA), and vigorous-intensity physical activity (VPA) during each shift were determined using monitor-specific cut points. During any given shift, every additional 60 min spent in LPA was associated with 7.2 min more LPA and 27.6 min MPA the following shift. There were no other significant positive or negative associations. No significant moderating effect of total sleep time was observed. Firefighters are able to maintain and/or increase their physical activity intensity between consecutive shifts. Further research is needed to understand firefighters pacing and energy conservation strategies during emergency wildfire deployments. Practitioner Summary: To examine associations between firefighters' physical activity levels across consecutive shifts during a multi-day emergency wildfire and determine whether sleep duration moderated these associations. Firefighters are able to maintain and/or increase their physical activity intensity between consecutive shifts. No significant moderating effect of total sleep time was observed.

A case-control study was conducted to determine whether or not kinematic-based low back disorder risk measurement (Marras et al. 1993) of the job was significantly different for those workers suffering from recent low back injuries compared to asymptomatic controls. Two hundred low back injured workers returning to full duty work and 200 asymptomatic controls were evaluated while performing the same job. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups on any trunk motion measures or workplace measures. Therefore, job design is dictating the kinematic motions of the torso and not the worker's low back health. In addition, there was not a significant difference in job risk estimates using the lumbar motion monitor risk model. The mean risk (and standard deviation) for the low back injured group and the asymptomatic controls was 0.502 (0.178) and 0.501 (0.193), respectively. This study suggests that trunk kinematics and subsequent risk estimates are dictated primarily by job design and not influenced by the low back health status of the worker.

The study documented three-dimensional spinal loading during lifting from an industrial bin. Two lifting styles and two bin design factors were examined in Phase I. The lifting style measures in Phase I were one hand versus two hand and standing on one foot versus two feet. The bin design variables were region of load in the bin and bin height. The Phase II study examined one-handed lifting styles with and without supporting body weight with the free hand on the bin as well as region and the number of feet. Twelve male and 12 female subjects lifted an 11.3 kg box from the bin. Spinal compression, lateral shear and anterior - posterior shear forces were estimated using a validated EMG-assisted biomechanical model. Phase I results indicated that the bin design factor of region had the greatest impact on spinal loading. The upper front region minimized spinal loading for all lifting styles. Furthermore, the lifting style of two hands and two feet minimized spinal loading. However, comparing Phase I two-handed lifting with Phase II one-handed supported lifting, the one-handed supported lifting techniques had lower compressive and anterior - posterior shear loads in the lower regions as well as the upper back region of the bin. A bin design that facilitates lifting from the upper front region of the bin reduces spinal loading more effectively than specific lifting styles. Furthermore, a bin design with a hand hold may facilitate workers using a supported lifting style that reduces spinal loading.

Low-back disorders (LBD) continue to be the most costly and common musculoskeletal problem facing society today. Investigators have developed tools or measures that are intended to identify jobs that will probably be associated with an elevated risk of low-back disorders. However, an important and not widely discussed issue associated with these tools and procedures has been that of the validity or effectiveness of the tools. Therefore the objective of this study was to evaluate the validity and effectiveness of two commonly used types of LBD assessment methods in terms of their ability to correctly associate jobs with LBD risk. The 1981 NIOSH Work Practices Guide for Manual Lifting and the 1991 NIOSH revised lifting equation, along with psychophysical measures were assessed for their ability to correctly identify high-, medium-, and low-risk (of LBD) jobs. Risk was defined according to a database of 353 industrial jobs representing over 21 million person-hours of exposure. The results indicated that both NIOSH measures were predictive and resulted in odds ratios between 3.1 and 4.6. Higher odds ratios were found when the maximum horizontal distance was used to assess a job compared to the average horizontal distance. Further analyses indicated that the two NIOSH assessment methods classified risk in very different ways. The 1981 NIOSH Guide demonstrated good specificity (91%) in that it identified low-risk jobs well but it also displayed low sensitivity by only correctly identifying 10% of the high-risk jobs. The 1993 NIOSH revised lifting equation, on the other hand, had better sensitivity. It correctly identified 73% of the high-risk jobs but did not identify low- and medium-risk jobs well. Using psychophysical criteria it was observed that 60% of the high-risk jobs would be judged to be acceptable, whereas, 64% and 91% of the medium- and low-risk jobs, respectively, would be judged to be acceptable. This study indicates that the different measures have various strengths and weaknesses. When controlling for occupational LBD it should be recognized that a variety of measures exist and that the measure that most appropriately assesses risk depends upon the characteristics of the job.

A continuing challenge for ergonomists has been to determine quantitatively the types of trunk motion and how much trunk motion contributes to the risk of occupationally-related low back disorder (LBD). It has been difficult to include this motion information in workplace assessments since the speed at which trunk motion becomes dangerous has not been determined. An in vivo study was performed to assess the contribution of three-dimensional dynamic trunk motions to the risk of LBD during occupational lifting in industry. Over 400 industrial lifting jobs were studied in 48 varied industries. The medical records in these industries were examined so that specific jobs historically categorized as either low, medium, or high risk for occupationally-related LBD could be identified. A tri-axial electrogoniometer was worn by workers and documented the three-dimensional angular position, velocity, and acceleration characteristics of the lumbar spine while workers worked at these low, medium, or high risk jobs. Workplace and individual characteristics were also documented for each of the repetitive lifting tasks. A multiple logistic regression model indicated that a combination of five trunk motion and workplace factors predicted well both medium risk and high risk occupational-related LBD. These factors included lifting frequency, load moment, trunk lateral velocity, trunk twisting velocity, and trunk sagittal angle. Increases in the magnitude of these factors significantly increased the risk of LBD. The analyses have enabled us to determine the LBD risk associated with combined changes in the magnitudes of the five factors. The results indicate that by suitably varying these five factors observed during the lift collectively, the odds of high risk group membership may decrease by over ten times. These results were related to the biomechanical, ergonomic, and epidemiologic literature. The five trunk motion and workplace factors could be used as quantitative, objective measures to redesign the workplace so that the risk of occupationally-related LBD is minimized.

The objective of this study was to determine how trunk motion characteristics (in all three planes of the trunk) change as a free dynamic lifting task becomes more asymmetric. Trunk motion characteristics included range of motion, velocity (peak and average), and acceleration. Previous studies have shown that trunk motion characteristics affect trunk strength as well as the action of the trunk musculature. These trunk motion characteristics were quantified as a function of seven task asymmetries and three task weights. The experimental task required the subject to lift materials in positions commonly seen in the workplace. The range of motion, peak velocity, average velocity, and peak acceleration in each plane of the body were documented during the tasks. Generally, trunk motion characteristics in all three planes increased with an increase in task asymmetry. However, with an increase in task weight all the sagittal plane parameters and one transverse plane parameter decreased. Models were constructed to predict trunk motion characteristics given a task asymmetry and weight. When these motion components were compared to dynamic strength estimates from previous studies it was found that dynamic asymmetric lifts could reduce available strength up to 21% of maximum static strength. The results provide new insight into factors associated with the risk of developing low back disorders.