Search

Objective: To investigate whether or not use of sit-stand desks and awareness of the importance of postural variation and breaks are associated with the pattern of sedentary behavior in office workers., Method: The data came from a cross-sectional observation study of Swedish call centre workers. Inclinometers recorded 'seated' or 'standing/walking' episodes of 131 operators over a full work shift. Differences in sedentary behavior based on desk type and awareness of the importance of posture variation and breaks were assessed by non-parametric analyses., Results: 90 (68.7%) operators worked at a sit-stand desk. Working at a sit-stand desk, as opposed to a sit desk, was associated with less time seated (78.5 vs 83.8%, p = 0.010), and less time taken to accumulate 5 min of standing/walking (36.2 vs 46.3 min, p = 0.022), but no significant difference to sitting episode length or the number of switches between sitting and standing/walking per hour. Ergonomics awareness was not associated with any sedentary pattern variable among those using a sit-stand desk., Conclusion: Use of sit-stand desks was associated with better sedentary behavior in call centre workers, however ergonomics awareness did not enhance the effect., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd and The Ergonomics Society. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To test whether feedback and discussion of ergonomic and psychosocial working-environment data during one short session with individual, groups or supervisors of white-collar computer workers had an effect on activity to modify workplace design, working technique and psychosocial aspects of work., Methods: A total of 36 workgroups from nine organizations representing different trades was randomized (stratified for organization) to three feedback conditions or control with no feedback. Data were collected 1 month before and 6 months after feedback sessions. The effects studied were: (1) change in the proportion of workgroup members who reported any modification regarding workplace design or working technique; (2) change in the proportion of workgroup members who reported any modification regarding psychosocial aspects; (3) average number of modification types regarding workplace design or working technique per individual in a workgroup; (4) average number of modification types regarding psychosocial aspects per individual in a workgroup., Results: All feedback conditions differed positively from controls regarding change in the proportion of workgroup members who reported any modification in workplace design or working technique. No such effect was found for psychosocial aspects. For change in average number of psychosocial modification types per individual in a workgroup an effect was observed for feedback to supervisors. No intervention effect was observed for the average number of modifications in workplace design or working technique per individual in a workgroup., Conclusion: Feedback and discussion of ergonomic and psychosocial working-environment data during one short session with individual, groups or supervisors of white-collar computer workers may have a positive effect on how many people in a workgroup modify (or have modifications done regarding) workplace design and working technique. Feedback to supervisors may have an effect on the average number of psychosocial modification types per individual in a workgroup. Feedback to group supervisors appeared to be the most cost-effective variant.

Background: Measurements of exposure to vibrations from hand-held tools are often conducted on a single occasion. However, repeated measurements may be crucial for estimating the actual dose with good precision. In addition, knowledge of determinants of exposure could be used to improve working conditions. The aim of this study was to assess hand–arm vibration (HAV) exposure during different grinding operations, in order to obtain estimates of the variance components and to evaluate the effect of work postures.Methods: Ten experienced operators used two compressed air-driven angle grinders of the same make in a simulated work task at a workplace. One part of the study consisted of using a grinder while assuming two different working postures: at a standard work bench (low) and on a wall with arms elevated and the work area adjusted to each operator’s height (high). The workers repeated the task three times. In another part of the study, investigating the wheel wear, for each grinder, the operators used two new grinding wheels and with each wheel the operator performed two consecutive 1-min grinding tasks. Both grinding tasks were conducted on weld puddles of mild steel on a piece of mild steel. Measurements were taken according to ISO-standard 5349 [the equivalent hand–arm-weighted acceleration (m s−2) averaged over 1 min]. Mixed- and random-effects models were used to investigate the influence of the fixed variables and to estimate variance components.Results: The equivalent hand–arm-weighted acceleration assessed when the task was performed on the bench and at the wall was 3.2 and 3.3 m s−2, respectively. In the mixed-effects model, work posture was not a significant variable. The variables ‘operator’ and ‘grinder’ together explained only 12% of the exposure variability and ‘grinding wheel’ explained 47%; the residual variability of 41% remained unexplained. When the effect of grinding wheel wear was investigated in the random-effects model, 37% of the variability was associated with the wheel while minimal variability was associated with the operator or the grinder and 37% was unexplained. The interaction effect of grinder and operator explained 18% of the variability. In the wheel wear test, the equivalent hand–arm-weighted accelerations for Grinder 1 during the first and second grinding minutes were 3.4 and 2.9 m s−2, respectively, and for Grinder 2, they were 3.1 and 2.9 m s−2, respectively. For Grinder 1, the equivalent hand–arm-weighted acceleration during the first grinding minute was significantly higher (P = 0.04) than during the second minute.Conclusions: Work posture during grinding operations does not appear to affect the level of HAV. Grinding wheels explained much of the variability in this study, but almost 40% of the variance remained unexplained. The considerable variability in the equivalent hand–arm-weighted acceleration has an impact on the risk assessment at both the group and the individual level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study which examines computer use, neck and upper-extremity symptoms, eyestrain and headache in secondary school students. Average computer use was 31 hours per week by male students and 19 hours per week by female students. Despite their young age, the students were not protected from computer-related health complaints.