Roquelaure Y, Mariel J, Fanello S, Boissière J-C, Chiron H, Dano C, Bureau D, Penneau-Fontbonne D
Centre de consultation de pathologie professionnelle (Center for Occupational Health and Ergonomics), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (University Hospital), F-49033 Angers Cedex, France.
Occup Environ Med. 2002 Jul;59(7):452-8. doi: 10.1136/oem.59.7.452.
(1) To evaluate an active method of surveillance of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). (2) To compare different criteria for deciding whether or not a work situation could be considered at high risk of MSDs in a large, modern shoe factory.
A total of 253 blue collar workers were interviewed and examined by the same physician in 1996; 191 of them were re-examined in 1997. Risk factors of MSDs were assessed for each worker by standardised job site work analysis. Prevalence and incidence rates of carpal tunnel syndrome, rotator cuff syndrome, and tension neck syndrome were calculated for each of the nine main types of work situation. Different criteria used to assess situations with high risk of MSDs were compared.
On the basis of prevalence data, three types of work situation were detected to be at high risk of MSDs: cutting, sewing, and assembly preparation. The three types of work situations identified on the basis of incidence data (sewing preparation, mechanised assembling, and finishing) were different from those identified by prevalence data. At least one recognised risk factor for MSDs was identified for all groups of work situations. The ergonomic risk could be considered as serious for the four types of work situation having the highest ergonomic scores (sewing, assembly preparation, pasting, and cutting).
The results of the health surveillance method depend largely on the definition of the criteria used to define the risk of MSDs. The criteria based on incidence data are more valid than those based on prevalence data. Health and risk factor surveillance must be combined to predict the risk of MSDs in the company. However, exposure assessment plays a greater role in determining the priorities for ergonomic intervention.
(1)评估一种监测肌肉骨骼疾病(MSD)的主动方法。(2)在一家大型现代化鞋厂中,比较用于判定工作环境是否可被视为MSD高风险环境的不同标准。
1996年,共有253名蓝领工人接受了同一位医生的访谈和检查;其中191人在1997年接受了复查。通过标准化的工作场所工作分析,对每位工人的MSD风险因素进行评估。计算了九种主要工作环境中每种环境下腕管综合征、肩袖综合征和紧张性颈综合征的患病率和发病率。比较了用于评估MSD高风险环境的不同标准。
基于患病率数据,检测到三种工作环境为MSD高风险环境:裁剪、缝纫和装配准备。基于发病率数据确定的三种工作环境(缝纫准备、机械装配和整理)与基于患病率数据确定的不同。所有工作环境组都至少识别出一种公认的MSD风险因素。对于人体工程学得分最高的四种工作环境(缝纫、装配准备、粘贴和裁剪),人体工程学风险可被视为严重。
健康监测方法的结果在很大程度上取决于用于定义MSD风险的标准的定义。基于发病率数据的标准比基于患病率数据的标准更有效。必须将健康和风险因素监测相结合,以预测公司中MSD的风险。然而,暴露评估在确定人体工程学干预的优先事项方面发挥着更大的作用。