Skip to main content
Download PDF

A first step towards a framework for interventions for individual working practice to prevent work-related musculoskeletal disorders: a scoping review

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders volume 24, Article number: 87 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) are a key topic in occupational health. In the primary prevention of these disorders, interventions to minimize exposure to work-related physical risk factors are widely advocated. Besides interventions aimed at the work organisation and the workplace, interventions are also aimed at the behaviour of workers, the so-called individual working practice (IWP). At the moment, no conceptual framework for interventions for IWP exists. This study is a first step towards such a framework.

Methods

A scoping review was carried out starting with a systematic search in Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Ovid APA PsycInfo, and Web of Science. Intervention studies aimed at reducing exposure to physical ergonomic risk factors involving the worker were included. The content of these interventions for IWP was extracted and coded in order to arrive at distinguishing and overarching categories of these interventions for IWP.

Results

More than 12.000 papers were found and 110 intervention studies were included, describing 810 topics for IWP. Eventually eight overarching categories of interventions for IWP were distinguished: (1) Workplace adjustment, (2) Variation, (3) Exercising, (4) Use of aids, (5) Professional skills, (6) Professional manners, (7) Task content & task organisation and (8) Motoric skills.

Conclusion

Eight categories of interventions for IWP are described in the literature. These categories are a starting point for developing and evaluating effective interventions performed by workers to prevent WMSDs. In order to reach consensus on these categories, an international expert consultation is a necessary next step.

Peer Review reports

Background

Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are defined by the World Health Organisation (WHO) as “health problems of the locomotor apparatus, i.e. muscles, tendons, the skeleton, cartilage, ligaments and nerves. MSDs include all forms of ill-health ranging, from light, transitory disorders to irreversible disabling injuries [1]. An overview in 2013 across 188 countries of the 25 most common causes of “years lived with disability” showed that MSDs are highly prevalent. Top of the list is low back pain, fourth is neck pain, and tenth in that list are “other MSD complaints” [2]. In addition to personal suffering, MSDs also cause direct and indirect economic cost, such as healthcare cost and lost productivity [3]. In Europe the total cost of work-related MSDs due to lost productivity among people of working age is estimated as 2% of the gross domestic product (GDP). In Europe MSDs are responsible for 50% of all absences from work lasting for more than three days and about 60% of all reported cases of permanent incapacity [4]. Worldwide low back pain arising from ergonomic exposures at work was estimated to cause 21.7 million disability-adjusted life years in 2010. These are the years of life lost as a result of premature death plus the years lived with a disability [5].

MSDs induced or aggravated by work and the circumstances of its performance are called work-related MSDs (WMSDs), according to WHO [2]. WMSDs are partly preventable given the association with work-related risk factors. With regard to physical ergonomic risk factors such as force exertion, demanding posture or repetitive movement, recent studies found that occupational exposure is highly prevalent and there is evidence that the burden of MSDs attributed to that exposure is substantial [6, 7]. For several prevalent musculoskeletal disorders, threshold limits are formulated for work-related risk factors. Examples are carpal tunnel syndrome [8], lateral epicondylitis [9, 10], specific shoulder disorders [11], hip and knee osteoarthritis [12, 13] and lumbosacral radiculopathy syndrome [14].

To eliminate or minimize the work-related risk factors for MSD, primary prevention is widely advocated. A framework of six steps was proposed in 2017 for setting up such prevention [15]. The first three steps include identifying the incidence and severity of the condition, determining the risk factors that may be involved and the mechanisms that may cause a MSD. In the fourth step, based on the knowledge of previous steps, an intervention is developed. Steps five and six concern the evaluation and implementation of the assumed effective intervention.

When developing an intervention, different interventions can be distinguished [16, 17]. There are interventions to improve organisational aspects of work, aimed for example at the task content, collaboration, support, work pace and planning. There are also technical interventions with the focus on for instance the work environment, working height, tools and equipment. And there are interventions regarding the behaviour of workers, addressing working practice, education and training.

To emphasize the context of work, the term Individual Working Practice (IWP) is used to describe the behaviour of workers in this study. IWP covers both short term individual behaviour that influences work-related physical ergonomic risk factors, like posture and working speed, and skills acquired over time that influence these risk factors, like motoric skills and professional competence.

These different types of interventions can be combined in an implementation project. Where possible, the hierarchy of risk management should be taken into account, i.e. organisational and technical measures are preferred over interventions aimed at behaviour [18].

Although IWP takes last place in the hierarchy of risk management, in the context of preventing WMSDs it still is a key topic for various reasons. First, a technical or organisational improvement may not be possible or not immediately available. A behavioural change, if effective, is then a logical next step. Second, the success of a technical or organisational improvement can depend on the behaviour and compliance of the employee. For instance, lifting equipment only has an effect if it is used in daily practice, halving the weight of the cement bag is only an improvement if the mason lifts one bag instead of two. Third, improving personal behaviour is the only topic that can be intervened on during the course of a vocational training; an improvement in the later work organisation or the work environment is obviously not part of the curriculum. Fourth, when WMSDs are treated in curative care, the health practitioner usually has no direct control over the work environment or work organisation. However, behaviour in daily work practice can be influenced and is therefore a feasible starting point for this guidance.

There are numerous articles in the medical literature describing interventions that include an aspect of IWP. For example, if the intervention comprises of advice on posture, working technique or work variation. It is striking to note that, as far as we are aware, in the context of prevention of WMSDs, no framework exists for the categorisation of interventions for IWP. To take a first step towards the development of such a framework, this study answers the question: which categories of interventions for Individual Working Practice (IWP) can be distinguished to reduce exposure to physical ergonomic risk factors in order to prevent WMSDs?

Method

To answer the research question, a scoping review as designed by Arksey [19], later supplemented by Levac [20], and in line with the PRISMA-Scoping Reviews extension [21] and the JBI reviewer’s manual [22], was performed. The prescribed steps, with the exception for ‘the consultation step’, have been completed. The subsequent steps are: developing search strategy, identifying relevant studies, data charting, collation and discussion.

Search strategy

To develop a search strategy, a non-systematic search was first performed via PubMed. The aim was to find a select group of about twenty papers with IWP as their subject. In joint consultation, agreement was reached on twenty-three papers (PK, BV, BW). By analysing these papers in a mutual consultation (PK, BV, BW, JD), the clinical librarian JD distilled search terms for an extensive systematic search. The databases Ovid Medline and Ovid Embase were chosen because these databases represent the majority of the scientific literature on prevention of work-related musculoskeletal disorders. To cover interventions with a psychological component, APA PsycInfo has been added and Web of Science to cover conference proceedings. There was no restriction regarding the years of publication.

The set of preselected twenty-three papers was used to assess whether the developed search strategy has found all these papers. If not, the search was modified using an iterative process. The final search strategy is outlined in Additional file 1: Appendix B.

Identify relevant studies and study selection

Inclusion criteria were: 1. Abstract available (exclusion label: ‘No abstract); 2. English language (exclusion label: ‘Foreign Language’); 3. Full text available and primary study, no review (exclusion label: ‘Wrong publication type/Wrong study design‘); 4. Papers must relate to work, workers or working practice (exclusion label: ‘No work’); 5. Papers must relate to physical ergonomic work-related risk factors or physical workload (exclusion label: ‘No Physical load’); 6. Papers must relate to IWP, and should describe an intervention or measure aimed to reduce exposure to one or more physical ergonomic risk factors that can be influenced by the worker (exclusion label: ‘No IWP’); 7. Papers should describe the effect of the intervention or measure in terms of exposure to the physical ergonomic risk factors (exclusion label: ‘Wrong outcome’).

No quality assessment of the studies has purposefully been performed. The aim was to trace as many types of IWP interventions as possible. By performing a selection on the quality of the research, a selection bias could be introduced, for example on more simply described IWP interventions or IWP interventions that have only been described in non-randomised observational studies without a control group.

BW performed the first inclusion of relevant papers by scanning title and abstract. In this phase there was a meeting every 2 weeks with PK and BW in which the studies that potentially complied with the inclusion criteria were discussed until agreement was reached. Thereafter, PK and BV jointly scanned 15 studies to evaluate whether the right papers had been included and to calibrate their assessment. Subsequently, PK and BV then independently reassessed each half of all studies that were included in the first global scan. The results of this reassessment was discussed in mutual consultation (PK,BV,BW) to identify papers eligible for full text reviewing and data charting. In case of doubt, the study was included in the full-text screening.

Data charting

A data extraction sheet was designed to collect information from the selected studies. BW performed the data-charting of five articles according to this chosen design and this was discussed (BW, PK and BV). The following data were extracted: 1st author – Title Year of publication – Country – Study design – The aim of the intervention/measure– IWP intervention topics – IWP intervention outcome measured – Results of the IWP intervention on the outcome –Number of people (workers) involved – Age – Sex - Kind of work – Remarks.

Data extraction of the selected studies was performed by BW as described in the studies and these data were checked by BV and PK.

Collation, summarising and reporting

All IWP intervention topics collected in data charting were merged by BW into an overview in Excel. Next the following steps were taken. First, similar topics were combined. Then an inductive approach was used to code the extracted data by asking: what has the worker to do, change or develop to reduce the exposure to a physical ergonomic risk factor? For example, the topic ‘correct monitor position’ leads to the code: ‘adjusting workplace’, because that is what the worker has to do. Other topics like ‘mouse position’, ‘right position of the bed’, ‘the workstation lay-out’ also fit in this code. Another example is ‘patient-handling techniques’ leading to the code: ‘motoric skill’, because the worker has to develop or to apply that skill. Topics like ‘the correct lifting posture’, ‘the correct hand position’ fit also in this code. If a topic did not fit into an existing code, a new code was named. In the distinction between codes, the process to achieve the change was an important factor to base the decision on. For example, it is a different process to make a change within an activity, i.e. to change working from left to right hand, than to change a task schedule over a day; the first can be seen as an example of variation in working technique and the latter as an example of task content & task organisation. During mutual consultations between BW, BV and PK, all topics were discussed and coded. Coding discrepancies were discussed until 100% agreement was achieved. Finally these codes were defined as the categories of interventions for IWP according which exposure to physical ergonomic risk factors can be reduced in order to prevent WMSDs.

Results

General

The systematic search until July 2021 generated 17.455 articles. Most articles were found in Ovid Medline (> 6000) and Ovid Embase (> 9000). There was an overlap of more than 5000 articles. The first screening on title and abstract involved 12,296 articles. After this screening, 522 studies remained. Most studies were excluded because of the No Work or No IWP label. Of these, after a second screening by PK (261) and BV (261), 314 studies were eligible for full text review and data charting. In that process another 204 studies were excluded, most of them because it turned out it wasn’t about IWP. Ultimately 110 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 51 from PK and 59 from BV. The flowchart of the selection process is depicted in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart of selection of papers

Full size image

The included articles described interventions or measures aimed at a wide variety of work activities. Office work is the main part (44), nursing is second (32), and other studies are performed in construction work (14), assembly work (14), manual material handling (6), working in the meat industry (6), driving (3), dentistry (3), teaching (3), kitchen work (3), cleaning (2), and more. In the distribution over the years, we see a gradual increase of included studies in the period from the start in 1980 up to and including 2021 (Fig. 2 ). With the exception of Africa, the studies are performed in the following continents: North America (46), Asia (31), Europe (25), Oceania (7) and South America.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Overview of included studies by year of publication

Full size image

Topics

The 110 included studies described in total 819 intervention topics concerning IWP. For example, a study on prevention among healthcare workers yielded 15 intervention topics, such as lifting technique, patient assessment and using smooth controlled movements [23]. A study about an intervention in computer workers yielded two intervention topics, namely workplace adjustments and workplace exercises [24] and a study of an educational program among school teachers yielded twelve intervention topics, such as doing breaks, doing exercises and adjusting body joint angles. All these topics are described in the Additional file 1: Appendix C including the references to the studies concerned.

Categorisation

The topics are coded according to the question: what has the worker to do, change or develop to reduce the exposure to a physical ergonomic risk factor? In total 160 topics were coded as Workplace adjustments. For example topics like chair adjustments, correction of the mouse position or the position of the bed. In total 59 topics, like varying work posture, alternate between both hands and incorporate minibreaks are coded as Variation. This is variation within a work-related activity. Exercising is a category in which 56 topics were included that have to do with a form of physical training aimed at fitness, strength and relaxation exercises. Use of aids, including 58 topics, is about the use of supporting tools, like for example lifting equipment. Professional skills, with 53 topics, is the category that contains specific skills strongly related to the job and where proper application of these skills can reduce exposure to physical ergonomic risk factors. Examples are a specific cutting technique of the deboner in the meat industry or the dexterity in the care of patients. The category Professional manners, with 86 topics in it, may appear similar to the previous category of Professional skills. However, in contrast to Professional skills, Professional manners is about professional behavior, such as working together, following rules and making preparations. Task content and task organisation (15 topics) is the category that contains topics related to planning and coordination of activities or alternating between activities within the work. For example time-management, task modification or pacing during the workday. The most frequently described intervention topics were coded as Motoric skills, namely with 323 times. This category includes topics related to specifically trained movements to perform the work with less exposure to physical ergonomic factors, such as using less extreme body joint postures while performing an activity or preventing a twisted back when picking up loads.

In summary, if a different IWP strategy is needed to reduce exposure to a physical ergonomic risk factor, another category has been formulated based on the described topics. Adjusting a workplace differs from training a motoric skill. Using a tool differs from adjusting the order in which work activities are performed. The distinction of the eight categories provides the opportunity to develop specific knowledge on the effectiveness of the categories on the prevention of work-related MSDS or a targeted approach for implementation. The definition of these categories are thus a first step towards a framework for interventions for IWP to prevent work-related musculoskeletal disorders.

The coding of the 819 intervention topics resulted eventually in eight categories of interventions for IWP. Table 1 gives an overview of these 8 categories, including some examples and the references to the related studies. The table in Additional file 1: Appendix C shows all intervention topics per category including the references.

In Fig. 3 a graphical representation of the categories of interventions for IWP is displayed. In doing so, a symbolic representation of each category was sought that fits the definition. These symbols can be of added value in applying and communicating these IWP interventions with workers.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Eight categories of interventions for Individual Working Practice (IWP)

Full size image
Table 1 Categories of interventions for Individual Working Practice and some examples, included references
Full size table

Discussion

Based on this scoping review, a first step towards a conceptual framework for interventions for IWP is made to prevent WMSDs due to physical ergonomic risk factors. Eight categories of interventions for IWP are distinguished: Workplace adjustment, Variation, Exercising, Use of aids, Professional skills, Professional manners, Task content & task organisation and Motoric skills.

Relevance

The categorisation of interventions can be helpful in designing and in evaluating the effectiveness of these interventions For example, the distinction made between organisational, technical and behavioural interventions in prevention of WMSDs makes it possible to prioritise one approach above the other. The same kind of prioritisation seems also possible for the eight categories of interventions for IWP. For example: the ratio between effort and effect of an intervention probably differs between stimulating a worker to change the workplace versus training a motor skill in order to prevent WMSDs. Besides prioritisation of interventions the categorisations also offers the opportunity to apply the right approach for successful implementation. Regarding the former example, stimulating a worker to change the workplace versus training motoric skills requires different expertise and training or teaching skills. Adding the right approaches for each category makes the framework probably even more useful for theory and practice.

On an individual level, a framework might facilitate communication to prevent WMSDs among workers, thereby increasing shared understanding, and sharing power and responsibility – two of the four important domains in consultations [131]. At a community level, a framework is regarded as an essential prerequisite for advancing the translation of science on prevention into practice [132].

These developments can support occupational health professionals and workers alike in designing, evaluating and implementing effective IWP interventions and thus reducing exposure to physical ergonomic risk factors for WMSDs. A framework could also encourage communication between researchers, practitioners, employees and employers, strengthening the field of IWP.

Ranking

Interventions for IWP to reduce exposure to work-related physical ergonomic risk factors might overlap with interventions based on technical and organisational measures. For example, a workplace adjustment can also be an assignment for the company and a strictly imposed work pace might negatively influence the IWP. Above all, a focus on the IWP should not divert attention from the other two types of ergonomic interventions that have a higher priority in the hierarchy of prevention. In addition IWP should of course not be a stepping stone to blame the worker for harmful exposure to physical ergonomic risk factors. Moreover, improvements in the IWP are often the result of a learning process and therefore dependent on the effectiveness of that process and on the workers responsiveness. Eliminating, if possible, the source of exposure to physical ergonomic risk factors is always the best course of action.

Strength and limitations

A strength of the present review is that the categorisation of interventions for IWP is based on an extensive literature search in four databases using a validation set of preselected papers. A second strength is that because of the inclusion criterion ‘Outcome measured must relate to IWP intervention topics’, all topics were of relevance for practice and therefore do justice to the P of IWP. However, an important limitation is that using only literature does not guarantee that all relevant topics and categories have been identified. Moreover, the coding was done by only three Dutch experts in the field of WMSD prevention. It is therefore necessary to test the categorisation and the vocabulary used in a broad consultation of international experts in this field. This international consultation is also the final step in the performance of a scoping review [19, 20] and therefore it will be our next step to assess if the presented eight categories are seen as a valid representation of the current literature.

Another limitation might be that the first selection of the more than 12.000 papers was only performed by the first author with a random calibration with the other two researchers. This might have resulted in selection bias. However, the ultimately included studies have been approved by all three researchers. Moreover, we presume that the selection bias is probably small due to the broad search and the large number of papers that were included. If papers have been missed than the more than 800 extracted topics from the selected papers still appear a reliable source for the coding of the topics in the eventual eight categories of interventions for IWP. At least 15 studies were found per category, so that the chance is considered small that an entire category was missed due to this design of the selection procedure. In addition, the international consultation of experts will further minimize this effect.

We purposefully selected only papers describing interventions or measures aimed at reducing exposure to physical ergonomic risk factors or physical workload. This is a limitation because interventions exclusively aimed at psychosocial risk factors are excluded. The reason for this choice is that the psychosocial factors partly belong to the organisational domain, such as work atmosphere and collegiality. Moreover, in the context of IWP to prevent WMSDs it is unlikely that only psychosocial risk factors are a direct cause for the development of WMSDs, without a physical ergonomic risk factor being involved. Nevertheless, this may be considered an omission, which needs further study in the future.

Distinguishing between categories and assigning an intervention to a category might be arbitrary. Sometimes the distinction is clear, like for example the difference between a motor skill and a workplace adjustment. Sometimes the distinction is less clear, for example the difference between a professional skill and a professional manner. Sharpening a knife was categorized as a professional skill and compliance with rules was categorized as a professional manner. However, in case of verbally guiding a patient while transferring him or her from chair to bed, this distinction might be more diffuse. The choice to verbally guide the patient was eventually seen as a professional manner, but the verbally guiding was seen as a professional skill. Taking a mini-break during an activity was categorised as variation and how long this mini-break should last as an example of task content and organisation. Of course other experts might think differently about these choices made. However the main contribution of the present paper is the definition of these eight categories. Here too, an international expert consultation might further improve and/or strengthen the IWP intervention framework.

Improving IWP

This paper presents a first step into the development of an IWP framework. Once the eight categories are seen as describing distinct IWP interventions, meta-analyses can be performed to assess the effect of each category on reduction of exposure to physical ergonomic risk factors and on the actual prevention of work-related MSDs.

Furthermore, it is likely that in the practical implementation of the interventions, different categories also require different approaches. For example, encouraging and guiding a worker in changing a motor skill requires a different approach than supporting an improvement in professional manners. A suitable strategy to teach or train workers regarding the eight categories of interventions in IWP, might be adapted from the approaches to improve performance in sports. In sports four different approaches are distinguished, because improve personal behavior requires different learning processes [133,134,135]. The technical approach concerns unconsciously, automated skills. The physiological approach concerns the physical capabilities of the person, such as agility, strength, endurance, general health. The psychological approach addresses the psychological aspects of behaviour, like motivation, attention, and stress resistance. The tactical approach addresses consciously made choices or decisions made for best performance.

Regarding the eight categories of interventions in IWP, the technical approach seems relevant to address Professional skills and Motoric skills. For Workplace adjustments, Variation, Use of aids, Task content and task organisation a tactical approach seems most appropriate and for Professional manners a psychological approach. Finally, a physiological approach seems most appropriate to address Exercising (Figure A1 in  Additional file 1: Appendix A).

Conclusion

A first step towards a conceptual framework for interventions for IWP is made by defining eight categories of interventions, based on the scientific literature, like workplace adjustment, motor skills and variation. These categories can be used as a starting point for developing and evaluating the effectiveness of these worker-oriented interventions to prevent WMSDs.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are available from l.c.vandewijdeven@amsterdamumc.nl upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

UMC:

University Medical Centre

WMSDs:

Work-related musculoskeletal disorders

IWP:

Individual Working Practice

BW:

Bert van de Wijdeven

BV:

Bart Visser

PK:

Paul Kuijer

JD:

Joost Daams

References

  1. Luttmann A, Jager M, Griefahn B, Caffier G, Liebers F, World Health Organization. Preventing musculoskeletal disorders in the workplace. 2003.

  2. Vos T, Barber RM, Bell B, Bertozzi-Villa A, Biryukov S, Bolliger I, Charlson F, Davis A, Degenhardt L, Dicker D, et al. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 301 acute and chronic diseases and injuries in 188 countries, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the global burden of Disease Study 2013. The Lancet. 2015;386(9995):743–800.

  3. Piedrahita H. Costs of work-related Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSDs) in developing countries: Colombia Case. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2006;12(4):379–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bevan S. Economic impact of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) on work in Europe. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2015;29(3):356–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Driscoll T, Jacklyn G, Orchard J, Passmore E, Vos T, Freedman G, Lim S, Punnett L. The global burden of occupationally related low back pain: estimates from the global burden of Disease 2010 study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73(6):975–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hulshof CTJ, Pega F, Neupane S, van der Molen HF, Colosio C, Daams JG, Descatha A, Kc P, Kuijer P, Mandic-Rajcevic S, et al. The prevalence of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint estimates of the work-related Burden of Disease and Injury. Environ Int. 2021;146:106157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hulshof CTJ, Pega F, Neupane S, Colosio C, Daams JG, Kc P, Kuijer P, Mandic-Rajcevic S, Masci F, van der Molen HF, et al. The effect of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors on osteoarthritis of hip or knee and selected other musculoskeletal diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint estimates of the work-related Burden of Disease and Injury. Environ Int. 2021;150:106349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Yung M, Dale AM, Kapellusch J, Bao S, Harris-Adamson C, Meyers AR, Hegmann KT, Rempel D, Evanoff BA. Modeling the Effect of the 2018 revised ACGIH(®) hand activity threshold limit value(®) (TLV) at reducing risk for carpal tunnel syndrome. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2019;16(9):628–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Descatha A, Albo F, Leclerc A, Carton M, Godeau D, Roquelaure Y, Petit A, Aublet-Cuvelier A. Lateral epicondylitis and physical exposure at work? A review of prospective studies and Meta-analysis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2016;68(11):1681–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bretschneider SF, Los FS, Eygendaal D, Kuijer PPFM, van der Molen HF. Work-relatedness of lateral epicondylitis: Systematic review including meta-analysis and GRADE work-relatedness of lateral epicondylitis. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 2021, n/a(n/a).

  11. van der Molen HF, Foresti C, Daams JG, Frings-Dresen MHW, Kuijer PPFM. Work-related risk factors for specific shoulder disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Occup Environ Med. 2017;74(10):745-55. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2017-104339. Epub 2017 Jul 29.

  12. Seidler A, Lüben L, Hegewald J, Bolm-Audorff U, Bergmann A, Liebers F, Ramdohr C, Romero Starke K, Freiberg A, Unverzagt S. Dose-response relationship between cumulative physical workload and osteoarthritis of the hip - a meta-analysis applying an external reference population for exposure assignment. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018;19(1):182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Verbeek J, Mischke C, Robinson R, Ijaz S, Kuijer P, Kievit A, Ojajärvi A, Neuvonen K. Occupational exposure to knee loading and the risk of Osteoarthritis of the knee: a systematic review and a dose-response Meta-analysis. Saf Health Work. 2017;8(2):130–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kuijer P, Verbeek JH, Seidler A, Ellegast R, Hulshof CTJ, Frings-Dresen MHW, Van der Molen HF. Work-relatedness of lumbosacral radiculopathy syndrome: review and dose-response meta-analysis. Neurology. 2018;91(12):558–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. van der Beek AJ, Dennerlein JT, Huysmans MA, Mathiassen SE, Burdorf A, van Mechelen W, van Dieën JH, Frings-Dresen MH, Holtermann A, Janwantanakul P, et al. A research framework for the development and implementation of interventions preventing work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2017;43(6):526–39.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Zwerling C, Daltroy LH, Fine LJ, Johnston JJ, Melius J, Silverstein BA. Design and conduct of occupational injury intervention studies: a review of evaluation strategies. Am J Ind Med. 1997;32(2):164–79.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Podniece Z, Heuvel Svd, Blatter B. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders: prevention report. Bilbao: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Alli BO. Fundamental principles of occupational health and safety. In., 2nd edition edn. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Office – Geneva: ILO, 2008; 2008.

  19. Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;19-32. ISSN 1364-5579. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616.

  20. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Tricco A. PRISMA Extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Peters MDJ, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. JBI Evid Implement. 2015;13(3):141–6.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Daynard D, Yassi A, Cooper J, Tate R, Norman R, Wells R. Biomechanical analysis of peak and cumulative spinal loads during simulated patient-handling activities: a substudy of a randomized controlled trial to prevent lift and transfer injury of health care workers. Appl Ergon. 2001;32(3):199–214.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Esmaeilzadeh S, Ozcan E, Capan N. Effects of ergonomic intervention on work-related upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders among computer workers: a randomized controlled trial. Int Archives Occup Environ Health. 2014;87(1):73–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Aaras A, Horgen G, Ro O, Loken E, Mathiasen G, Bjorset HH, Larsen S, Thoresen M. The effect of an ergonomic intervention on musculoskeletal, psychosocial and visual strain of VDT data entry work: the norwegian part of the international study. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2005;11(1):25–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Abareshi F, Yarahmadi R, Solhi M, Farshad AA. Educational intervention for reducing work-related musculoskeletal disorders and promoting productivity. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2015;21(4):480–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bakhtiar Choudhary S, Vijaya R, Suneetha S. Attitude alters the risk for development of RSI in software professionals. Indian J Occup Environ Med. 2003;7(1):32–4.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Baydur H, Ergor A, Demiral Y, Akalin E. Effects of participatory ergonomic intervention on the development of upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders and disability in office employees using a computer. J Occup Health. 2016;58(3):297–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bernaards CM, Ariens GA, Simons M, Knol DL, Hildebrandt VH. Improving work style behavior in computer workers with neck and upper limb symptoms. J Occup Rehabil. 2008;18(1):87–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bulduk S, Bulduk EO, Suren T. Reduction of work-related musculoskeletal risk factors following ergonomics education of sewing machine operators. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2017;23(3):347–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Callihan ML, Eyer JC, McCoy CJ, Dailey AM, Diket KM, Robinson AT, Kaylor S. Development and feasibility testing of a Contextual Patient Movement intervention. J Emerg Nurs. 2021;47(1):101–112e101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Dainoff MJ, Cohen BG, Dainoff MH. The effect of an ergonomic intervention on musculoskeletal, psychosocial, and visual strain of VDT data entry work: the United States part of the international study. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2005;11(1):49–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Dale AM, Jaegers L, Welch L, Gardner BT, Buchholz B, Weaver N, Evanoff BA. Evaluation of a participatory ergonomics intervention in small commercial construction firms. Am J Ind Med. 2016;59(6):465–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Dalkilinc M, Bumin G, Kayihan H. The effects of ergonomic training and preventive physiotherapy in musculo-skeletal pain. Pain Clin. 2002;14(1):75–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Dennerlein JT, Johnson PW. Changes in upper extremity biomechanics across different mouse positions in a computer workstation. Ergonomics. 2006;49(14):1456–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Engelen L, Drayton BA, Young S, Daley M, Milton K, Bauman A, Chau JY. Impact and process evaluation of a co-designed ‘move more, sit less’ intervention in a public sector workplace. Work: J Prev Assess Rehabilitation. 2019;64(3):587–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Gerr F, Marcus M, Monteilh C, Hannan L, Ortiz D, Kleinbaum D. A randomised controlled trial of postural interventions for prevention of musculoskeletal symptoms among computer users. Occup Environ Med. 2005;62(7):478–87.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Giagio S, Volpe G, Pillastrini P, Gasparre G, Frizziero A, Squizzato F. A preventive program for work-related musculoskeletal disorders among surgeons: outcomes of a randomized controlled clinical trial. Ann Surg. 2019;270(6):969–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Goodman G, Landis J, George C, McGuire S, Shorter C, Sieminski M, Wilson T. Effectiveness of computer ergonomics interventions for an engineering company: a program evaluation. Work. 2005;24(1):53–62.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Gravina N, Lindstrom-Hazel D, Austin J. The effects of workstation changes and behavioral interventions on safe typing postures in an office. Work. 2007;29(3):245–53.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Greene BL, DeJoy DM, Olejnik S. Effects of an active ergonomics training program on risk exposure, worker beliefs, and symptoms in computer users. Work. 2005;24(1):41–52.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Hakkanen M, Viikari-Juntura E, Takala EP. Effects of changes in work methods on musculoskeletal load. An intervention study in the trailer assembly. Appl Ergon. 1997;28(2):99–108.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Iwakiri K, Sotoyama M, Takahashi M, Liu X, Koda S, Ichikawa K. Effectiveness of re-education based on appropriate care methods using welfare equipment on the prevention of low back pain among care workers: a 1.5 year follow-up study. Ind Health. 2018;56(5):419–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Jamjumrus N, Nanthavanij S. Ergonomic intervention for improving work postures during notebook computer operation. J Hum Ergol. 2008;37(1):23–33.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Koshy N, Sriraman S, Kamat YD. Patient handling in India-Evidence from a pilot study. J Family Med Prim Care. 2020;9(3):1397–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Levanon Y, Gefen A, Lerman Y, Givon U, Ratzon NZ. Reducing musculoskeletal disorders among computer operators: comparison between ergonomics interventions at the workplace. Ergonomics. 2012;55(12):1571–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Lewis RJ, Fogleman M, Deeb J, Crandall E, Agopsowicz D. Effectiveness of a VDT ergonomics training program. Int J Ind Ergon. 2001;27(2):119–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Lindegard A, Wahlstrom J, Hagberg M, Hansson GA, Jonsson P, Tornqvist EW. The impact of working technique on physical loads - an exposure profile among newspaper editors. Ergonomics. 2003;46(6):598–615.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Lynch RM, Freund A. Short-term efficacy of back injury intervention project for patient care providers at one hospital. Aihaj. 2000;61(2):290–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Mahmud N, Kenny DT, Md Zein R, Hassan SN. The effects of office ergonomic training on musculoskeletal complaints, sickness absence, and psychological well-being: a cluster randomized control trial. Asia Pac J Public Health. 2015;27(2):NP1652–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Major M-E, Vezina N. Analysis of worker strategies: a comprehensive understanding for the prevention of work related musculoskeletal disorders. Int J Ind Ergon. 2015;48:149–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Marcoux BC, Krause V, Nieuwenhuijsen ER. Effectiveness of an educational intervention to increase knowledge and reduce use of risky behaviors associated with cumulative trauma in office workers. Work. 2000;14(2):127–35.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Martin SA, Irvine JL, Fluharty K, Gatty CM. A comprehensive work injury prevention program with clerical and office workers: phase I. Work. 2003;21(2):185–96.

    Google Scholar 

  54. McCann KB, Sulzer-Azaroff B. Cumulative trauma disorders: behavioral injury prevention at work. J Appl Behav Sci. 1996;32(3):277–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Meinert M, Konig M, Jaschinski W. Web-based office ergonomics intervention on work-related complaints: a field study. Ergonomics. 2013;56(11):1658–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Mirmohammadi SJ, Mehrparvar AH, Olia MB, Mirmohammadi M. Effects of training intervention on non-ergonomic positions among video display terminals (VDT) users. Work. 2012;42(3):429–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Montreuil S, Laflamme L, Brisson C, Teiger C. Conditions that influence the elimination of postural constraints after office employees working with VDU have received ergonomics training. Work. 2006;26(2):157–66.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Nelson A, Lloyd JD, Menzel N, Gross C. Preventing nursing back injuries: redesigning patient handling tasks. AAOHN J. 2003;51(3):126–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Nelson A, Matz M, Chen F, Siddharthan K, Lloyd J, Fragala G. Development and evaluation of a multifaceted ergonomics program to prevent injuries associated with patient handling tasks. Int J Nurs Stud. 2006;43(6):717–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Pillastrini P, Mugnai R, Bertozzi L, Costi S, Curti S, Guccione A, Mattioli S, Violante FS. Effectiveness of an ergonomic intervention on work-related posture and low back pain in video display terminal operators: a 3 year cross-over trial. Appl Ergon. 2010;41(3):436–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Rasoulzadeh Y, Gholamnia R. Effectiveness of an Ergonomics Training Program on decreasing work-related Musculoskeletal Disorders Risk among Video Display terminals users. Health Promotion Perspectives. 2012;2(1):89–95.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Ratzon NZ, Bar-Niv NA, Froom P. The effect of a structured personalized ergonomic intervention program for hospital nurses with reported musculoskeletal pain: an assigned randomized control trial. Work. 2016;54(2):367–77.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Robertson MM, Ciriello VM, Garabet AM. Office ergonomics training and a sit-stand workstation: effects on musculoskeletal and visual symptoms and performance of office workers. Appl Ergon. 2013;44(1):73–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Sanaeinasab H, Saffari M, Valipour F, Alipour HR, Sepandi M, Al Zaben F, Koenig HG. The effectiveness of a model-based health education intervention to improve ergonomic posture in office computer workers: a randomized controlled trial. Int Archives Occup Environ Health. 2018;91(8):951–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Shuai J, Yue P, Li L, Liu F, Wang S. Assessing the effects of an educational program for the prevention of work-related musculoskeletal disorders among school teachers. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:1211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Sigurdsson SO, Ring BM, Needham M, Boscoe JH, Silverman K. Generalization of posture training to computer workstations in an applied setting. J Appl Behav Anal. 2011;44(1):157–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. So BCL, Szeto GPY, Lau RWL, Dai J, Tsang SMH. Effects of Ergomotor intervention on improving Occupational Health in Workers with Work-Related Neck-Shoulder Pain. Int J Environ Res Public Health [Electronic Resource]. 2019;16(24):09.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Street SL, Kramer JE, Harburn KL, Hansen R, MacDermid JC. Changes in postural risk and general health associated with a participatory ergonomics education program used by heavy video display terminal users: a pilot study. J Hand Ther. 2003;16(1):29–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Taieb-Maimon M, Cwikel J, Shapira B, Orenstein I. The effectiveness of a training method using self-modeling webcam photos for reducing musculoskeletal risk among office workers using computers. Appl Ergon. 2012;43(2):376–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Yuan L. Reducing ergonomic injuries for librarians using a participatory approach. Int J Ind Ergon. 2015;47:93–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Tuncez IH, Demir LS, Kunt M, Sahin TK. Ergonomic evaluation of desk-bound work offices of a community health center and effect of ergonomic intervention on the health complaints of the workers. Nobel Medicus. 2020;16(2):30–9.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Ackland T, Hendrie G. Training the non-preferred hand for fine motor control using a computer mouse. Int J Ind Ergon. 2005;35(2):149–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Arial M, Benoit D, Wild P. Exploring implicit preventive strategies in prehospital emergency workers: a novel approach for preventing back problems. Appl Ergon. 2014;45(4):1003–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Burford EM, Ellegast R, Weber B, Brehmen M, Groneberg D, Sinn-Behrendt A, Bruder R. The comparative analysis of postural and biomechanical parameters of preschool teachers pre- and post-intervention within the ErgoKiTa study. Ergonomics. 2017;60(12):1718–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Dortch HL 3rd, Trombly CA. The effects of education on hand use with industrial workers in repetitive jobs.The American journal of occupational therapy1990(9):777–782.

  76. Droeze EH, Jonsson H. Evaluation of ergonomic interventions to reduce musculoskeletal disorders of dentists in the Netherlands. Work. 2005;25(3):211-20.

  77. Fisher TF. Radiologic and sonography professionals’ ergonomics: an occupational therapy intervention for preventing work injuries. J Diagn Med Sonography. 2015;31(3):137–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Hallbeck MS, Lowndes BR, Bingener J, Abdelrahman AM, Yu D, Bartley A, Park AE. The impact of intraoperative microbreaks with exercises on surgeons: a multi-center cohort study. Appl Ergon. 2017;60:334–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Khan R, Scaffidi MA, Satchwell J, Gimpaya N, Lee W, Genis S, Tham D, Saperia J, Al-Mazroui A, Walsh CM, et al. Impact of a simulation-based ergonomics training curriculum on work-related musculoskeletal injury risk in colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2020;20:20.

    Google Scholar 

  80. King EC, Boscart VM, Weiss BM, Dutta T, Callaghan JP, Fernie GR. Assisting Frail seniors with Toileting in a home bathroom: approaches used by Home Care Providers. J Appl Gerontol. 2019;38(5):717–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. McGuckin T, Sealey R, Barnett F. Planning for sedentary behaviour interventions: office workers’ survey and focus group responses. Perspect Public Health. 2017;137(6):316–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Ouellet S, Vezina N. Work training and MSDs prevention: contribution of ergonomics. Int J Ind Ergon. 2014;44(1):24–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Petersen I, Kadefors R. Occupational training: a new scientific approach. Bull Inst Marit Trop Med Gdyn. 1980;31(1):21–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Toomingas A, Forsman M, Mathiassen SE, Heiden M, Nilsson T. Variation between seated and standing/walking postures among male and female call centre operators. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Arnason K, Briem K, Arnason A. Effects of an education and Prevention Course for University Music students on their body awareness and attitude toward Health and Prevention. Med Probl Perform Artist. 2018;33(2):131–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Feldstein A, Valanis B, Vollmer W, Stevens N, Overton C. The Back Injury Prevention Project pilot study: assessing the effectiveness of back attack, an injury prevention program among nurses, aides, and orderlies. J Occup Med. 1993;35(2):114–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Jaromi M, Kukla A, Szilagyi B, Simon-Ugron A, Bobaly VK, Makai A, Linek P, Acs P, Leidecker E. Back School programme for nurses has reduced low back pain levels: a randomised controlled trial. J Clin Nurs. 2018;27(5):e895–e902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Sezgin D, Esin MN. Effects of a PRECEDE-PROCEED model based ergonomic risk management programme to reduce musculoskeletal symptoms of ICU nurses. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2018;47:89–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Karimi A, Dianat I, Barkhordari A, Yusefzade I, Rohani-Rasaf M. A multicomponent ergonomic intervention involving individual and organisational changes for improving musculoskeletal outcomes and exposure risks among dairy workers. Appl Ergon. 2020;88:103159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Sene-Mir AM, Portell M, Anguera MT, Chacon-Moscoso S. Manual material handling training: the Effect of Self-Observation, Hetero-Observational and intrinsic feedback on workers’ knowledge and Behaviour. Int J Environ Res Public Health [Electronic Resource]. 2020;17(21):03.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Aghilinejad M, Azar NS, Ghasemi MS, Dehghan N, Mokamelkhah EK. An ergonomic intervention to reduce musculoskeletal discomfort among semiconductor assembly workers. Work. 2016;54(2):445–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Alamgir H, Drebit S, Li HG, Kidd C, Tam H, Fast C. Peer coaching and mentoring: a new model of educational intervention for safe patient handling in health care. Am J Ind Med. 2011;54(8):609–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Carta A, Parmigiani F, Roversi A, Rossato R, Milini C, Parrinello G, Apostoli P, Alessio L, Porru S. Training in safer and healthier patient handling techniques. Br J Nurs. 2010;19(9):576–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Denadai MS, Alouche SR, Valentim DP, Padula RS. An ergonomics educational training program to prevent work-related musculoskeletal disorders to novice and experienced workers in the poultry processing industry: a quasi-experimental study. Appl Ergon. 2021;90:103234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Wu HC, Chen HC, Chen T. Effects of ergonomics-based wafer-handling training on reduction in musculoskeletal disorders among wafer handlers. Int J Ind Ergon. 2009;39(1):127–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Yassi A, Cooper JE, Tate RB, Gerlach S, Muir M, Trottier J, Massey K. A randomized controlled trial to prevent patient lift and transfer injuries of health care workers. Spine. 2001;26(16):1739–46.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Dempsey PG, McGorry RW. Investigation of a pork shoulder deboning operation. J Occup Environ Hygiene. 2004;1(3):167–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Jeong YJ, Choi JS. The effect of indirect vision skills on head and shoulder posture amongst korean dental hygienists. Eur J Dent Educ. 2020;24(1):17–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Tiemessen IJ, Hulshof CT, Frings-Dresen MH. Effectiveness of an occupational health intervention program to reduce whole body vibration exposure: an evaluation study with a controlled pretest-post-test design. Am J Ind Med. 2009;52(12):943–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Zare M, Sagot JC, Roquelaure Y. Within and between individual variability of exposure to work-related Musculoskeletal disorder risk factors. Int J Environ Res Public Health [Electronic Resource]. 2018;15(5):17.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Cheng AS, Chan EP. The effect of individual job coaching and use of health threat in a job-specific occupational health education program on prevention of work-related musculoskeletal back injury. J Occup Environ Med. 2009;51(12):1413–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. O’Donnell JM, Goode JS Jr, Henker R, Kelsey S, Bircher NG, Peele P, Bradle J, Close J, Engberg R, Sutton-Tyrrell K. Effect of a simulation educational intervention on knowledge, attitude, and patient transfer skills: from the simulation laboratory to the clinical setting. Simul healthcare: J Soc Simul Healthc. 2011;6(2):84–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Owlia M, Kamachi M, Dutta T. Reducing lumbar spine flexion using real-time biofeedback during patient handling tasks. Work. 2020;66(1):41–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Videman T, Rauhala H, Asp S, Lindstrom K, Cedercreutz G, Kamppi M, Tola S, Troup JD. Patient-handling skill, back injuries, and back pain. An intervention study in nursing. Spine. 1989;14(2):148–56.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  105. Allread WG, Marras WS, Burr DL. Measuring trunk motions in industry: variability due to task factors, individual differences, and the amount of data collected. Ergonomics. 2000;43(6):691–701.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  106. Bazazan A, Dianat I, Feizollahi N, Mombeini Z, Shirazi AM, Castellucci HI. Effect of a posture correction-based intervention on musculoskeletal symptoms and fatigue among control room operators. Appl Ergon. 2019;76:12–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Best M. An evaluation of manutention training in preventing back strain and resultant injuries in nurses. Saf Sci. 1997;25:207–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Dabaghi-Tabriz F, Bahramian A, Rahbar M, Esmailzadeh M, Alami H. Ergonomic evaluation of senior undergraduate students and effect of instruction regarding ergonomic principles on it. Medica. 2020;15(1):81–6.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Gagnon M. The efficacy of training for three manual handling strategies based on the observation of expert and novice workers. Clin Biomech Elsevier Ltd. 2003;18(7):601–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  110. Gagnon M, Smyth G. Biomechanical exploration on dynamic modes of lifting. Ergonomics. 1992;35(3):329–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  111. Gholami A, Yalameh JT, Fouladi-Dehaghi B, Eskandari D, Teimori-Boghsani G. Evaluation of the influence of education on the ergonomic risk of concrete form workers. Work. 2020;67(4):1007–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Gilles MA, Wild P. Grasping an object at floor-level: is movement strategy a matter of age? Appl Ergon. 2018;70:34–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Goubault E, Martinez R, Assila N, Monga-Dubreuil E, Dowling-Medley J, Dal Maso F, Begon M. Effect of Expertise on Shoulder and Upper Limb Kinematics, Electromyography, and Estimated Muscle Forces During a Lifting Task.Human Factors2020:18720820965021.

  114. Kaufman-Cohen Y, Portnoy S, Sopher R, Mashiach L, Baruch-Halaf L, Ratzon NZ. The correlation between upper extremity musculoskeletal symptoms and joint kinematics, playing habits and hand span during playing among piano students. PLoS One. 2018;13(12):e0208788. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208788.

  115. Lee J, Nussbaum MA. Experienced workers exhibit distinct torso kinematics/kinetics and patterns of task dependency during repetitive lifts and lowers. Ergonomics. 2012;55(12):1535-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2012.723139. Epub 2012 Sept 25.

  116. Lee J, Nussbaum MA, Kyung G. Effects of work experience on work methods during dynamic pushing and pulling. Int J Ind Ergon. 2014;44(5):647–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Madeleine P, Madsen TM. Changes in the amount and structure of motor variability during a deboning process are associated with work experience and neck-shoulder discomfort. Appl Ergon. 2009;40(5):887–94.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  118. Nussbaum MA, Torres N. Effects of training in modifying working methods during common patient-handling activities. Int J Ind Ergon. 2001;27(1):33–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Pal P, Milosavljevic S, Gregory DE, Carman AB, Callaghan JP. The influence of skill and low back pain on trunk postures and low back loads of shearers. Ergonomics. 2010;53(1):65–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Plamondon A, Delisle A, Trimble K, Desjardins P, Rickwood T. Manual materials handling in mining: the effect of rod heights and foot positions when lifting “in-the-hole” drill rods. Appl Ergon. 2006;37(6):709–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Plamondon A, Denis D, Delisle A, Lariviere C, Salazar E. Biomechanical differences between expert and novice workers in a manual material handling task. Ergonomics. 2010;53(10):1239–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. Ribeiro DC, Sole G, Abbott JH, Milosavljevic S. The effectiveness of a lumbopelvic monitor and feedback device to change postural behavior: a feasibility randomized controlled trial. J Orthop Sports Phys Therapy. 2014;44(9):702–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Ruff KC, Mohankumar D, Atia MA, Ratuapli SK, Andrade D, Foley M, Kakati BR, Santello M, Fleischer DE, Ramirez FC. Sequential analysis of the ergonomics of first year gastroenterology fellows with simulated endoscopy to assess effect of practice on range of motion: an attempt to reduce musuloskeletal injury during endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77(5):AB529–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Sandlund J, Srinivasan D, Heiden M, Mathiassen SE. Differences in motor variability among individuals performing a standardized short-cycle manual task. Hum Mov Sci. 2017;51:17–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. Stubbs DA, Buckle PW, Hudson MP, Rivers PM. Back pain in the nursing profession. II. The effectiveness of training. Ergonomics. 1983;26(8):767–79.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  126. Yan XZ, Li H, Zhang H, Rose TM. Personalized method for self-management of trunk postural ergonomic hazards in construction rebar ironwork. Adv Eng Inform. 2018;37:31–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  127. Yoo W-G, Park S-Y. Effects of posture-related auditory cueing (PAC) program on muscles activities and kinematics of the neck and trunk during computer work. Work: J Prev Assess Rehabilitation. 2015;50(2):187–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  128. Lind CM, Diaz-Olivares JA, Lindecrantz K, Eklund J. A wearable Sensor System for Physical Ergonomics Interventions using haptic feedback. Sensors. 2020;20(21):23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  129. Lind CM, Yang L, Abtahi F, Hanson L, Lindecrantz K, Lu K, Forsman M, Eklund J. Reducing postural load in order picking through a smart workwear system using real-time vibrotactile feedback. Appl Ergon. 2020;89:103188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. Porta M, Orru PF, Pau M. Use of wearable sensors to assess patterns of trunk flexion in young and old workers in the Metalworking Industry.Ergonomics2021:1–12.

  131. Epstein RM, Franks P, Fiscella K, Shields CG, Meldrum SC, Kravitz RL, Duberstein PR. Measuring patient-centered communication in patient-physician consultations: theoretical and practical issues. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61(7):1516-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.02.001. Epub 2005 Apr 15.

  132. Spoth R, Rohrbach LA, Greenberg M, Leaf P, Brown CH, Fagan A, Catalano RF, Pentz MA, Sloboda Z, Hawkins JD. Addressing core challenges for the next generation of type 2 translation research and systems: the translation science to population impact (TSci impact) framework. Prev Sci. 2013;14(4):319–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. Elferink-Gemser MT, Visscher C, Lemmink KA, Mulder TW. Relation between multidimensional performance characteristics and level of performance in talented youth field hockey players. J Sports Sci. 2004;22(11–12):1053–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410410001729991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  134. Kovacs MS. Tennis physiology: training the competitive athlete. Sports Med. 2007;37(3):189–98. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200737030-00001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  135. Smith DJ. A framework for understanding the training process leading to elite performance. Sports Med. 2003;33(15):1103–26. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200333150-00003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, K0-116 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Bert van de Wijdeven, Joost Daams & Paul P.F.M. Kuijer

  2. Centre of Expertise Urban Vitality, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Bart Visser

Authors
  1. Bert van de Wijdeven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bart Visser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joost Daams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paul P.F.M. Kuijer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

BW is corresponding author: l.c.vandewijdeven@amsterdamumc.nl. PK, BV, BW designed the study. JD took part in data collection and preparation of the datasets. BW analysed the data. PK and BV contributed to the interpretation and categorisation of the data. BW drafted the manuscript, with all authors providing critical revision and approving the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bert van de Wijdeven.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declares that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1:

 Appendix A. Frameworkof interventions for Individual Working Practice (IWP) included 4 approaches for improvement. Figure A1. Eight categories of interventions for Individual Working Practice (IWP) included 4 approaches for improvement as mentioned in the Discussion chapter. AppendixB. SEARCH-STRATEGY. Appendix C. Topic List Per Category.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

van de Wijdeven, B., Visser, B., Daams, J. et al. A first step towards a framework for interventions for individual working practice to prevent work-related musculoskeletal disorders: a scoping review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 24, 87 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06155-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06155-w

Keywords

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

ISSN: 1471-2474

Contact us