These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
Pubmed for Handhelds
PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS
Search MEDLINE/PubMed
Title: [Results of risk and impairment assessment in groups of workers exposed to repetitive strain and movement of the upper limbs in various sectors of industry]. Author: Colombini D, Occhipinti E. Journal: Med Lav; 2004; 95(3):233-46. PubMed ID: 15293379. Abstract: BACKGROUND: This presents study the results of a number of investigations regarding risks associated with biomechanical overload of the upper limbs and the consequent health effects (UL-WMSDs) in a large sample of workers in various different jobs. METHODS: Risk assessment regarded 15 different working environments in which 4044 subjects were employed. Most were metalworking factories in which the workers performed assembly tasks (3015 workers). Some made motors for electrical appliances (714 workers), others assembled miniature components (shock absorbers and remote controls: 259 workers), while others handled larger sized parts such as components of large domestic appliances (refrigerators, freezers, ovens: 2037 workers). The sample also included workers in the meat processing industry (chicken and turkey, 969 workers) and hotel room cleaners (60). Exposure assessment was performed using the OCRA checklist for quantifying the risk attributable intrinsically to each individual workstation, as if used for the entire shift. The values thus obtained were entered into a special software program that, for each working area, produced mean weighted values for the results of the checklist and their percentage distribution over four categories: no risk (green), low risk (yellow), moderate risk (red) and high risk (purple). In 11 of the 15 working environments considered, a total of 3511 workers (2221 women and 1290 men) underwent a complete and standardized clinical examination of the upper limbs. Comparisons of the results of exposure evaluation and of the clinical surveys were made between the different types of jobs and between males and females.[Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]