The impact of mechanical devices for lifting and transferring of patients on low back pain and musculoskeletal injuries in health care personnel—A systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Journal of Occupational Health Pub Date : 2023-09-15 DOI:10.1002/1348-9585.12423
Hans-Udo Richarz, Arturo Tamayo, Jan Rahmig, Timo Siepmann, Jessica Barlinn
{"title":"The impact of mechanical devices for lifting and transferring of patients on low back pain and musculoskeletal injuries in health care personnel—A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Hans-Udo Richarz,&nbsp;Arturo Tamayo,&nbsp;Jan Rahmig,&nbsp;Timo Siepmann,&nbsp;Jessica Barlinn","doi":"10.1002/1348-9585.12423","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>Heavy lifting in nursing is highly associated with low back pain (LBP) and musculoskeletal injuries (MSI). We aimed to evaluate the impact of mechanical devices used for patient lifting and transferring on risk of LBP and MSI of health care personnel.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. The literature search was performed during 1st and 12th September 2021 using 17 electronic databases and handsearching of bibliographies of included studies. Twenty studies were included in the qualitative synthesis and eight studies with in total 2087 participants in the meta-analysis. Dependent on the study design, risk of bias was assessed by Cochrane RoB 2.0, EPOC, and MINORS. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses assessing Hedges's g and 95% CI of MSI rate, perceived LBP, and peak compressive spinal load. We calculated prediction intervals and conducted a cost-benefit analysis (CBA).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>All outcomes showed significant, adjusted pooled effect sizes (MSI rate: g = 1.11, 95% CI 0.914–1.299; perceived LBP: g = 1.54, 95% CI −0.016–3.088; peak compressive spinal load: g = 1.04, 95% CI −0.315 to 2.391). True effect sizes in 95% of all comparable populations fell in the following prediction intervals: MSI rate = −1.07-3.28, perceived LBP = −0.522–3.594, and peak compressive spinal load = −15.49 to 17.57. CBA revealed cost-benefit ratios of 1.2 and 3.29 between cumulative total savings and investment costs of intervention.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Prediction intervals confirmed strong true effect sizes for MSI rate and perceived LBP in 95% of all comparable populations but not for peak compressive spinal load. Mechanical lifting and transferring devices displayed a favorable cost-benefit ratio and should be considered for clinical implementation.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":16632,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Occupational Health","volume":"65 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/1348-9585.12423","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Occupational Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1348-9585.12423","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

Heavy lifting in nursing is highly associated with low back pain (LBP) and musculoskeletal injuries (MSI). We aimed to evaluate the impact of mechanical devices used for patient lifting and transferring on risk of LBP and MSI of health care personnel.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. The literature search was performed during 1st and 12th September 2021 using 17 electronic databases and handsearching of bibliographies of included studies. Twenty studies were included in the qualitative synthesis and eight studies with in total 2087 participants in the meta-analysis. Dependent on the study design, risk of bias was assessed by Cochrane RoB 2.0, EPOC, and MINORS. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses assessing Hedges's g and 95% CI of MSI rate, perceived LBP, and peak compressive spinal load. We calculated prediction intervals and conducted a cost-benefit analysis (CBA).

Results

All outcomes showed significant, adjusted pooled effect sizes (MSI rate: g = 1.11, 95% CI 0.914–1.299; perceived LBP: g = 1.54, 95% CI −0.016–3.088; peak compressive spinal load: g = 1.04, 95% CI −0.315 to 2.391). True effect sizes in 95% of all comparable populations fell in the following prediction intervals: MSI rate = −1.07-3.28, perceived LBP = −0.522–3.594, and peak compressive spinal load = −15.49 to 17.57. CBA revealed cost-benefit ratios of 1.2 and 3.29 between cumulative total savings and investment costs of intervention.

Conclusions

Prediction intervals confirmed strong true effect sizes for MSI rate and perceived LBP in 95% of all comparable populations but not for peak compressive spinal load. Mechanical lifting and transferring devices displayed a favorable cost-benefit ratio and should be considered for clinical implementation.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在医护人员中,用于搬运病人的机械装置对腰痛和肌肉骨骼损伤的影响——系统回顾和荟萃分析
目的护理中的举重与腰痛(LBP)和肌肉骨骼损伤(MSI)高度相关。我们旨在评估用于患者提升和转移的机械设备对医护人员LBP和MSI风险的影响。方法进行系统回顾和荟萃分析。文献检索于2021年9月1日和12日使用17个电子数据库进行,并手工检索纳入研究的目录。20项研究被纳入定性综合,8项研究共有2087名参与者参与荟萃分析。根据研究设计,通过Cochrane RoB 2.0、EPOC和MINORS评估偏倚风险。我们进行了随机效应荟萃分析,评估了MSI率、感知LBP和峰值压缩性脊柱负荷的Hedges g和95%CI。我们计算了预测区间,并进行了成本效益分析(CBA)。结果所有结果均显示出显著的、经调整的合并效应大小(MSI率:g = 1.11,95%置信区间0.914–1.299;感知LBP:g = 1.54,95%CI−0.016–3.088;峰值脊柱压缩负荷:g = 1.04,95%CI−0.315至2.391)。95%的可比人群的真实效应大小在以下预测区间内下降:MSI率 = −1.07-3.28,感知LBP = −0.522–3.594,峰值压缩脊柱负荷 = −15.49至17.57。CBA显示,累计总储蓄与干预投资成本之间的成本效益比分别为1.2和3.29。结论在95%的可比人群中,预测区间证实了MSI率和感知LBP的强真实效应大小,但对峰值压缩性脊柱负荷没有证实。机械提升和转移装置显示出良好的成本效益比,应考虑临床实施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Occupational Health
Journal of Occupational Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
3.30%
发文量
57
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The scope of the journal is broad, covering toxicology, ergonomics, psychosocial factors and other relevant health issues of workers, with special emphasis on the current developments in occupational health. The JOH also accepts various methodologies that are relevant to investigation of occupational health risk factors and exposures, such as large-scale epidemiological studies, human studies employing biological techniques and fundamental experiments on animals, and also welcomes submissions concerning occupational health practices and related issues.
期刊最新文献
The impact of overseas assignments on metabolic factors: Panasonic cohort study 23. Associations of physical activity and sedentary time with psychological distress among Japan self-defense forces personnel dispatched overseas: a prospective cohort study. Association between physical activity patterns of working-age adults and social jetlag, depressive symptoms, and presenteeism. Are there compensatory behaviors in response to a sit-stand desk intervention? Comment on "Occupational Health Staff's Involvement Contributes to Supervisor's Perceived Organizational Support in Japanese Workforce: A Prospective Cohort Study".
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1