发展农业工效风险评估(AERA)的观测技术。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Work-A Journal of Prevention Assessment & Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-10 DOI:10.1177/10519815241291679
Anuwat Akkeesuwan, Klangduen Pochana, Supapan Chaiprapat
{"title":"发展农业工效风险评估(AERA)的观测技术。","authors":"Anuwat Akkeesuwan, Klangduen Pochana, Supapan Chaiprapat","doi":"10.1177/10519815241291679","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundErgonomics risk assessment tools are vital for evaluating awkward postures in various industries, with a primary focus on biomechanical factors. However, existing observational techniques often fail to meet specific postural loading criteria or are inadequate to establish validity, especially in agricultural settings. Enhancements in these tools have been guided by extensive literature reviews.ObjectiveThis study aimed to develop a new assessment tool, the Agricultural Ergonomics Risk Assessment (AERA), by utilizing electromyography (EMG) to classify postural loads and prioritize risks.MethodThis paper describes an experimental study utilizing EMG to analyze postural loads, emphasizing biomechanical factors and including an evaluation of individual and occupational risk factors associated with musculoskeletal disorders (MSD). The validity and reliability of AERA were assessed by five experts and thirty evaluators.ResultsThe study revealed strong effects of varying loads and postures on muscle activation. A key finding was the application of biomechanical factors to assess risk levels associated with awkward postures, especially regarding the prevalence of MSD in the neck, trunk, and arm regions. The evaluation indicated a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.97 for precision in content validity of risk assessment criteria. Reliability tests comparing AERA with OWAS, RULA, and REBA yielded Cronbach's alpha coefficients of 0.99, 0.84, 0.93, and 0.88, respectively.ConclusionAERA's evaluation criteria incorporating specific and comprehensive risk factors produced the highest levels of test-retest reliability, making it a valuable screening tool for the agricultural sector.</p>","PeriodicalId":51373,"journal":{"name":"Work-A Journal of Prevention Assessment & Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"1387-1404"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Developing an observational technique for Agricultural Ergonomics Risk Assessment (AERA).\",\"authors\":\"Anuwat Akkeesuwan, Klangduen Pochana, Supapan Chaiprapat\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10519815241291679\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>BackgroundErgonomics risk assessment tools are vital for evaluating awkward postures in various industries, with a primary focus on biomechanical factors. However, existing observational techniques often fail to meet specific postural loading criteria or are inadequate to establish validity, especially in agricultural settings. Enhancements in these tools have been guided by extensive literature reviews.ObjectiveThis study aimed to develop a new assessment tool, the Agricultural Ergonomics Risk Assessment (AERA), by utilizing electromyography (EMG) to classify postural loads and prioritize risks.MethodThis paper describes an experimental study utilizing EMG to analyze postural loads, emphasizing biomechanical factors and including an evaluation of individual and occupational risk factors associated with musculoskeletal disorders (MSD). The validity and reliability of AERA were assessed by five experts and thirty evaluators.ResultsThe study revealed strong effects of varying loads and postures on muscle activation. A key finding was the application of biomechanical factors to assess risk levels associated with awkward postures, especially regarding the prevalence of MSD in the neck, trunk, and arm regions. The evaluation indicated a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.97 for precision in content validity of risk assessment criteria. Reliability tests comparing AERA with OWAS, RULA, and REBA yielded Cronbach's alpha coefficients of 0.99, 0.84, 0.93, and 0.88, respectively.ConclusionAERA's evaluation criteria incorporating specific and comprehensive risk factors produced the highest levels of test-retest reliability, making it a valuable screening tool for the agricultural sector.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51373,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Work-A Journal of Prevention Assessment & Rehabilitation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1387-1404\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Work-A Journal of Prevention Assessment & Rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10519815241291679\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/10 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Work-A Journal of Prevention Assessment & Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10519815241291679","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:人体工程学风险评估工具对于评估各行业的尴尬姿势至关重要,主要关注生物力学因素。然而,现有的观察技术往往不能满足特定的姿势负荷标准,或者不足以建立有效性,特别是在农业环境中。这些工具的增强是由大量的文献综述指导的。目的:利用肌电图(electromyography, EMG)对姿势负荷进行分类和风险排序,建立一种新的评估工具——农业工效学风险评估(AERA)。方法:本文描述了一项利用肌电图分析姿势负荷的实验研究,强调生物力学因素,包括与肌肉骨骼疾病(MSD)相关的个人和职业风险因素的评估。由5位专家和30位评价者对AERA的效度和信度进行了评估。结果:研究揭示了不同负荷和姿势对肌肉激活的强烈影响。一个重要的发现是应用生物力学因素来评估与尴尬姿势相关的风险水平,特别是关于颈部、躯干和手臂区域MSD的患病率。评价结果表明,风险评价标准的内容效度精度Cronbach's alpha系数为0.97。比较AERA与OWAS、RULA和REBA的信度测试得出的Cronbach α系数分别为0.99、0.84、0.93和0.88。结论:AERA的评价标准综合了具体和综合的危险因素,具有较高的重测信度,是农业部门有价值的筛查工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Developing an observational technique for Agricultural Ergonomics Risk Assessment (AERA).

BackgroundErgonomics risk assessment tools are vital for evaluating awkward postures in various industries, with a primary focus on biomechanical factors. However, existing observational techniques often fail to meet specific postural loading criteria or are inadequate to establish validity, especially in agricultural settings. Enhancements in these tools have been guided by extensive literature reviews.ObjectiveThis study aimed to develop a new assessment tool, the Agricultural Ergonomics Risk Assessment (AERA), by utilizing electromyography (EMG) to classify postural loads and prioritize risks.MethodThis paper describes an experimental study utilizing EMG to analyze postural loads, emphasizing biomechanical factors and including an evaluation of individual and occupational risk factors associated with musculoskeletal disorders (MSD). The validity and reliability of AERA were assessed by five experts and thirty evaluators.ResultsThe study revealed strong effects of varying loads and postures on muscle activation. A key finding was the application of biomechanical factors to assess risk levels associated with awkward postures, especially regarding the prevalence of MSD in the neck, trunk, and arm regions. The evaluation indicated a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.97 for precision in content validity of risk assessment criteria. Reliability tests comparing AERA with OWAS, RULA, and REBA yielded Cronbach's alpha coefficients of 0.99, 0.84, 0.93, and 0.88, respectively.ConclusionAERA's evaluation criteria incorporating specific and comprehensive risk factors produced the highest levels of test-retest reliability, making it a valuable screening tool for the agricultural sector.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Work-A Journal of Prevention Assessment & Rehabilitation
Work-A Journal of Prevention Assessment & Rehabilitation PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
30.40%
发文量
739
期刊介绍: WORK: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation is an interdisciplinary, international journal which publishes high quality peer-reviewed manuscripts covering the entire scope of the occupation of work. The journal''s subtitle has been deliberately laid out: The first goal is the prevention of illness, injury, and disability. When this goal is not achievable, the attention focuses on assessment to design client-centered intervention, rehabilitation, treatment, or controls that use scientific evidence to support best practice.
期刊最新文献
Safety without calm? Young workers` early job experiences and psychosocial risk in a comparative reading of Italy`s Legislative Decree 81/2008 and Japan. Longitudinal associations of COVID-19-related stressors and psychological distress among healthcare workers based on sex and gender. Challenges and opportunities in the implementation of active learning methods in occupational safety and health training. Insights into social media users' perceptions of new forms of employment with topic modeling approach. The impact of health professionals' intercultural competence on their attitudes toward immigrants.
×
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学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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