The effectiveness of back belts in reducing the incidence, duration and cost of low back pain claims associated with manual handling injury in a retail hardware chain (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Effect of a Back Belt on Torso Motion. Survey in an Express Package Delivery Company
INDUSTRIAL HEALTH, 1997
According to the Labor Standard Bureau of Japan, accidental back injuries accounted for about 60% of all occupational injuries and diseases in the last decade. The Ministry of Labor issued guidelines to prevent low back injuries in 1994 to address the problem. The use of back belts is recommended for some special working conditions but details on its proper use were not given. This study was planned to evaluate a newly developed back belt and was done at an express package delivery company where the incidence of low back injury was high. The BackTracker was used to evaluate the effect of the back belt on the range and velocity of torso motion. The results indicated that there were no significant differences in the range of motion (ROM) during flexion/extension, lateral bending, and rotation between with and without the belt. The maximum angular velocity (MAV) of flexion decreased significantly (average decrease: 30 ± 28.3°/sec) when the back belt was worn. The MAY of extension with belt showed a decreasing tendency though not significant. No notable trends were observed in the MAY during lateral bending and rotation of the subjects while wearing and not wearing the belt. The results also indicated that the back belt affected differently the torso motion of each subject. This study suggested that this back belt could be useful for tasks with high velocity of flexion/extension and that proper instruction on the use of the back belt is needed for each worker.
Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2014
We developed an evidence-based practice guideline to support occupational safety and health (OSH) professionals in assessing the risk due to lifting and in selecting effective preventive measures for low back pain (LBP) in the Netherlands. The guideline was developed at the request of the Dutch government by a project team of experts and OSH professionals in lifting and work-related LBP. The recommendations for risk assessment were based on the quality of instruments to assess the risk on LBP due to lifting. Recommendations for interventions were based on a systematic review of the effects of worker-and work directed interventions to reduce back load due to lifting. The quality of the evidence was rated as strong (A), moderate (B), limited (C) or based on consensus (D). Finally, eight experts and twenty-four OSH professionals commented on and evaluated the content and the feasibility of the preliminary guideline. For risk assessment we recommend loads heavier than 25 kg always to be considered a risk for LBP while loads less than 3 kg do not pose a risk. For loads between 3-25 kg, risk assessment shall be performed using the Manual handling Assessment Charts (MAC)-Tool or National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) lifting equation. Effective work oriented interventions are patient lifting devices (Level A) and lifting devices for goods (Level C), optimizing working height (Level A) and reducing load mass (Level C). Ineffective work oriented preventive measures are regulations to ban lifting without proper alternatives (Level D). We do not recommend worker-oriented interventions but consider personal lift assist devices as promising (Level C). Ineffective worker-oriented preventive measures are training in lifting technique (Level A), use of back-belts (Level A) and pre-employment medical examinations (Level A). This multidisciplinary evidence-based practice guideline gives clear criteria whether an employee is at risk for LBP while lifting and provides an easy-reference for (in)effective risk reduction measures based on scientific evidence, experience, and consensus among OSH experts and practitioners.
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 1998
The experiment reported in this paper evaluated changes in lifting posture, static lifting strength and the estimated L3/L4 spinal compressive force resulting from the use of an abdominal support or 'back' belt. Torso posture and maximum static lift strength were measured for eight male and eight female subjects using symmetric and asymmetric hand positions at calf height and elbow height. Body posture, and hand forces were also used as input to a threedimensional static biomechanical model of the torso used to estimate L3/L4 spinal compressive force. The results showed axial twist of the torso to be significantly lower for calf height asymmetric exertions when the abdominal support belt was worn. The measured reduction in axial twist was approximately four degrees. No other significant effects on posture due to the support belt were found. Static lift strength was not significantly increased or reduced when the support belt was used. Predicted spinal compressive force was significantly lower when a support belt was worn (2840 N compared to 3125 N when the belt was not worn). Overall, the results of the experiment demonstrate a very limited benefit to the user of abdominal support belts, primarily due to reduced or restricted motion during asymmetric and lower-level lifts. Relevance to industry Back belts are commonly used in industry to mitigate manual materials handling hazards. One assumption often made by those recommending the use of back belts is that they substantially reduce the bending and twisting of the torso. The experiment reported in this paper tests this assumption and provides information on the utility of back belts. 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
2017
Low back pain (LBP) is experienced by 80% of population at some point in their working life. Previous research has demonstrated that musculoskeletal loading in manual material handling (MMH) workplaces results due to interaction between biomechanical factors and human factors. Loading then causes changes in spinal tolerance, ultimately LBP. Repetitive MMH activities are v Acknowledgements I would first like to thank my thesis advisor Dr. Sylvain Grenier of the School of Human Kinetics at Laurentian University. The door to Prof. Grenier office was always open whenever I ran into a trouble during my master's or had a question about my research or writing. He consistently allowed this paper to be my own work but directed me in the right the direction whenever he thought I needed it. I would also like to thank the committee members Steve MacDonald and Dr. Nancy Lightfoot for their valuable feedback. Faculty members who taught me in my master's program and the administrative staff. My dear friends who stood with me, in joy and sorrows, ups and downs, days and nights. Friends who accepted me with all my goodness and faults; and those who taught me life.
A systematic review of controlled clinical trials on the prevention of back pain in industry.
Occupational and …, 1997
Objective-To assess the effectiveness of lumbar supports, education, and exercise in the prevention of back pain in industry. Methods-A computerized search for controlled clinical trials was conducted. A criteria list was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies. The available evidence for the effectiveness of the interventions was graded with a rating system for the level of evidence. Effect sizes of individual studies were combined if the studies were sufficiently similar.
Ergonomics, 2014
We developed an evidence-based practice guideline to support occupational safety and health (OSH) professionals in assessing the risk due to lifting and in selecting effective preventive measures for low back pain (LBP) in the Netherlands. The guideline was developed at the request of the Dutch government by a project team of experts and OSH professionals in lifting and work-related LBP. The recommendations for risk assessment were based on the quality of instruments to assess the risk on LBP due to lifting. Recommendations for interventions were based on a systematic review of the effects of worker-and work directed interventions to reduce back load due to lifting. The quality of the evidence was rated as strong (A), moderate (B), limited (C) or based on consensus (D). Finally, eight experts and twenty-four OSH professionals commented on and evaluated the content and the feasibility of the preliminary guideline. For risk assessment we recommend loads heavier than 25 kg always to be considered a risk for LBP while loads less than 3 kg do not pose a risk. For loads between 3-25 kg, risk assessment shall be performed using the Manual handling Assessment Charts (MAC)-Tool or National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) lifting equation. Effective work oriented interventions are patient lifting devices (Level A) and lifting devices for goods (Level C), optimizing working height (Level A) and reducing load mass (Level C). Ineffective work oriented preventive measures are regulations to ban lifting without proper alternatives (Level D). We do not recommend worker-oriented interventions but consider personal lift assist devices as promising (Level C). Ineffective worker-oriented preventive measures are training in lifting technique (Level A), use of back-belts (Level A) and pre-employment medical examinations (Level A). This multidisciplinary evidence-based practice guideline gives clear criteria whether an employee is at risk for LBP while lifting and provides an easy-reference for (in)effective risk reduction measures based on scientific evidence, experience, and consensus among OSH experts and practitioners.