Applying ergonomics and human factors to congress organization in uncertain times.

Organizational Design and Management (ODAM) elements of Ergonomics and Human Factors (E/HF) apply to congress organization. Exemplary delegate and organizer E/HF experience is constrained by shifting requirements, time pressures and financial constraints. E/HF application while organizing the International Ergonomics Association's Triennial Congress in 2021 (IEA2021) is described focusing on delivery platforms considering typical and exceptional (pandemic) constraints, emphasizing ODAM E/HF principles and generalizable lessons. Post-Congress feedback from delegates, session chairs and Congress organizers reveal the Congress as experienced. Presenting virtually allowed on-demand recording access following live sessions and increased question-and-answer flexibility. Frustrations included navigating multiple platforms and insufficient communications. Stakeholders' differing expectations increased organizer workloads and delegate frustration. Maximum virtual presentation benefits require efforts to ensure integrated, human-centered platform development. Simply digitizing traditional Congress sessions ignores potential enhancements. Embracing innovations would help meet delegate communication needs via careful selection and deployment of evolving virtual meeting technologies. Organizational learning strategies can support these efforts.

Measuring pandemic home-work conditions to determine ergonomic recommendation relevance.

BACKGROUND: Computer-intensive office work associations with health challenges may intensify following COVID-19 pandemic-related changes to home-based office work. OBJECTIVE: To determine working conditions, perception and physical elements affecting health after pivoting to full time home-work. METHODS: An online questionnaire addressed physical, productivity, motivation, and work-practice factors. Photos of the worker in their home-work environment showed side and front-back perspectives. RESULTS: Sixteen questionnaires were received, and 12 respondents supplied photos. Home and office workplace differences varied. Ten felt productivity was affected, most often positively. Four noted increased pain or fatigue intensity, particularly in the eyes, neck / head, lower back, and shoulders. Working posture was not optimal; six didn't use traditional chair-sitting for up to half the day. Forward and backward trunk inclination accounted for at least 10% of the workday for 12 respondents; lateral inclination affected ten and eight had unsupported legs. Fifteen used an adjustable chair, but photos revealed ergonomic recommendations were not consistently followed. Fourteen participants communicated regularly by telephone, eight only for moderate duration and ten using adapted telephone equipment. Half of the ROSA scores were high. CONCLUSIONS: Workers forced into telework during the pandemic experience positive and negative impacts. Postures vary more than in offices, potentially increasing health risk.

Different sit:stand time ratios within a 30-minute cycle change perceptions related to musculoskeletal disorders.

Regular standing interruptions to sedentary work are recommended, but their dosage is understudied. To measure perception variations associated with different sit:stand ratios, 16 people used six ratios (30:0, 27:3, 24:6, 21:9, 18:12 and 15:15) within 30-min cycles in their normal office environment. At start and end of each workday, study participants recorded their perception of 11 factors on a 10-point scale. Musculoskeletal discomfort in 10 body regions was measured before and after exposure to sit-stand ratios. Overall preferred ratios were recorded. Sit:stand ratio affected all perceived factors, with impact varying. Standing at least 6 min improved results most overall; however, individual perceived factors were least impacted by any of 30:0, 27:3, 24:6 or 21:9. Preferred sit:stand ratios were 15:15, 18:12 and 21:9. Typically, least liked ratios involved briefest standing (30:0, 27:3, 24:6) although two participants least liked 15:15. Understanding these variations contributes to appropriate standing dosage recommendations.

A three-dimensional computerized isometric strength measurement system.

The three-dimensional Computerized Isometric Strength Measurement System (CISMS) reliably and accurately measures isometric pull and push strengths in work spaces of paraplegic populations while anticipating comparative studies with other populations. The main elements of the system were: an extendable arm, a vertical supporting track, a rotating platform, a force transducer, stability sensors and a computerized data collection interface. The CISMS with minor modification was successfully used to measure isometric push-up and pull-down strengths of paraplegics and isometric push, pull, push-up and pull-down strength in work spaces for seated and standing able-bodied populations. The instrument has satisfied criteria of versatility, safety and comfort, ease of operation, and durability. Results are accurate within 2N for aligned forces. Costing approximately $1,500 (US) including computer, the system is affordable and accurate for aligned isometric strength measurements.