Physical Work Demands of Maintenance Workers on Onshore Petroleum Facilities in Norway: An Observational Study Utilizing Wearable Sensor Technology.

OBJECTIVES: High physical work demands can cause musculoskeletal disorders and sick leave in petroleum workers. However, our knowledge of their physical work demands is scarce and based on self-report. The objective of our study is to work towards closing this knowledge gap by assessing the physical work demands of onshore petroleum maintenance workers using body-worn sensors. METHODS: A total of 46 of 69 eligible maintenance workers (37 mechanics and 9 process technicians) from three onshore petroleum facilities in Norway filled in a questionnaire and diary and wore five accelerometers and a heart rate sensor for up to six consecutive workdays. Work-related physical activity and postures were classified using rule-based modelling in a modified version of the validated Acti4 software. RESULTS: The onshore maintenance petroleum workers were working an average of 10 h a day and spent on average this time with 48% (SD = 16.5) sitting, 1% (SD = 2.8) lying down, 39% (SD = 16.2) in light physical activity, and 9% (SD = 3.8) in moderate to vigorous physical activity. During work hours while at feet, we found arm elevation ≥60° to be 11% (SD = 7.1) (68 min), and forward bending of the trunk ≥60° to be 2% (SD = 2.2) (14 min). The workers spent 2% (SD = 2.5) (12 minu) of the workhours kneeling. We observed a high inter-individual variation for all these work exposures. Moreover, 26% (12) of the workers conducted static standing for >30% of the workday, and 17% (8) spent more than half of the work hours >33% of their estimated maximal cardiovascular capacity. CONCLUSIONS: While onshore maintenance petroleum workers on average spend about half of the workday sitting or lying down, the remaining worktime is spent with a rather high duration of arm elevation and forward bending. Quite high fraction of the workers spends much of the workhours in static standing and kneeling. We see a substantial variation in these work exposures between the workers. The findings indicate a need for preventive measures in how work is organized and performed.

Assessment of Physical Work Demands of Home Care Workers in Norway: An Observational Study Using Wearable Sensor Technology.

OBJECTIVES: High physical work demands are believed to be partly responsible for the high sickness absence among home care workers, but no studies have assessed their physical work demands using precise device-based measurements. Hence, the objective of this observational study was to assess physical work demands in home care, using wearable sensors. METHODS: From six home care units in a large municipality in Norway, 114 of 195 eligible home care workers filled in a questionnaire, a diary about work hours, and wore five accelerometers, and a heart rate sensor for up to six consecutive workdays. RESULTS: On average, the homecare workers spent 50% of the working hours sitting, 25.2% standing, 11.4% moving, 8.3% walking fast, 1.9% walking slow, 1.2% stair-climbing, 0.3% cycling, and 0.05% running. We found the following exposures to demanding postures: arm-elevation in an upright body position ≥30° was 36.7%, ≥60° was 4.1%, and ≥90°was 0.5%; forward trunk inclination in an upright body position ≥30° was 9.9%, ≥60° was 4%, and ≥90° was 1%; and for kneeling it was 0.8%. We found the average cardiovascular load (%heart rate reserve) during work to be 28%. There was considerable individual variation in these physical exposures at work. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents precise information on various physical work demands of home care workers in Norway. Home care workers spent on average half the workday sitting and the remaining time in various occupational physical activities. Presently, few device-based exposure limits have been proposed for acceptable amounts of occupational physical exposures, but the level of arm-elevation, forward trunk inclination, and the considerable variation of physical workloads among home care workers, indicate that preventive measures should be taken.

Classification of kneeling and squatting in workers wearing protective equipment: development and validation of a rule-based model using wireless triaxial accelerometers.

Several professions in industries, such as petroleum, manufacturing, construction, mining, and forestry require prolonged work tasks in awkward postures, increasing workers' risks for musculoskeletal pain and injury. Therefore, we developed and validated a rule-based model for classifying unilateral and bilateral kneeling and squatting based on 15 individuals wearing personal protective equipment and using three wireless triaxial accelerometers. The model provided both high sensitivity and specificity for classifying kneeling (0.98; 0.98) and squatting (0.96; 0.91). Hence, this model has the potential to contribute to increased knowledge of physical work demands and exposure thresholds in working populations with strict occupational safety regulations. Practitioner summary: Our results indicate that this rule-based model can be applied in a human-factors perspective enabling high-quality quantitative information in the classification of occupational kneeling and squatting, known risk factors for musculoskeletal pain, and sick leave. This study is adapted for working populations wearing personal protective equipment and aimed for long-term measurements in the workplace.

Periodized resistance training for persistent non-specific low back pain: a mixed methods feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the feasibility of a 16-week supervised heavy resistance training program with weekly undulating periodization for individuals with persistent non-specific low-back pain (LBP). METHODS: Twenty-five adults with persistent non-specific LBP participated in this mixed methods feasibility study. Participants trained a whole-body program consisting of squat, bench press, deadlift and pendlay row two times per week for 16 weeks. We assessed pain intensity, pain-related disability, pain self-efficacy and one-repetition maximum strength at baseline, 8 weeks and 16 weeks. Three focus group interviews were conducted at the end of the program. Linear mixed models were used to assess changes in outcomes, and the qualitative data was assessed using systematic text condensation. RESULTS: We observed clinically meaningful reductions in pain intensity after 8 and 16 weeks of training. The mean difference on the numeric pain rating scale (0-10) in the last 2 weeks from baseline to 8 weeks was 2.6 (95% CI: 1.8-3.6) and from baseline to 16 weeks 3.4 (95% CI: 2.5-4.4). In addition, there were improvements in pain-related disability (3.9, 95% CI: 2.3-5.5), pain self-efficacy (7.7, 95% CI: 5.4-10.1) and muscle strength. In the focus group interviews, participants talked about challenges regarding technique, the importance of supervision and the advantages of periodizing the training. Perceived benefits were improved pain, daily functioning, energy level and sleep, and changes in views on physical activity. CONCLUSION: Periodized resistance training with weekly undulating periodization is a feasible training method for this group of individuals with persistent non-specific LBP. A randomized clinical trial should assess the efficacy of such an intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov / Identifier - NCT04284982, Registered on February 24th 2020.