The effect of forearm support on musculoskeletal discomfort during call centre work
Introduction
The relationship between musculoskeletal disorders of the neck and upper extremity in association with computer use has been well documented (Pascarelli and Kella, 1993; Sauter et al., 1991). Risk factors associated with computer use include physical ergonomic factors such as keyboard, chair and monitor heights, working postures (Aaras et al., 1997; Grandjean et al., 1984), organisational factors such as duration of computer use per day and psychosocial factors such as stress (Smith and Carayon, 1996).
Discomfort of the proximal and distal upper extremities has been associated with the use of input devices such as the keyboard (Amell and Kumar, 2000) and mouse (Cook et al., 2000; Fogelman and Brogmus, 1995). Working without arm support has been proposed as one of the causal factors of neck and shoulder and arm hand diagnoses (Maeda, 1977; Erdelyi et al., 1988; Hagberg and Sundelin, 1986; Bergqvist et al., 1995). Despite this, the traditional “floating” posture in which a neutral wrist posture is maintained without supporting the arms is still widely used.
Upper extremity support has been reported to reduce static neck and shoulder muscle load during computer keyboard use (Aaras et al., 1998; Cook and Burgerss-Limerick, 2001; Marcus et al., 2002). Aaras et al. (2001) reported a significant decrease in neck, shoulder and back discomfort in a group of computer users who were able to support their whole forearm and hand on a concave workstation. No decrease in discomfort was reported for the distal upper extremity. In a recent prospective epidemiological study of computer users, Marcus et al. (2002) reported use of the keyboard placed more than 12 cm from the edge of the desk was associated with a lower risk of hand-arm symptoms. In a recent laboratory study, forearm support using a conventional desk was also found to result in significantly less ulnar deviation, less time spent in an extreme wrist posture and fewer reports of discomfort (Cook and Burgerss-Limerick, 2001).
Supporting the forearm on the work surface may decrease discomfort, decrease muscular load of the neck and shoulders and decrease harmful wrist postures, thereby creating a beneficial posture for keyboard and mouse users. However, the benefits of providing arm support during keyboard and mouse use in a conventional workstation have only been previously described in the laboratory setting (Cook and Burgerss-Limerick, 2001).
As the provision of specialised equipment such as concave desks is not always practical due to cost, the effect of adjusting a conventional workstation to allow forearm support during keyboard operation requires evaluation in a field setting.
The aim of this study was to determine whether adjusting a conventional workstation to enable forearm support during computer use decreases reports of neck/shoulder or wrist/hand musculoskeletal discomfort in intensive computer users in a field setting.
Section snippets
Methods
Participants were experienced keyboard users who worked in a newspaper call centre. Eligible participants were employed for at least 15 h/week in the call centre and did not have more than one week of leave planned during the study. Anyone receiving treatment for musculoskeletal discomfort was excluded from the study. All eligible call centre employees were invited to participate (n=95). There were 59 volunteers (54 female, 5 male). The average age was 39 years (range 21–68 years). The sample
Results
Within a week of intervention, nine participants (15%) withdrew from using forearm support either due to discomfort (4), or difficulty maintaining the posture (4). The forearm support posture was discontinued by the experimenter for one participant who was observed to adopt a posture of increased trunk flexion, due to her abdominal depth. The discomfort reported by these participants on discontinuation of the forearm support posture has been included in the analysis. Two other participants were
Discussion
There were no significant differences between the control and intervention groups at 6 weeks. However, reports of discomfort within the intervention group had decreased while those in the control group had increased. Once set up with forearm support, a reduction in reported discomfort occurred within 6 weeks for both groups. When comparisons were made between pre- and postintervention of forearm support, a significant decrease in the frequency of reported neck, back, forearm and wrist
Conclusion
The results of this study confirms that use of forearm support has a number of advantages over a traditional floating posture and should be considered as an alternate working posture for keyboard users.
References (25)
- et al.
Musculoskeletal, visual and psychosocial stress in VDU operators before and after multidisciplinary ergonomic interventions. A 6 years prospective study
Appl. Ergon.
(2001) - et al.
Cumulative trauma disorders and keyboarding work
Int. J. Ind. Ergon.
(2000) - et al.
The prevalence of neck and upper extremity musculoskeletal symptoms in computer mouse users
Int. J. Ind. Ergon.
(2000) Self-administered preventive programme for sedentary workersreducing musculoskeletal symptoms or increasing awareness
Appl. Ergon.
(1998)- et al.
Preferred VDT workstation settings, body posture and physical impairments
Appl. Ergon.
(1984) - et al.
Standardised Nordic Questionnaires for the analysis of musculoskeletal symptoms
Appl. Ergon.
(1987) - et al.
Effectiveness of a VDT training program
Int. J. Ind. Ergon.
(2001) - et al.
The effect of shoulder posture on performance, discomfort and muscle fatigue whilst working on a visual display unit
Int. J. Ind. Ergon.
(1997) - et al.
Postural load during VDU worka comparison between various work postures
Ergonomics
(1997) - et al.
Musculoskeletal, visual and psychosocial stress in VDU operators before and after multidisciplinary ergonomic interventions
Appl. Ergon.
(1998)
Musculoskeletal disorders among visual display terminal workersindividual, ergonomic and work organisational factors
Ergonomics
Cited by (51)
Effect of a posture correction–based intervention on musculoskeletal symptoms and fatigue among control room operators
2019, Applied ErgonomicsCitation Excerpt :Thus far, several previous studies have reported the impact of office ergonomic interventions such as ergonomic training (Amick et al., 2003; Bernaards et al., 2007) and workstation adjustments (Amick et al., 2003; Cook and Burgess-Limerick, 2004; Gerr et al., 2005) on workers’ health. While some of these studies have shown that workstation and postural interventions can prevent or reduce MSS in office environments, there are also studies that have found no considerable improvement in this regard (Cook and Burgess-Limerick, 2004; Gerr et al., 2005). Moreover, in a number of these studies, multiple interventions (e.g. workstation adjustment combined with ergonomic training, physical exercises, and improving the lighting condition) have been tested simultaneously, making it difficult to assess the effect of specific components (Demure et al., 2000; Nevala-Puranen et al., 2003).
A data-driven approach to modeling physical fatigue in the workplace using wearable sensors
2017, Applied ErgonomicsBiomechanical loading on the upper extremity increases from single key tapping to directional tapping
2011, Journal of Electromyography and KinesiologyCitation Excerpt :We used the unsupported upper extremity because of several reasons. It has been reported that the traditional recommendation for typist to “hover or float” over the keyboard while keying, in which a neutral wrist posture is maintained without supporting the arm is still advocated and used (Cook and Burgess-Limerick, 2002, 2004; Cook et al., 2004; WorkSafe Victoria, 2001). This study was a part of a progressive research endeavor to provide comprehensive profiles of the biomechanical characteristics and motor behaviors of the entire upper extremity during keying.
Evaluation of a dynamic armrest for hydraulic-actuation controller use
2011, Applied ErgonomicsCitation Excerpt :This outcome is at least partially explained by the restrictive design associated with the stationary armrests as discussed above. Though not designed for heavy equipment armrests, a number of authors have found positive results for the use of forearm supports in office environments (Cook and Burgess-Limerick, 2004; Delisle et al., 2006; Conlon et al., 2008; Nag et al., 2009) further supporting the need to develop more appropriate arm supports in all occupational environments. Attebrant et al. (1997) tested a conventional armrest against a horizontally moving armrest.
Assessing the effectiveness of an ergonomics intervention program with a participatory approach: ergonomics settlement in an Iranian steel industry
2022, International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health