Fig 1 - uploaded by Shigeki Muto
Content may be subject to copyright.
Nursing assistance tools. A: A mat with attached handles (Big Yuji Kun, Sukoyaka Seisaku Co. Ltd), B: A pair of trousers with knee pads (Sukoyaka Seisaku Co. Ltd), C: A waist holding belt (Flexibelt®, Romedic Co. Ltd).
Source publication
Objective is to clarify whether nursing assistance tools (a mat with attached handles, a pair of trousers with knee pads and a waist holding belt) prevent musculoskeletal pain, such as low back pain and upper arm pain, and depression, and improve the burden on the lower back and upper arm among staff in schools for disabled children. This study des...
Similar publications
To determine the predictiveness of personal and occupational factors for the onset of shoulder pain in occupations requiring repetitive work.
A sample of 598 workers in five activity sectors completed a self administered questionnaire in 1993-94 and again three years later. Both questionnaires included questions about shoulder pain. The association...
The aims of this study were (1) to evaluate subjective symptoms in the hand-arm system of all traffic police motorcyclists of a city located in the central part of Japan and (2) to assess their hand-arm vibration exposure associated with traffic police motorcycle riding. The study population consisted of 119 motorcycling traffic policemen and 49 ma...
To estimate the individual and combined associations of physical and psychosocial working environment with disabling shoulder pain and to identify groups at "high risk" for shoulder pain.
A cross sectional survey was conducted at five manual occupational settings in south Manchester, United Kingdom (n=775, 83%).
Both the duration of occupational ph...
Citations
... In contrast, the use of the nonmotorized assistive device as an intervention to reduce the risk of WMSDs was evaluated in three RCTs, seven pre-post designs, two controlled clinical trials, and one non-RCT study. These studies focused on low-tech nonmotorized assistive devices aimed at minimizing the primary outcome of WMSDs, including a mat with an attached handle (Muto et al., 2008); unstable shoes (Vieira & Brunt, 2016); foot gel pads (Haramis et al., 2010); trouser with kneepads (Muto et al., 2008); friction-reducing sheet ; sliding board; walking belts (Muto et al., 2008;Zhuang et al., 2000); arm support exosuit (Liu et al., 2018); passive backsupport exoskeletons (Hwang et al., 2021); postural monitoring and feedback device (Ribeiro et al., 2020); patient-handling slings (Elford et al., 2000); lumbar support (Roelofs et al., 2010); as well as extended handle stair chair, backboard wheeler, and descent control system for a stretcher . Similarly, most studies in this category also reported a significant improvement in the primary outcome of WMSDs (SMD = −0.63, ...
... In contrast, the use of the nonmotorized assistive device as an intervention to reduce the risk of WMSDs was evaluated in three RCTs, seven pre-post designs, two controlled clinical trials, and one non-RCT study. These studies focused on low-tech nonmotorized assistive devices aimed at minimizing the primary outcome of WMSDs, including a mat with an attached handle (Muto et al., 2008); unstable shoes (Vieira & Brunt, 2016); foot gel pads (Haramis et al., 2010); trouser with kneepads (Muto et al., 2008); friction-reducing sheet ; sliding board; walking belts (Muto et al., 2008;Zhuang et al., 2000); arm support exosuit (Liu et al., 2018); passive backsupport exoskeletons (Hwang et al., 2021); postural monitoring and feedback device (Ribeiro et al., 2020); patient-handling slings (Elford et al., 2000); lumbar support (Roelofs et al., 2010); as well as extended handle stair chair, backboard wheeler, and descent control system for a stretcher . Similarly, most studies in this category also reported a significant improvement in the primary outcome of WMSDs (SMD = −0.63, ...
... In contrast, the use of the nonmotorized assistive device as an intervention to reduce the risk of WMSDs was evaluated in three RCTs, seven pre-post designs, two controlled clinical trials, and one non-RCT study. These studies focused on low-tech nonmotorized assistive devices aimed at minimizing the primary outcome of WMSDs, including a mat with an attached handle (Muto et al., 2008); unstable shoes (Vieira & Brunt, 2016); foot gel pads (Haramis et al., 2010); trouser with kneepads (Muto et al., 2008); friction-reducing sheet ; sliding board; walking belts (Muto et al., 2008;Zhuang et al., 2000); arm support exosuit (Liu et al., 2018); passive backsupport exoskeletons (Hwang et al., 2021); postural monitoring and feedback device (Ribeiro et al., 2020); patient-handling slings (Elford et al., 2000); lumbar support (Roelofs et al., 2010); as well as extended handle stair chair, backboard wheeler, and descent control system for a stretcher . Similarly, most studies in this category also reported a significant improvement in the primary outcome of WMSDs (SMD = −0.63, ...
Background:
Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) are prevalent among healthcare professionals, including nurses, therapists, doctors, and paramedics, due to the potential injuries incurred during patient transfer and handling. This review aimed to assess the effectiveness of existing interventions in reducing the risks of WMSDs in this population.
Methods:
Four databases including PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, and ScienceDirect were searched to identify randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials, as well as studies with pre-post design. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the included studies using the Effective Public Health Practice Project criteria. A meta-analysis was performed to obtain quantitative results.
Results:
A total of 40 studies were included in the review. Among the interventions, motorized assistive devices showed the most significant relative reduction in WMSD risks (p < .0000; standardized mean difference [SMD] = −3.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [−4.53, −2.12]), followed by combined interventions of cognitive and exercise (p < .0001; SMD = −0.62, 95% CI = [−0.91, −0.33]), combined intervention of cognitive and assistive device intervention (p = .02; SMD = −0.77, 95% CI = [−1.42, −0.12]), nonmotorized assistive device (p = .02; SMD = −0.63, 95% CI = [−1.15, −0.12]), cognitive intervention (p < .0001; SMD = −0.62, 95% CI = [−0.91, −0.33]), and physical exercise (p = .06; SMD = −0.16, 95% CI = [−0.32, 0.00]) intervention.
Conclusion:
The overall evidence indicates that interventions have a significant effect in reducing the risk of WMSDs among healthcare workers, with motorized assistive devices showing the most promising results. The findings from this review can provide valuable guidance for hospital administrators, policymakers, and other experts in implementing effective strategies to prevent WMSDs among healthcare professionals.
... Those at risk of waist injury were likely to have to carry loads and do heavy lifting. As a result, they work their knees and lower back more; hence, the positive relationship was observed [25,26]. Additional results showed a positive relationship between risk of knee injury and shoulder and wrist/hand disorders [27]. ...
... In general, however, a reduction in lost workdays due to injury was also found with ergonomic programme implementation [15,16,18,51], as were reductions in injury-related costs [16,51]. The quality of the study evidence overall is not high; some are small [13,14,41], not randomised [4,16,42,46,49,52], or lacking appropriate controls [4,12,16,17,45,49,50], or include other factors which may have an influence on the study result [44,48,51]. Table 1. ...
... Although there is a large body of research on ergonomic device introduction and SPH programmes, most of this focuses on the healthcare provider. A number of these studies are also underpowered -being either small [13,14,41,44,56], not randomised [4,16,46,42,49,52], or lacking appropriate controls [4,12,16,17,45,49,50]. Several studies are also based on self-reported data [6,14,42,44]. ...
Manual patient handling has been linked to musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) in healthcare workers. It can expose the musculoskeletal (MS) system of nurses and other healthcare workers to stress, and may put patients at risk for injury, pain and negative health outcomes. Creating a culture of safety around minimising manual patient handling is therefore thought to have a positive impact in diminishing the scope of this problem. Patient mobility is also an important clinical issue, and safe patient handling (SPH) and mobility technology can be used to promote mobilisation, to improve patient independence and quality of life.
There is evidence to suggest that multifactor interventions based on a risk assessment programme have the most likely chance of success in reducing risk factors associated with patient handling activities. The introduction of a structured SPH programme that pairs training with ergonomic intervention and mechanical aid use is now believed to be the most effective workplace intervention to prevent injuries relating to manual patient handling. The aim of this review is to investigate available evidence for the effectiveness of SPH programmes from the perspectives of healthcare worker safety, patient safety and cost. It is hoped that this will provide a broad view on the current state, significance and future potential of such programmes. Further, we consider what is missing from the available evidence, and how we can improve our understanding of SPH programme effectiveness in the healthcare setting.
... Muto et al. konnten zeigen, dass der Einsatz von Hilfsmitteln in Schulen (z. B. spezielle Lagerungsmatten, Knieschoner) Schmerzen z. T. vorbeugen und die Belastung der Lendenwirbelsäule reduzieren konnte [17]. ...
Background
Special education is a fundamental component of the German educational system. Job specifications are dependent on the type of school, which has an influence on the strains and demands of the employees.
Objectives
The review aims to systematically present the national and international current state of research concerning the health status of employees at special education and general education schools with integrative classes, respectively.
Results
Previous studies analyzed prior psychological factors. Emotional strain, emotional exhaustion, and job satisfaction have been mainly examined and seem to depend on type of special education school. The analysis of individual coping styles plays a specific role in the German literature. Physical aspects include hygienic characteristics and musculoskeletal strains and demands. Supervision and advanced training might be helpful as prevention in order to protect and develop the employee’s health.
Conclusion
Central stress-related factors for staff working at special education schools were reviewed. It became apparent that they vary by type of special education school, so that this could be an interesting focus for future research.
... No additional search results were identified through hand search. Three studies were included in qualitative data synthesis (Hartvigsen et al. 2005;Muto et al. 2008;Yassi et al. 2001). The conduct of a meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity of outcomes and the small number of studies. ...
... Three studies were included for further evaluation (Hartvigsen et al. 2005;Muto et al. 2008;Yassi et al. 2001). Hartvigsen et al. (2005) investigated in a non-randomized controlled trial with a 2-year follow-up whether an intensive ergonomic education program [which included provision of and training in patient handling with small aids (sheets, slings)] was superior to a one-time ergonomic education session in improving the 12-month prevalence of low back pain in nurses and nursing aids. ...
... The study was conducted in home care institutions. Muto et al. (2008) conducted a non-randomized controlled trial in prefectural schools for disabled children with teachers and nurses to examine the effect of the use of small aids (mat with attached handles, trousers with knee pads, waist holding belt) compared to no use of small aids in patient handling in preventing musculoskeletal pain of the lumbar spine and the upper arm region. Follow-up comprised 4-6 months. ...
Purpose:
Patient handling increases the risk of musculoskeletal complaints and diseases among healthcare workers. Thus, the use of small aids for patient handling is recommended. Small aids are non-electrical and handy assistive devices that support caregivers during patient handling. To date, there is no evidence about the clinical efficacy of small aids. Hence, the objective of this systematic review was to systematically analyze whether the use of small aids during patient handling leads to a decreased occurrence of musculoskeletal disorders.
Methods:
A systematic literature search was carried out. The review process was done independently by two reviewers. Methodology was assessed with the "Downs and Black checklist" and the "Risk of Bias tool." Quality of evidence was determined with the GRADE method.
Results:
One randomized and two non-randomized trials were included. Three comparisons of intervention assessing the lumbar spine and shoulder joint were investigated. A statistically significant improvement of the 7-day prevalence of low back pain and shoulder pain was achieved within the intervention group over time of questionable clinical importance in a study with comparisons made between small aids and usual practice or mechanical aids. No comparison between the intervention group and control group at follow-up was made. Each trial showed an insufficient methodology and a high risk of bias. Quality of evidence was low for disability scores and very low for pain outcomes.
Conclusions:
To date, there is no convincing evidence (from low-quality studies) for the preventability of musculoskeletal complaints and diseases by the use of small aids. The literature also lacks evidence for the opposite. Generalizability of the study results is further debatable due to the different populations and settings that were investigated. Robust, high-quality intervention studies are necessary to clarify the clinical efficacy of small aids in healthcare work.
Prospero registry number:
CRD42014009767.
Training and the provision of assistive devices are considered major interventions to prevent back pain and its related disability among workers exposed to manual material handling (MMH).
To determine the effectiveness of MMH advice and training and the provision of assistive devices in preventing and treating back pain.
We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2011, issue 1), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Nioshtic, CISdoc, Science Citation Index, and PsychLIT to February 2011.
We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) and cohort studies with a concurrent control group that were aimed at changing human behaviour in MMH and measured back pain, back pain-related disability or sickness absence.
Two authors independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group for RCTs and MINORS for the cohort studies.We based the results and conclusions on the analysis of RCTs only. We compared these with the results from cohort studies.
We included nine RCTs (20,101 employees) and nine cohort studies (1280 employees) on the prevention of back pain in this updated review. Studies compared training to no intervention (4), professional education (2), a video (3), use of a back belt (3) or exercise (2). Other studies compared training plus lifting aids to no intervention (3) and to training only (1). The intensity of training ranged from a single educational session to very extensive personal biofeedback.Six RCTs had a high risk of bias.None of the included studies showed evidence of a preventive effect of training on back pain.There was moderate quality evidence from seven RCTs (19,317 employees) that those who received training reported levels of back pain similar to those who received no intervention, with an odds ratio of 1.17 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.68 to 2.02) or minor advice (video), with a relative risk of 0.93 (95% CI 0.69 to 1.25). Confidence intervals around the effect estimates were still wide due to the adjustment for the design effect of clustered studies.The results of the cohort studies were similar to those of the randomised studies.
There is moderate quality evidence that MMH advice and training with or without assistive devices does not prevent back pain or back pain-related disability when compared to no intervention or alternative interventions. There is no evidence available from RCTs for the effectiveness of MMH advice and training or MMH assistive devices for treating back pain. More high quality studies could further reduce the remaining uncertainty.
