Analisis Postur Kerja untuk Mengurangi Risiko Musculoskeletal Disorders menggunakan Metode Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis postur kerja untuk mengurangi risiko musculoskeletal disorders. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah kuesioner Nordic Body Map dan Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA). Kuesioner Nordic Body Map digunakan untuk mengumpulkan data keluhan rasa sakit yang dialami oleh pekerja. RULA digunakan untuk menentukan tingkat risiko terjadinya musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) pada aktivitas kerja yang bersifat repetitif. Penelitian ini dilaksanakan di plant press shop PT Bakrie Metal Industries. Hasil penelitian menggunakan kuesioner Nordic Body Map menunjukkan bahwa pekerja mengeluhkan rasa sakit sebanyak 71% pada bahu, 71% pada leher bawah, 76% pada punggung, 65% pada bokong, dan 76% pada pinggang. Selain itu, pekerja mengeluhkan agak sakit sebanyak 53% pada lengan atas, 59% pada siku, dan 59% pada pantat. Hasil analisis postur menggunakan RULA menunjukkan bahwa semua aktivitas kerja yang bersifat repetitif pada proses cutting, curving dan corrugating memiliki nilai tingkat risiko yang tinggi. Oleh karena itu, disarankan untuk melakukan investigasi lebih lanjut untuk mengurangi risiko terjadinya MSDs. Kata Kunci: Postur Kerja, Musculoskeletal Disorders, Rapid Uper Limb Assessment, Nordic Body Map, Ergonomi The purpose of this study is to analyze the work postures to reduce the risk of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). Methods used in this study were Nordic Body Map questionnaire and Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA). Nordic Body Map questionnaire is used to collect of pain experienced by workers. RULA is used to determine the risk level of the repetitive working activities. This study was conducted in the press shop plant of PT Bakrie Metal Industries. Nordic Body Map questionnaire showed that workers complained pain as much 71% on the shoulders, 71% on the bottom neck, 76% on the back, 65% on the upper buttocks and 76% on the waist. In addition, 53% of workers felt a bit pain at their upper arms, 59% on the elbow, and 59% on their buttock. The results of this postures analysis using RULA showed that every repetitive working activities in cutting, corrugating, and curving processes have high risk level. Therefore, this study recommended a further investigation on manufacturing or ergonomic aspects to reduce the risk of MSDs. Keywords : Working Posture, Musculoskeletal Disorders, Rapid Upper Limb Assessment, Nordic Body Map, Ergonomics DAFTAR PUSTAKA Astuti, S. B. (2009). Gambaran Faktor Risiko pekerjaan dan Keluhan Gejala Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSDs) pada tubuh bagia atas pekerja di sektor informal butik lamode, depok lama tahun 2009. Depok: Universitas Indonesia. Atwood, D. A., Debb, J. M., & Danz-Reece, M. E. (2004). Ergonomic Solutions for the Process Industries. Boston: Gulf Professional. B.C. Government and Service Employees' Union. (2002). Workplace Guidance for the Prevention of Musculoskeletal Injuries: A Joint Initiative. Victoria: Queen's Printer for British Columbia. Bridger, R. S. (2003). Introduction to Ergonomics. London: Taylor & Francis. Bridger, R. S. (2009). Introduction to Ergonomics, Third Edition. USA: CRC Press. Fatmawati, W., Syakhroni, A., & Setiawan, H. (2011). Analisis Postur Tubuh Sebagai Usulan Perbaikan Metode Kerja dengan Menggunakan Metode Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) Pada Departemen Pengepakan PT. Coca-Cola Bottling Indonesia Central Java. Proceeding Seminar Nasional Teknik Industri & Kongres BKSTI VI , (pp. 71-78). International Ergonomics Association. (2015, April 25). Definitions and Domains of ergonomics . Retrieved from International Ergonomics Association Web site: www.iea.cc/whats/index.html Karwowski, W. (2006). International Encyclopedia of Ergonomics and Human Factor, Second Edition. USA: CRC Press. Maulina, D. (2013). Analisis Postur Kerja dan Keluhan Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSDs) pada Pekerjaan Pemasangan baut di Factory Assembly PT Giken Precision Indonesia Tahun 2012. Depok: Universitas Indonesia. McAtamney, L., & Corlett, E. N. (1993). RULA: A Survey Method for The Investigation of Work-related Upper Limb Disorders. Applied Ergonomics , 91-99. McKeown, C. (2008). Office Ergonomics: Practical Application. Boca Raton: CRC Press. NIOSH. (2007). Ergonomic Guidelines for Manual Material Handling. Cincinnati: California Department of Industrial Relations. Nurmianto, E. (2008). Ergonomi: Konsep Dasar dan Aplikasinya. Surabaya: Teknik Industri-ITS. OHCOW. (2008). Office Ergonomic Handbook 5th Edition. Ontario: Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers Inc. OSHA. (2000). Ergonomics: The Study of Work. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor. Pheasant, S. (2003). Bodyspace: Anthropometry, Ergonomics and the Design of Work 2nd Edition. Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis Inc. Rahman, C. M. (2014). Study and Analysis of Work Postures of Workers Working in a Ceramic Industry Through Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA). International Journal of Engineering and Applied Science Vol. 05 No. 03 , 14-20. Sedarmayanti. (2000). Tata Kerja dan Produktivitas Kerja (Suatu Tinjauan dari Aspek Ergonomi Atau Kaitan Antara Manusia dengan Lingkungan Kerja). Bandung: CV Mandar Maju. Stanton, N., Hedge, A., Brookhuis, K., Salas, E., & Hendrick, H. (2005). Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods. Boca Raton: CRC Press. Sumerli, C. H., & Kurnia, A. (2011). Anaisis Beban Kerja Fisik Menggunakan Metode RULA dan REBA (Studi Kasus Pada Pekerja Bagian Gudang Bahan Jadi di PT Agronesia Divisi Industri Plastik). Preceeding Seminar Nasional Teknik Industri & Kongres BKSTI VI 2011 , (pp. 50-55). Tarwaka, Bakri, S., & Sudiajeng, L. (2004). Ergonomi untuk Keselamatan, Kesehatan Kerja dan Produktivitas. Surakarta: Uniba Press. Weeks, J. L., Levy, B. S., & Wagner, G. R. (1991). Preventing Occupational Disease and Injury. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it