External Hand Forces Exerted by Long-Term Care Staff to Push Floor-Based Lifts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of flooring type and resident weight on external hand forces required to push floor-based lifts in long-term care (LTC). BACKGROUND: Novel compliant flooring is designed to reduce fall-related injuries among LTC residents but may increase forces required for staff to perform pushing tasks. A motorized lift may offset the effect of flooring on push forces. METHOD: Fourteen female LTC staff performed straight-line pushes with two floor-based lifts (conventional, motor driven) loaded with passengers of average and 90th-percentile resident weights over four flooring systems (concrete+vinyl, compliant+vinyl, concrete+carpet, compliant+carpet). Initial and sustained push forces were measured by a handlebar-mounted triaxial load cell and compared to participant-specific tolerance limits. Participants rated pushing difficulty. RESULTS: Novel compliant flooring increased initial and sustained push forces and subjective ratings compared to concrete flooring. Compared to the conventional lift, the motor-driven lift substantially reduced initial and sustained push forces and perceived difficulty of pushing for all four floors and both resident weights. Participants exerted forces above published tolerance limits only when using the conventional lift on the carpet conditions (concrete+carpet, compliant+carpet). With the motor-driven lift only, resident weight did not affect push forces. CONCLUSION: Novel compliant flooring increased linear push forces generated by LTC staff using floor-based lifts, but forces did not exceed tolerance limits when pushing over compliant+vinyl. The motor-driven lift substantially reduced push forces compared to the conventional lift. APPLICATION: Results may help to address risk of work-related musculoskeletal injury, especially in locations with novel compliant flooring.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".