Investigating the relationship between physical, cognitive, and environmental factors of ergonomics with the prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders: A case study in a car-parts manufacturing industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WRMSDs) is a multi-factorial disorder in most occupational setting and it has increased significantly in recent years. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the relationship between physical, cognitive, and environmental factors of ergonomics with the prevalence of WRMSDs in a car-parts manufacturing industry. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was performed among 220 workers in a milling unit of a car parts manufacturing company in 2021-2022. The prevalence of WRMSDs was assessed using the Extended Version of the Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire. Noise exposure was evaluated using dosimetry method. Mental and physical workload were evaluated by the NASA-TLX and key index methods (KIM-MHO and KIM-LHC), respectively. Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 25.0. RESULTS: The subjects' mean age and work experience were 36.3±6.5 and 8.35±6.41 years, respectively. Eighty-five percent of the subjects reported WRMSDs in at least one area of the body. The results of mental workload assessment revealed a high workload mean range (73.23±14.89) in all of the subjects. Mean score of KIM-LHC and KIM-MHO were 738.18±336.42 and 201.86±36.41, respectively with odds ratio of 1.32 for KIM-LHC in creating the WRMSDs. There was a significant relationship between the noise exposure, mental and physical workload and the prevalence of WRMSDs (p-value < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The results of the present study revealed that environmental, physical and cognitive factors can simultaneously be effective in the prevalence of WRMSDs. Therefore, performing effective control measures requires comprehensive attention to physical, environmental, and cognitive ergonomics in the algorithm of ergonomics management in the workplace.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".