MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409125878 · doi:10.4103/ijmh.ijmh_35_24

Prevalence of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders among Dental Workers in Enugu Metropolis, Nigeria

2025· article· en· W4409125878 on OpenAlexaff
Canice Chukwudi Anyachukwu, Faith N. Ezugwu, Stephen Sunday Ede, Ogochukwu Kelechi Onyeso, Charles Ikechukwu Ezema, Chisom Favour Ede

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Medicine and Health Development · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational health in dentistry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A bstract Background: Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WRMSD) are the main occupational health hazard among several clinicians, but its prevalence among dental workers in Nigeria has not been well-studied. Objective: This study evaluated the pattern and prevalence of WRMSDs among dental workers in the Enugu metropolis, Nigeria. Materials and Methods: Six hospitals with dental clinics participated in this cross-sectional survey in the Enugu metropolis. One-hundred and fifty (150) standardized musculoskeletal symptom (Nordic) questionnaires were adopted and distributed, of which 141 were returned. The questionnaire elicited data on demographic characteristics and carrier profiles, ergonomics, and the body parts involved in the occupational activities. Results: The results indicated that 83% of the respondents sustained musculoskeletal injury more than once. Bending (66%) and performing repetitive tasks (58.2%) were the most performed risk activities. The lower back (66%) was the most affected body part, followed by the upper back (58.9%), neck (51%), shoulder (47.5%), and hip (46.1%). The most common preventive measures taken by individuals were resting (57%) and avoiding lifting (53.2%). Conclusion: There is a high prevalence of WRMSD among dental workers, with potential to having negative effect on their work habits, and reduced productivity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.494

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.427 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Medicine and Health DevelopmentSame topicOccupational health in dentistryFrench-language works237,207