Implementing a 3D dynamic arm support within the workplace of medical laboratory technicians: A nonrandomized feasibility trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A three-dimensional dynamic arm support (3D-DAS) was designed in response to medical laboratory technicians' need for solutions to reduce the physical demands on the upper extremities during biomedical manipulations. PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility of implementing the 3D-DAS in medical laboratory technicians' workplaces, evaluate the potential for conducting a larger randomized controlled trial, and explore the effects of the 3D-DAS on clinical outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: Nonrandomized feasibility study. METHODS: Two hospitals employing medical laboratory technicians were recruited and assigned to either the experimental group (n=15; using the 3D-DAS for biomedical manipulations over 6months) or the control group (n=15; no intervention). Feasibility was assessed by examining compliance, acceptability, satisfaction with the 3D-DAS, and unintended effects. Semistructured interviews were also conducted. Clinical outcomes included the prevalence of work-related upper extremity disorders, symptoms intensity, functional limitations, and presenteeism. All outcomes were assessed at baseline, 3 and 6months. Descriptive data were presented for feasibility metrics, and generalized estimating equations were used to compare clinical outcomes between groups. RESULTS: Feasibility was deemed very limited, with compliance rates at 16% at 3months and 6% at 6months. Acceptability and satisfaction with the device were also notably low. Three participants reported two unintended effects: increased physical demand at the elbow due to external resistance and skin irritation on the forearm. The 3D-DAS showed no impact on the prevalence of work-related upper extremity disorders, symptoms, disability, or presenteeism. However, participants indicated that the 3D-DAS was helpful in specific work situations, such as performing elevation tasks or when experiencing shoulder pain. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted significant barriers to implementing a 3D-DAS in the workplace of medical laboratory technicians. The findings underscore the importance of clearly defining the specific context in which the device is most beneficial before pursuing a larger study.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".