Open AccessMusculoskeletal disorders and correctional measures on fig gardeners in Estahban, 2017
Author(s) -
Ardalan Hooshyar,
Gholam Hossein Halvani,
Hosein Fallah,
Hamid R. Zare,
Sohrab Zeraatkar
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
ṭibb-i kār/ṭibb-i kār
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2251-8274
pISSN - 2251-7189
DOI - 10.18502/tkj.v11i1.1775
Subject(s) - mcnemar's test , medicine , simple random sample , psychological intervention , population , physical therapy , observational study , work related musculoskeletal disorders , descriptive statistics , environmental health , poison control , human factors and ergonomics , mathematics , statistics , nursing , pathology
Agriculture is one of the high-risk occupations, and musculoskeletal disorders are an integral part of this occupation and major farmers suffer from these disorders. The purpose of this study is correctional measures in Estahban.
Method: This descriptive-analytical, cross-sectional and observational study was performed on workers in the fig orchard. The Nordic, demographic and body map questionnaires were used to evaluate the prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms. The study population was 170 randomly selected by simple random sampling. Subsequently, individuals who were exclusively working in the fig orchard (n = 95) were assessed for risk assessment. The methods for evaluating were PATH and QEC. Data were analyzed by SPSS software using McNemar and Wilcoxon tests before and after the intervention.
Results: Workers number 95 (55.9%) were only fig orchard workers and the other persons 75 (44.1%) had other jobs. workers 16 (9.4%) were single and 154 (90.6%) were married, mean age were 47.5 ± 14.4 years and work experience was 26.4 ±14.4 years. Frequency of musculoskeletal disorders in organs using body map was significantly different from before intervention (P <0.001). PATH risk level before and after the intervention was less than 0.05, in QEC method the mean total score before and after intervention was 94.36 ±16.09 and 52.63 ±12.18, respectively (P <0.001).
Conclusion: Ergonomic interventions can be used as a corrective action.