Accelerometer-based inclinometers have dominated kinematic measurements in previous field studies, while the use of inertial measurement units that additionally include gyroscopes is rapidly increasing. Recent laboratory studies suggest that these two sensor types and the two commonly used angular velocity computational methods may produce substantially different results. The aim of this study was, therefore, to evaluate the effects of sensor types and angular velocity computational methods on the measures of work postures and movements in a real occupational setting. Half-workday recordings of arm and trunk postures, and movements from 38 warehouse workers were compared using two sensor types: accelerometers versus accelerometers with gyroscopes-and using two angular velocity computational methods, i.e., inclination velocity versus generalized velocity. The results showed an overall small difference (<2 degrees and value independent) for posture percentiles between the two sensor types, but substantial differences in movement percentiles both between the sensor types and between the angular computational methods. For example, the group mean of the 50th percentiles were for accelerometers: 71 degrees/s (generalized velocity) and 33 degrees/s (inclination velocity)-and for accelerometers with gyroscopes: 31 degrees/s (generalized velocity) and 16 degrees/s (inclination velocity). The significant effects of sensor types and angular computational methods on angular velocity measures in field work are important in inter-study comparisons and in comparisons to recommended threshold limit values.

Work-related musculoskeletal disorders are a major concern globally affecting societies, companies, and individuals. To address this, a new sensor-based system is presented: the Smart Workwear System, aimed at facilitating preventive measures by supporting risk assessments, work design, and work technique training. The system has a module-based platform that enables flexibility of sensor-type utilization, depending on the specific application. A module of the Smart Workwear System that utilizes haptic feedback for work technique training is further presented and evaluated in simulated mail sorting on sixteen novice participants for its potential to reduce adverse arm movements and postures in repetitive manual handling. Upper-arm postures were recorded, using an inertial measurement unit (IMU), perceived pain/discomfort with the Borg CR10-scale, and user experience with a semi-structured interview. This study shows that the use of haptic feedback for work technique training has the potential to significantly reduce the time in adverse upper-arm postures after short periods of training. The haptic feedback was experienced positive and usable by the participants and was effective in supporting learning of how to improve postures and movements. It is concluded that this type of sensorized system, using haptic feedback training, is promising for the future, especially when organizations are introducing newly employed staff, when teaching ergonomics to employees in physically demanding jobs, and when performing ergonomics interventions.

RAMP II is an observation-based tool developed for assessing a wide range of musculoskeletal disorder risk factors related to industrial manual handling. RAMP II, which is part of the RAMP tool, is based on research studies and expert judgments. The assessment relies mainly on direct or video observations of the work being assessed, but additionally on measured push/pull forces and weights of handled objects, and on perceived workload and discomfort. Over 80 practitioners participated in the development of the tool. According to the evaluations, 73% of the assessment items evaluated had acceptable reliability, and the majority of the potential end-users reported that RAMP II is usable for assessing risks and as a decision base. It is concluded that this study provides support that RAMP II is usable for risk assessment of musculoskeletal disorder risk factors in industrial manual handling. Practitioner summary: RAMP II is an observation-based assessment tool for screening and assessing major musculoskeletal exposures in industrial manual handling jobs. Over 80 practitioners participated in the development of the tool. This study provides support that RAMP II is usable for risk assessment of musculoskeletal disorder risk factors in industrial manual handling. Abbreviations: CTS: carpal tunnel syndrome; HARM: the Hand Arm Risk Assessment method; IMP: intramuscular pressure; κw: linearly weighted kappa; LBD: lower back disorders; LBP: lower back pain; MAWL: maximum acceptable weight of lift; MHO: manual handling operations; MSD: musculoskeletal disorder; MNSD: neck-shoulder disorder; NSP: neck-shoulder pain; OCRA: the Occupational Repetitive Action methods; OHS: occupational health and safety; PABAK: prevalence and bias adjusted kappa; p0: proportion of agreement; RAMP: Risk Assessment and Management tool for manual handling Proactively; ROM: range of motion; RPL: risk and priority level; RSI: the Revised Strain Index; RULA: the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment; SWEA: Swedish Work Environment Authority; UEMSDs: upper-extremity work-related musculoskeletal disorders; WMSD: work-related musculoskeletal disorder; WRMSD: work-related musculoskeletal disorder; workday8h: eight hours workday.

Vibrotactile feedback training may be one possible method for interventions that target at learning better work techniques and improving postures in manual handling. This study aimed to evaluate the short term effect of real-time vibrotactile feedback on postural exposure using a smart workwear system for work postures intervention in simulated industrial order picking. Fifteen workers at an industrial manufacturing plant performed order-picking tasks, in which the vibrotactile feedback was used for postural training at work. The system recorded the trunk and upper arm postures. Questionnaires and semi-structured interviews were conducted about the users’ experience of the system. The results showed reduced time in trunk inclination ≥20°, ≥30° and ≥45° and dominant upper arm elevation ≥30° and ≥45° when the workers received feedback, and for trunk inclination ≥20°, ≥30° and ≥45° and dominant upper arm elevation ≥30°, after feedback withdrawal. The workers perceived the system as useable, comfortable, and supportive for learning. The system has the potential of contributing to improved postures in order picking through an automated short-term training program.

Recent demographic developments in Europe have increased the demand for home care. Working in other people’s home environment is challenging. Home care personnel’s musculoskeletal disorders are common, and care personnel overall often have sleep disturbances. In this study, associations between occupational physical and psychosocial factors and possible sleep-related problems among home care personnel were explored using a questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed to 19 workplaces in Stockholm County in 2017–2019, and 665 home care personnel answered. Several factors, including job contentment, physical burden of care, client-related burnout, quantitative demands, and pain, were significantly associated with sleep-related problems. The results highlight the need for implementing measures to improve psychosocial and organizational working conditions in home care service.

In this paper the RAMP Package is presented with the objective to facilitate the application of the RAMP tool to systematically manage MSD risks. The package consists of the RAMP tool (Risk Assessment and Management tool for manual handling Proactively), the RAMP website, and free, globally available online, training courses (MOOCs). An Action module used for managing identified MSD risks is introduced. The tool, encompassing a wide range of risks, is applicable to the whole risk management process. Furthermore, RAMP is openly available for download, and free to use. The RAMP tool and training materials were developed using a participative iterative methodology including researchers and practitioners. RAMP was downloaded in 86 countries in the first 26 months since its' launch and over 2400 learners from high-, middle- and low-income countries have joined the MOOCs. The RAMP Package meets organisations’ needs for an accessible, comprehensive risk assessment and management tool.

RAMP I is a screening tool developed to support practitioners in screening for work-related musculoskeletal disorder riskfactors related to manual handling. RAMP I, which is part of the RAMP tool, is based on research-based studies combinedwith expert group judgments. More than 80 practitioners participated in the development of RAMP I. The tool consistsof dichotomous assessment items grouped into seven categories. Acceptable reliability was found for a majority of theassessment items for 15 practitioners who were given 1 h of training. The usability evaluation points to RAMP I beingusable for screening for musculoskeletal disorder risk factors, i.e., usable for assessing risks, being usable as a decision base,having clear results and that the time needed for an assessment is acceptable. It is concluded that RAMP I is a usable toolfor practitioners.

BACKGROUND: Several observation-based risk-assessment tools have been developed in recent decades. Studies reporting their use often focus only on the user, the ergonomist. The influence of context and the attributes of the tools may also affect the use but are factors that are seldom considered. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to explore the process of risk-assessment assignments and to identify factors influencing the use of research-based observation-based risk-assessment tools among Swedish ergonomists, with a background as reg. physiotherapists, employed in Occupational Health Services (OHS). METHODS: A web-based questionnaire (n = 70) was combined with semi-structured interviews (n = 12). RESULTS: There was limited use of several observation-based risk-assessment tools. Furthermore, the results showed that ergonomics risk-assessment assignments are most commonly initiated reactively and that interventions were seldom evaluated. Factors that influence use are related both to the ergonomist and to the attributes of the tools as well as to contextual factors assigned to authorities, and internal organisations both within occupational health service companies and client companies. CONCLUSION: There was a lack of systematic approaches in ergonomics risks assessment and low use and knowledge of risk-assessment tools. This indicates that there is a need to support OHS companies in implementing systematic tools in their practice.