[Work at the visual display unit].
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Computer Terminals↗
Biomedical subjects
Ritva Ketola
Publications and source records attributed to Ritva Ketola.
Expert assessment of physical ergonomics at video-display unit workstations: repeatability, validity and responsiveness to changes.
AIMS: Inter-observer repeatability, validity and responsiveness to change were determined for an expert assessment method for video-display unit (VDU) workstation ergonomics. The aim was to determine to what extent the expert assessment of ergonomics is related to the technical measurements, tidiness and space, work chair ergonomics and responds to changes in these characteristics. METHODS: Technical measurements and video-recordings before and 2 months after an ergonomic intervention were made for 109 VDU office workstations. Two experts in ergonomics analysed and rated the ergonomics of the workstations. A researcher analysed tidiness and available space. A physiotherapist classified the work chairs used according to their ergonomic properties. RESULTS: The intra-class correlation coefficient between the workstation ergonomic ratings of the two experts was 0.74 at the baseline and 0.81 at the follow-up. Workstation tidiness and space, and work chair ergonomics, had a strong effect on the assessments of both experts. For both experts a change in the locations of the mouse, the screen and the keyboard and values of tidiness and space and work chair ergonomics during the intervention showed a significant association with the ratings. CONCLUSION: The assessment method studied can be utilized by an expert in a repeatable manner both in cross-sectional and in longitudinal settings.
Anthropometry↗
Effects of ergonomic intervention in work with video display units.
OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the effect of an intensive ergonomic approach and education on workstation changes and musculoskeletal disorders among workers who used a video display unit (VDU). METHODS: A randomized controlled design was used. The subjects (N=124) were allocated into three groups (intensive ergonomics, ergonomic education, reference) using stratified random sampling. The evaluation involved questionnaires, a diary of discomfort, measurements of workload, and an ergonomic rating of the workstations. The assessments were made 2 weeks before the intervention and after 2 and 10 months of follow-up. RESULTS: The intensive and training groups showed less musculoskeletal discomfort than the reference group after 2 months of follow-up. Positive effects on discomfort were seen primarily for the shoulder, neck, and upper back areas. No significant differences were found for the strain levels or prevalence of pain. After the intervention the ergonomic level was distinctly higher in the intensive ergonomic group than in the education or reference group. CONCLUSIONS: Both the intensive ergonomics approach and education in ergonomics help reduce discomfort in VDU work. In attempts to improve the physical ergonomics of VDU workstations, the best result will be achieved with cooperative planning in which both workers and practitioners are actively involved.
Adult↗