Data collection costs in industrial environments for three occupational posture exposure assessment methods

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Mahmoud Rezagholi²  Marina Heiden²  Jens Wahlström¹  Svend Erik Mathiassen²  Catherine Trask³ 

[1] Department of Public Health & Clinical Medicine, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Umeå University, SE-901 85, Umeå, Sweden;Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, University of Gävle, SE – 801 76, Gävle, Sweden;Centre for Health and Safety in Agriculture, College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, 103 Hospital Drive, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, S7N 0W8

关键词: Questionnaire;    Observation;    Inclinometer;    Posture;    Ergonomics;   

Others  :  1136568
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2288-12-89

 received in 2012-03-13, accepted in 2012-06-27,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Documentation of posture measurement costs is rare and cost models that do exist are generally naïve. This paper provides a comprehensive cost model for biomechanical exposure assessment in occupational studies, documents the monetary costs of three exposure assessment methods for different stakeholders in data collection, and uses simulations to evaluate the relative importance of cost components.

Methods

Trunk and shoulder posture variables were assessed for 27 aircraft baggage handlers for 3 full shifts each using three methods typical to ergonomic studies: self-report via questionnaire, observation via video film, and full-shift inclinometer registration. The cost model accounted for expenses related to meetings to plan the study, administration, recruitment, equipment, training of data collectors, travel, and onsite data collection. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using simulated study parameters and cost components to investigate the impact on total study cost.

Results

Inclinometry was the most expensive method (with a total study cost of € 66,657), followed by observation (€ 55,369) and then self report (€ 36,865). The majority of costs (90%) were borne by researchers. Study design parameters such as sample size, measurement scheduling and spacing, concurrent measurements, location and travel, and equipment acquisition were shown to have wide-ranging impacts on costs.

Conclusions

This study provided a general cost modeling approach that can facilitate decision making and planning of data collection in future studies, as well as investigation into cost efficiency and cost efficient study design. Empirical cost data from a large field study demonstrated the usefulness of the proposed models.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Trask et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Burdorf A, van der Beek AJ: In musculoskeletal epidemiology are we asking the unanswerable in questionnaires on physical load? Scand J Work Environ Health 1999, 25(2):81-83.
• [2]van der Beek AJ, Frings-Dresen MH: Assessment of mechanical exposure in ergonomic epidemiology. Occup Environ Med 1998, 55(5):291-299.
• [3]Wells R, et al.: Assessment of physical work load in epidemiologic studies: common measurement metrics for exposure assessment. Ergonomics 1997, 40(1):51-61.
• [4]Winkel J, Mathiassen SE: Assessment of physical work load in epidemiologic studies: concepts, issues and operational considerations. Ergonomics 1994, 37(6):979-988.
• [5]van Dieen JH, et al.: Validity of estimates of spinal compression forces obtained from worksite measurements. Ergonomics 2010, 53(6):792-800.
• [6]Takala EP, et al.: Systematic evaluation of observational methods assessing biomechanical exposures at work. Scand J Work Environ Health 2009, 24:24.
• [7]Spielholz P, et al.: Comparison of self-report, video observation and direct measurement methods for upper extremity musculoskeletal disorder physical risk factors. Ergonomics 2001, 44(6):588-613.
• [8]Village J, et al.: Development and evaluation of an observational Back-Exposure Sampling Tool (Back-EST) for work-related back injury risk factors. Appl Ergon 2009, 40:538-544.
• [9]Teschke K, et al.: Measuring posture for epidemiology: Comparing inclinometry, observations, and self-reports. Ergonomics 2009, 52(9):1067-1078.
• [10]Trask C, et al.: Using observation and self-report to predict mean, 90th percentile, and cumulative low back muscle activity in heavy industry workers. Ann Occup Hyg 2010, 54(5):595-606.
• [11]Rezagholi M, Mathiassen SE: Cost-efficient design of occupational exposure assessment strategies–a review. Ann Occup Hyg 2010, 54(8):858-868.
• [12]Rezagholi M, Mathiassen SE, Liv P: Cost efficiency comparison of four video-based techniques for assessing upper arm postures. Ergonomics 2012, 55(3):350-360.
• [13]Lemasters GK, et al.: Balancing cost and precision in exposure assessment studies. J Occup Environ Med 1996, 38(1):39-45.
• [14]Whitmore RW, et al.: Cost/variance optimization for human exposure assessment studies. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 2005, 15(6):464-472.
• [15]Stram DO, et al.: Cost-efficient design of a diet validation study. Am J Epidemiol 1995, 142(3):353-362.
• [16]Mathiassen S-E, Trask C: Cost efficiency of adding another subject or another day to an exposure dataset. Angers, France: University of Angers; 2010. August 29-September 3
• [17]Trask C, Mathiassen S-E: Price versus precision: cost efficiency in trunk posture observation. Angers, France: University of Angers; 2010. August 29-September 3
• [18]Trask C, et al.: Measuring low back injury risk factors in challenging work environments: an evaluation of cost and feasibility. Am J Ind Med 2007, 50(9):687-696.
• [19]Liv P, Mathiassen SE, Svendsen SW: Theoretical and empirical efficiency of sampling strategies for estimating upper arm elevation. Ann Occup Hyg 2011, 55(4):436-449.
• [20]Mathiassen SE, Bolin K: Optimizing cost-efficiency in mean exposure assessment - cost functions reconsidered. BMC Med Res Methodol 2011, 11:76. BioMed Central Full Text
• [21]Senturia YD, et al.: Successful techniques for retention of study participants in an inner-city population. Control Clin Trials 1998, 19(6):544-554.
• [22]Fethke NB, Gant LC, Gerr F: Comparison of biomechanical loading during use of conventional stud welding equipment and an alternate system. Appl Ergon 2011, 42(5):725-734.
• [23]Mathiassen SE, Burdorf A, van der Beek AJ: Statistical power and measurement allocation in ergonomic intervention studies assessing upper trapezius EMG amplitude. A case study of assembly work. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2002, 12(1):45-57.
• [24]Unge J, et al.: Validity of self-assessed reports of occurrence and duration of occupational tasks. Ergonomics 2005, 48(1):12-24.
• [25]Balogh I, et al.: Self-assessed and directly measured occupational physical activities–influence of musculoskeletal complaints, age and gender. Appl Ergon 2004, 35(1):49-56.