Our Research
Being Human: Approaching the Human Context
Abstract
Human beings have not changed substantially for the last hundred thousand years, but culturally our behavior is shifting at an ever accelerating pace. The result of this has been an ever
widening disparity between our evolutionary position and our cultural behavior. Ergonomics has spent the last few decades attempting to fit tasks to people, but in many respects it has been a process of fitting tasks to the cultural and not the evolutionary position of human beings. We have become
immersed in a number of symptom relieving strategies when the fundamental solution lies in closing the gap between work and our evolutionary context and between our cultural change and evolutionary context. We have supported these notions with reductionist research purporting to understand effects in complex systems. An outline for the evolutionary context of human beings and potential measurement strategies are outlined.
Being Human: Approaching the Human
Context
An Effective Interdisciplinary Matrix for Prevention and Management of Injury
Abstract
Effective ergonomics programs that are able to effect substantial change are still not very evident. Exploring the basic tenets of understanding through systems thinking and the application of both general and physical principles as a guide is important in understanding the human context and the fact that many of society’s problems, including ergonomic ones, are related to a poor or absent alignment with this human context. A model of macro and
micro ergonomics is proposed that takes these issues into account and examines the potential effects of such an organic approach that involves all aspects of the organization including wellness initiatives and disability management. A case study is used to highlight both the positive and negative consequences of this concept of alignment within the human context.
Interdisciplinary Matrix
For Prevention and Management of Injury
The Role of Quantitative Biomechanics in Understanding and Preventing Pathological Adaptations to Cumulative Work in the Upper Limbs
Abstract
Work-related Cumulative Trauma Disorders [(CTD), also referred to variably as Repetitive Strain Injury (RSI), Work Related Musculoskeletal Disorder (WRMSD), Repetitive Motion Injury (RMI) and Occupational Overuse Syndrome (OOS)] are the fastest growing segment of reported injury in most of the developed nations of the world. CTD refers to “a collective variety of painful, chronic neuromusculoskeletal disorders of the neck and upper limb” (MacKinnon and Novak, 1997). In the United States alone, it is estimated that the costs associated with these injuries exceeded $120 billion in 1994 (Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) PressRelease, 1996). The Bureau Of Labor Statistics (1996) indicated that 65% of the reported injuries could be accounted for by CTD. Two thirds of those related to the back while one third related to the upper quadrant. According to The Bureau Of Labor Statistics (1996), 92,576 claims were paid on cases of upper quadrant repetitive strain injuries that involved lost time from work. This does not likely even nearly account for the actual numbers of individuals affected who do not report the injury to the workplace, but manage it on their own (MacKinnon and Novak,1997). While these injuries are widely prevalent in the industrialized countries, they will become an increasing challenge to the developing nations that are embracing modern manufacturing and information management practices (Shahnavaz, 1994)
There have been several responses to the alarming rise in these types of injuries. Examples have included labeling sufferers as having “facetious” injuries that are a result of hysterical reactions to rapid social or workplace change (Reilly, 1995) or as injuries resulting from poorly conducted research. Research, they say that has failed to prove the existence of these disorders or bear out the dose-response relationship from work activity (Hadler, 1997). Another response has been a multi-million dollar attempt to invent products or processes that aim to reduce the cause(s) of CTD. This has resulted in hundreds of untested and poorly understood “solutions” being introduced to workplaces throughout the world. The central theme of an essay by Hadler (1997) is the lack of sufficient science to support the existence of the CTDs. In the U.S., OSHA has been attempting to pass through congress, for nearly three years, an ergonomics regulation that features standards and compliance measures for employers. It has been turned back in the face of a powerful business lobby and a demand for more scientific proof of the hazard (OSHA Press Release, 1996). The result of this approach has been a very undirected discussion with empty diagnoses and hit and miss, ideologically biased approaches to prevention (e.g. Sorehand, ErgoWeb Listserv, 1995 - 97, Proceedings of the Silicon Valley Ergonomics Conference, 1996).
The study of biomechanics, along with work physiology, has been at the centre of investigating the impacts of workplace health and safety for decades. It holds great promise as the science that can shed clear light on the issues described in the foregoing through the development of the understanding of underlying mechanisms of these injuries. This would differ from the heavy focus in most publications on the multi-factorial influenced outcome of pain or complex regional impairment. In fact, biomechanics already has delivered valuable information and perspective, to some extent, as evidenced in the following. The question remains as to what more can a quantitative approach to biomechanics research aid us in understanding the causes and prevention of CTD?
I conducted a partial literature review using Medline, ErgoWeb and the ‘Abstracts in Ergonomics’ indices. In this paper I will review the role that biomechanics has played to this point in understanding and preventing CTD of the upper limbs. This will include themes in the research as well as examples of each. It will also include a discussion of the potential mechanisms (i.e. kinematic analysis, forward dynamics modeling, EMG surveillance) within biomechanics that could and have assisted in the study of this issue. The central element of the paper will be the critical contrasting of two studies from peer-reviewed literature that demonstrate significantly different approaches to answering complex questions about CTDs. Biomechanics has and can continue to increased understanding of CTDs. The benefit to our changing society and the proper practices of workplace health and safety should be substantial in terms of both human and fiscal cost.
The Role of Biomechanics...
Back to the "From the Research Centre " menu
