2 resultados para Computing Classification Systems
em DigitalCommons@The Texas Medical Center
Resumo:
Two studies among college students were conducted to evaluate appropriate measurement methods for etiological research on computing-related upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders (UEMSDs). ^ A cross-sectional study among 100 graduate students evaluated the utility of symptoms surveys (a VAS scale and 5-point Likert scale) compared with two UEMSD clinical classification systems (Gerr and Moore protocols). The two symptom measures were highly concordant (Lin's rho = 0.54; Spearman's r = 0.72); the two clinical protocols were moderately concordant (Cohen's kappa = 0.50). Sensitivity and specificity, endorsed by Youden's J statistic, did not reveal much agreement between the symptoms surveys and clinical examinations. It cannot be concluded self-report symptoms surveys can be used as surrogate for clinical examinations. ^ A pilot repeated measures study conducted among 30 undergraduate students evaluated computing exposure measurement methods. Key findings are: temporal variations in symptoms, the odds of experiencing symptoms increased with every hour of computer use (adjOR = 1.1, p < .10) and every stretch break taken (adjOR = 1.3, p < .10). When measuring posture using the Computer Use Checklist, a positive association with symptoms was observed (adjOR = 1.3, p < 0.10), while measuring posture using a modified Rapid Upper Limb Assessment produced unexpected and inconsistent associations. The findings were inconclusive in identifying an appropriate posture assessment or superior conceptualization of computer use exposure. ^ A cross-sectional study of 166 graduate students evaluated the comparability of graduate students to College Computing & Health surveys administered to undergraduate students. Fifty-five percent reported computing-related pain and functional limitations. Years of computer use in graduate school and number of years in school where weekly computer use was ≥ 10 hours were associated with pain within an hour of computing in logistic regression analyses. The findings are consistent with current literature on both undergraduate and graduate students. ^
Resumo:
The purpose of this prospective observational field study was to present a model for measuring energy expenditure among nurses and to determine if there was a difference between the energy expenditure of nurses providing direct care to adult patients on general medical-surgical units in two major metropolitan hospitals and a recommended energy expenditure of 3.0 kcal/minute over 8 hours. One-third of the predicted cycle ergometer VO2max for the study population was used to calculate the recommended energy expenditure.^ Two methods were used to measure energy expenditure among participants during an 8 hour day shift. First, the Energy Expenditure Prediction Program (EEPP) developed by the University of Michigan Center for Ergonomics was used to calculate energy expenditure using activity recordings from observation (OEE; n = 39). The second method used ambulatory electrocardiography and the heart rate-oxygen consumption relationship (HREE; n = 20) to measure energy expenditure. It was concluded that energy expenditure among nurses can be estimated using the EEPP. Using classification systems from previous research, work load among the study population was categorized as "moderate" but was significantly less than (p = 0.021) 3.0 kcal/minute over 8 hours or 1/3 of the predicted VO2max.^ In addition, the relationships between OEE, body-part discomfort (BPCDS) and mental work load (MWI) were evaluated. The relationships between OEE/BPCDS and OEE/MWI were not significant (p = 0.062 and 0.091, respectively). Among the study population, body-part discomfort significantly increased for upper arms, mid-back, lower-back, legs and feet by mid-shift and by the end of the shift, the increase was also significant for neck and thighs.^ The study also provided documentation of a comprehensive list of nursing activities. Among the most important findings were the facts that the study population spent 23% of the workday in a bent posture, walked an average of 3.14 miles, and spent two-thirds of the shift doing activities other than direct patient care, such as paperwork and communicating with other departments. A discussion is provided regarding the ergonomic implications of these findings. ^