An evaluation of methods assessing the physical demands of manual lifting in scaffolding.
Four methods assessing the physical demands of manual lifting were compared. The scaffolding job was evaluated and three distinct scaffolding tasks were ranked using: (1) the revised NIOSH lifting equation (NIOSH method), (2) lifting guidelines for the Dutch construction industry (Arbouw method), (3) rapid appraisal of the NIOSH lifting equation (practitioners' method), and (4) systematic observations. For the three first-mentioned methods the same dataset was used; observation took place in a different setting in the same company. At job level, all methods indicated that ergonomic interventions are required to protect scaffolders from an increased risk for low back pain. The NIOSH, Arbouw and practitioners' method resulted in a similar ranking order of tasks (transport>construction>dismantlement). In contrast, the observational method gave transport the lowest ranking. The underlying cause was probably that the observational method is more sensitive to durations of tasks and lifting within tasks than the three other methods.
van der Beek
Allard J
AJ
Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, P.O. Box 1738, NL-3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands. a.vanderbeek@vumc.nl
Erik Mathiassen
Svend
S
Windhorst
Judith
J
Burdorf
Alex
A
D000328:Adult; D001696:Biomechanical Phenomena; D006804:Ergonomics; D006801:Humans; D017770:Lifting; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009314:National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S.; D009426:Netherlands; D009784:Occupational Diseases / Q000209:etiology / Q000517:prevention & control; D013647:Task Performance and Analysis; D014481:United States