Testing the Level of Agreement between Two Methodological Approaches of the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) for Occupational Health Practice—An Exemplary Application in the Field of Dentistry

Author:

Nowara Ramona1,Holzgreve Fabian1ORCID,Golbach Rejane2,Wanke Eileen M.1ORCID,Maurer-Grubinger Christian1,Erbe Christina3,Brueggmann Doerthe1,Nienhaus Albert45ORCID,Groneberg David A.1,Ohlendorf Daniela1

Affiliation:

1. Institute of Occupational Medicine, Social Medicine and Environmental Medicine, Goethe-University Frankfurt, 60596 Frankfurt am Main, Germany

2. Institute of Biostatistics and Mathematical Modelling, University Hospital Frankfurt, 60596 Frankfurt am Main, Germany

3. Department of Orthodontics, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg-University, 55131 Mainz, Germany

4. Competence Centre for Epidemiology and Health Services Research for Healthcare Professionals (CVcare), University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), 20246 Hamburg, Germany

5. Department of Occupational Medicine, Hazardous Substances and Public Health, Institution for Statutory Accident Insurance and Prevention in the Health and Welfare Services (Berufsgenossenschaft für Gesundheitsdienst und Wohlfahrtspflege-BGW), 22089 Hamburg, Germany

Abstract

Background: The Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) is used for the risk assessment of workplace-related activities. Thus far, the paper and pen method (RULA-PP) has been predominantly used for this purpose. In the present study, this method was compared with an RULA evaluation based on kinematic data using inertial measurement units (RULA-IMU). The aim of this study was, on the one hand, to work out the differences between these two measurement methods and, on the other, to make recommendations for the future use of the respective method on the basis of the available findings. Methods: For this purpose, 130 (dentists + dental assistants, paired as teams) subjects from the dental profession were photographed in an initial situation of dental treatment and simultaneously recorded with the IMU system (Xsens). In order to compare both methods statistically, the median value of the difference of both methods, the weighted Cohen’s Kappa, and the agreement chart (mosaic plot) were applied. Results: In Arm and Wrist Analysis—area A—here were differences in risk scores; here, the median difference was 1, and the agreement in the weighted Cohen’s kappa test also remained between 0.07 and 0.16 (no agreement to poor agreement). In area B—Neck, Trunk, and Leg Analysis—the median difference was 0, with at least one poor agreement in the Cohen’s Kappa test of 0.23–0.39. The final score has a median of 0 and a Cohen’s Kappa value of 0.21–0.28. In the mosaic plot, it can be seen that RULA-IMU had a higher discriminatory power overall and more often reached a value of 7 than RULA-PP. Conclusion: The results indicate a systematic difference between the methods. Thus, in the RULA risk assessment, RULA-IMU is mostly one assessment point above RULA-PP. Therefore, future study results of RULA by RULA-IMU can be compared with literature results obtained by RULA-PP to further improve the risk assessment of musculoskeletal diseases.

Publisher

MDPI AG

Subject

Bioengineering

Reference41 articles.

1. (2022, March 03). Deutsche Gesetzliche Unfallversicherung e.V. 2021. IFA-Fachinfos: Ergonomie. Available online: https://www.dguv.de/ifa/fachinfos/ergonomie/index.jsp.

2. Koch, K. (2020). Arbeitsplatz- und Anlagengestaltung unter Berücksichtigung der Ergonomie. [Ph.D. Thesis, Hochschule Mittweida].

3. Comparing the results of eight methods used to evaluate risk factors associated with musculoskeletal disorders;Chiasson;Int. J. Ind. Ergon.,2012

4. Assessment of physical work load in epidemiologic studies: Concepts, issues and operational considerations;Winkel;Ergonomics,1994

5. Ergonomic methods for assessing exposure to risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders;David;Occup. Med.,2005

Cited by 5 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3