Association between psychosocial factors and musculoskeletal symptoms among Iranian nurses

Department of Occupational Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran.
American Journal of Industrial Medicine (Impact Factor: 1.59). 10/2010; 53(10):1032-9. DOI: 10.1002/ajim.20869
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT While psychosocial factors have been associated with musculoskeletal symptoms among nurses in some countries, previous studies of Iranian nurses show little association using a demand and control questionnaire. The aim of this study is to assess and evaluate the prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms and to assess their relationships with psychosocial factors among nurses in Iran.
In a cross-sectional study, 347 hospital nurses completed a self-reported questionnaire containing the Standardized Nordic questionnaire for musculoskeletal symptoms and the General Nordic questionnaire for Psychological and Social factors at work (QPS Nordic 34+ Questionnaire).
Prevalence of low back pain, knee pain, shoulder pain, and neck pain were 73.2%, 68.7%, 48.6%, and 46.3%, respectively. Middle and high stress groups had higher crude and adjusted odds than the low stress group for all body sites. The association for neck, wrist/hand, and upper back and ankle/foot reports (adjusted odds ratio for high stress ranging from 2.4 to 3.0) were statistically significant.
We observed a high prevalence of self-reported musculoskeletal symptoms at a number of body sites, which were associated with psychosocial factors and specifically stress as defined by the QPS Nordic 34+ Questionnaire.

Download full-text


Available from: Jack Tigh Dennerlein, Jul 11, 2014
  • Source
    • "Studies have reported associations between psychosocial factors and low back pain in patient care workers (e.g. [Lipscomb et al., 2002; Mehrdad et al., 2010]); however, the relationships are complex and variable [van den Heuvel et al., 2004]. The psychological demands scale used in our questionnaire may capture some of the general physical demands of a job that are not captured by the specific ergonomic practice scale questions. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: With the high prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) for patient care unit workers, prevention efforts through ergonomic practices within units may be related to symptoms associated with typical work-related MSDs. We completed a cross-sectional survey of patient care workers (n = 1,572) in two large academic hospitals in order to evaluate relationships between self-reported musculoskeletal pain, work interference due to this pain, and limitations during activities of daily living (functional limitations) and with ergonomic practices and other organizational policy and practices metrics within the unit. Bivariate and multiple logistic regression analyses tested the significance of these associations. Prevalence of self-reported musculoskeletal symptoms in the past 3 months was 74% with 53% reporting pain in the low back. 32.8% reported that this pain interfered with their work duties and 17.7% reported functional limitations in the prior week. Decreased ergonomic practices were significantly associated with reporting pain in four body areas (low back, neck/shoulder, arms, and lower extremity) in the previous 3 months, interference with work caused by this pain, symptom severity, and limitations in completing activities of daily living in the past week. Except for low back pain and work interference, these associations remained significant when psychosocial covariates such as psychological demands were included in multiple logistic regressions. Ergonomic practices appear to be associated with many of the musculoskeletal symptoms denoting their importance for prevention efforts in acute health care settings.
    American Journal of Industrial Medicine 02/2012; 55(2):107-16. DOI:10.1002/ajim.21036 · 1.59 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Low co-worker support has been shown to increase the risk of low back disorder four-fold among cosmetologists (Tsigonia et al., 2009). Job stress has also been associated with increased incidence of low back disorders (Davis and Heaney, 2000; Ferguson and Marras, 1997; Mehrdad et al., 2010). Marras et al. (2000) found that in depending on personality type, psychosocially stressful environments lead to increased muscle coactivity, which increased spine loading and risk of low back disorder. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Biomechanical, psychosocial and individual risk factors for low back disorder have been studied extensively however few researchers have examined all three risk factors. The objective of this was to develop a low back disorder risk model in furniture distribution workers using biomechanical, psychosocial and individual risk factors. This was a prospective study with a six month follow-up time. There were 454 subjects at 9 furniture distribution facilities enrolled in the study. Biomechanical exposure was evaluated using the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (2001) lifting threshold limit values for low back injury risk. Psychosocial and individual risk factors were evaluated via questionnaires. Low back health functional status was measured using the lumbar motion monitor. Low back disorder cases were defined as a loss of low back functional performance of -0.14 or more. There were 92 cases of meaningful loss in low back functional performance and 185 non cases. A multivariate logistic regression model included baseline functional performance probability, facility, perceived workload, intermediated reach distance number of exertions above threshold limit values, job tenure manual material handling, and age combined to provide a model sensitivity of 68.5% and specificity of 71.9%. The results of this study indicate which biomechanical, individual and psychosocial risk factors are important as well as how much of each risk factor is too much resulting in increased risk of low back disorder among furniture distribution workers.
    Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon) 09/2011; 27(2):117-23. DOI:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2011.09.002 · 1.88 Impact Factor
  • Progress in brain research 02/2000; 126:369-96. DOI:10.1016/S0079-6123(00)26025-1 · 5.10 Impact Factor
Show more