ArticlePDF Available

Estimating the effectiveness of ergonomics interventions through case studies: Implications for predictive cost-benefit analysis

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) can help to justify an investment in ergonomics interventions. A predictive CBA model would allow practitioners to present a cost justification to management during the planning stages, but such a model requires reliable estimates of the benefits of ergonomics interventions. Through literature reviews and Internet searches, 250 case studies that reported the benefits of ergonomics programs and control measures were collected and summarized. Commonly reported benefits included reductions in the number of work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) or their incidence rate, as well as related lost workdays, restricted workdays, and workers' compensation costs. Additional benefits reported were related to productivity, quality, turnover and absenteeism. Benefits reported were largely positive, and payback periods for ergonomics interventions were typically less than one year. The results of this review could be used to develop predictive CBA models for ergonomics programs and individual control measures. Cost-justifying ergonomics interventions prior to implementation may help to secure management support for proposed changes. Numbers used for the benefits side of a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) need to be based on "real world" data in order to be credible. The data presented in this paper may help in the development of simple cost-benefit models for ergonomics programs and control measures.
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
Author's personal copy
Estimating the effectiveness of ergonomics interventions through case
studies: Implications for predictive cost-benefit analysis
Richard W. Goggins
a,
, Peregrin Spielholz
b
, Greg L. Nothstein
c
a
Consultation Services, Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, Olympia, WA 98504-4640, USA
b
SHARP Program, Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, Olympia, WA 98504-4330, USA
c
Energy Policy Division, Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, 906 Columbia St. SW, Olympia, WA 98504, USA
Received 13 December 2006; received in revised form 3 October 2007; accepted 12 December 2007
Available online 28 April 2008
Abstract
Problem: Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) can help to justify an investment in ergonomics interventions. A predictive CBA model would allow
practitioners to present a cost justification to management during the planning stages, but such a model requires reliable estimates of the benefits of
ergonomics interventions. Method: Through literature reviews and Internet searches, 250 case studies that reported the benefits of ergonomics
programs and control measures were collected and summarized. Results: Commonly reported benefits included reductions in the number of work-
related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) or their incidence rate, as well as related lost workdays, restricted workdays, and workers'
compensation costs. Additional benefits reported were related to productivity, quality, turnover and absenteeism. Discussion: Benefits reported
were largely positive, and payback periods for ergonomics interventions were typically less than one year. Summary: The results of this review
could be used to develop predictive CBA models for ergonomics programs and individual control measures. Impact on Industry: Cost-justifying
ergonomics interventions prior to implementation may help to secure management support for proposed changes. Numbers used for the benefits
side of a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) need to be based on real worlddata in order to be credible. The data presented in this paper may help in the
development of simple cost-benefit models for ergonomics programs and control measures.
Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Keywords: Ergonomics; Musculoskeletal disorders; Cost benefit analysis; Interventions; Effectiveness
Contents
1. Introduction .............................................................. 339
2. Methods ............................................................... 340
3. Results ................................................................ 341
4. Discussion .............................................................. 343
5. Conclusions.............................................................. 343
References ................................................................. 344
1. Introduction
Proponents of ergonomics often speak of the benefits that
organizations reap when implementing both comprehensive
ergonomics programs and individual control measures to reduce
work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs). These
benefits include not only reduced number of injuries and injury
costs, but also reduced turnover and absenteeism, improved
Journal of Safety Research 39 (2008) 339 344
www.nsc.org
Note: More details on the case studies discussed in this paper, along with a
more complete reference list, can be found at the Puget Sound Human Factors
and Ergonomics Society web site: www.pshfes.org.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 360 902 5450.
E-mail address: gogr235@LNI.wa.gov (R.W. Goggins).
www.elsevier.com/locate/jsr
0022-4375/$ - see front matter. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2007.12.006
Author's personal copy
product quality, and increased productivity. However, reporting
of these benefits in peer-reviewed journals remains limited, and
there may be a bias toward reporting only positive outcomes
(Silverstein & Clark, 2004; Volinn, 1999). Fortunately, there is
an increasing trend toward performing cost benefit analyses
(CBA) related to safety and health interventions, and many
CBA models have been developed that can be used for
ergonomics interventions (Oxenburgh, Marlow, & Oxenburgh,
2004; International Labour Organization [ILO], 2002; Mossink,
2002). A significant downside to some of these models is their
relative complexity and the need to develop a set of inputs for
each individual organization. While cost data are readily
available in most organizations, the potential benefits are
often not known. These models may be better suited for post-
intervention analysis, when these data are more readily
available. However, there is a need for a model that predicts
the benefits of an intervention, or the comparative benefits of a
range of intervention options. Such a model would assist
practitioners in cost justifying an investment in ergonomics
interventions to management during the planning stage. In order
to create such a model, one would first need to determine the
likely effectiveness of different types of ergonomics interven-
tions in reducing injuries and generating other benefits.
2. Methods
Existing CBA models were evaluated for common elements
and to see if any contained predictive elements. Oxenburgh's
Productivity Model (1991) does offer a rough guidefor the
effectiveness of controls, shown graphically in Fig. 1. These
estimates are for safety measures in general, and controls such
as barriers and light curtains are not truly relevant to
ergonomics. However, Oxenburgh's model provides a good
starting point for developing ergonomics-specific estimates.
Several reviews of the effectiveness of ergonomics inter-
ventions have provided useful estimates (Department of Labor
and Industries [DLI], 2000; Grant & Habes, 1995; Guastello,
1993). Guastello (1993), as part of a review of the effectiveness
of various accident prevention programs, evaluated two
comprehensive ergonomics programs and found an average
49.5% reduction in accidents. As part of a regulatory Cost-
Benefit Analysis a team of economists and ergonomists from
the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (DLI,
2000) estimated the benefits of ergonomic interventions by
evaluating the literature on actual ergonomic programs in the
workplace.
The DLI team carried out a literature search focusing on
reports and publications evaluating the effectiveness of
ergonomic interventions at the workplace. A total of 63 reports
and publications on the success of ergonomic programs were
evaluated and determined to be of sufficient quality for
determining rule effectiveness. These case studies, many of
which were from peer-reviewed sources, covered a wide range
of work environments. Several of the published sources were,
themselves, reviews of a number of case studies. The DLI
review focused mainly on the reduction of WMSDs and related
costs, although some information on productivity and other
benefits were also recorded. Publications and reports that were
anecdotal in nature, or lacked detailed information, were not
included in this evaluation (DLI, 2000). Table 1 summarizes the
average and median effectiveness of the workplace ergonomic
interventions, as well as the confidence intervals around the
averages.
The observed average reduction in number of WMSD
injuries was 50%, while the average reduction in WMSD costs
was 64%. The literature search also revealed a decrease in the
severity of WMSD injuries that were reported after implemen-
tation of ergonomic programs, as seen in the reduction in days
per injury and cost per claim. Confidence intervals for mean
effectiveness rate (central estimate) of 50% were established
based on the variance of the effectiveness parameter reported in
the intervention studies evaluated.
Along with other evidence, the DLI economists used the
results of this review to develop conservative estimates of a
40% reduction of WMSDs and a 50% reduction of WMSD
costs for ergonomics interventions in compliance with the
proposed rule. While the review provided adequate evidence for
this conclusion, insufficient information was available to make
assumptions regarding other benefits, or to estimate the
effectiveness of different types of individual control measures.
This raised the question: What results would one find if one
cast a wider net,searching not just textbooks and peer
reviewed journals, but also the rapidly growing set of case
studies, many of them anecdotal, that are published on the
Internet?
In order to answer this question, a search of the World Wide
Web was performed on popular search engines using several
Table 1
Washington State ergonomics rule CBA effectiveness measures
Effectiveness
Measure
Number of
Studies
Average
Reduction
Median Confidence
Interval
a
Number of
WMSDs
37 49.5% 50% 42.2%56.8%
Lost work days 24 65.0% 65% 54.6%75.4%
Days per injury 3 56.6% 65% 36.6%76.6%
WMSD costs 22 64.8% 64% 55%74.6%
Cost per claim 5 43.6% 56% 8.4%78.6%
a
Computed 95% confidence interval.
Fig. 1. Oxenburgh's (1991) estimates of the effectiveness of safety interventions.
340 R.W. Goggins et al. / Journal of Safety Research 39 (2008) 339344
Author's personal copy
different combinations of the terms ergonomics,”“solutions,
interventions,”“cost,”“benefit,”“analysis,and effective-
ness.The search revealed numerous case studies on the
benefits of both ergonomics programs and individual control
measures, including several collections of success storiesthat
were judged to be from reliable sources (Hendrick, 1996;
OSHA, 1999; U.S. Department of Defense, 2004; Ohio Bureau
of Workers' Compensation [BWC], 2002). Case studies were
included only if there was enough detail on the intervention to
determine that it was likely to have resulted in the benefits that
were attributed to it. Case studies were excluded from the
analysis if they were related more to human factors design than
ergonomics. Also, case studies that reported other safety and
health interventions in addition to ergonomics were excluded if
they did not estimate the effect of the ergonomics interventions
alone. Effectiveness measures were included in the analysis
only if they were reported either as a percentage change, as pre/
post data from which a percentage change could be calculated,
or as a standard financial outcome (e.g., benefit:cost ratio or
return on investment). Finally, effectiveness measures that were
obvious outliers (e.g., a reported productivity increase of 400%)
were excluded.
The remaining case studies were combined with the 63
published studies from the DLI regulatory CBA, along with
additional, more recently published articles. The industry, type of
intervention, analysis period, costs, benefits, and resulting
savings for each of the case studies were entered into a database.
Duplicates were screened out by searching the database by
industry type for identical numerical values among the
effectiveness measures. Descriptive statistics and confidence
intervals were calculated using Microsoft Excel 2003. The 95%
CI was simply computed as +/1.96 standard deviations from
the mean of the observed values, even when only two values
were observed. In order to assess for publication bias, a funnel
plot of sample size versus percentage injury reduction was
created using a subset of 30 case studies that reported these data.
3. Results
The search resulted in a collection of 250 case studies,
including the 63 studies from the DLI review, representing a
variety of industries and types of intervention. Eighty-seven of the
case studies described interventions in manufacturing industries,
40 were in an office environment, and 36 were in a healthcare
Table 3
Effectiveness measures from 114 ergonomics program case studies (excluding office)
Effectiveness Measure Number of Studies Average Median 95% CI Range
Number of WMSDs 66 57% 55% 51%63% 8%100%
Incidence rate24 57% 50% 45%69% 9%100%
Lost workdays44 72% 79% 65%79% 15%100%
Restricted days9 46% 37% 31%61% 16%77%
Workers' comp costs42 67% 68% 60%74% 15%100%
Cost per claim6 32% 32% 3%61% 20%76%
Productivity 6 46% 40% 22%70% 10%80%
Labor costs 2 28% 28% 12%44% 20%36%
Turnover 9 36% 40% 23%49% 3%68%
Absenteeism 2 79% 79% 42%116% 60%98%
Payback period 1 0.19 years 0.19 years - -
Cost:Benefit ratio 2 1:2.8 1:2.8 1:2.71:3.2 1:2.51:3
Due to WMSDs.
Table 2
Effectiveness measures from all 250 case studies
Effectiveness Measure Number of Studies Average Median 95% CI Range
Number of WMSDs 90 59% 56% 54%64% 8%100%
Incidence rate53 65% 67% 57%73% 9%100%
Lost workdays78 75% 80% 70%80% 3%100%
Restricted days30 53% 58% 42%64% 5%100%
Workers' comp costs52 68% 70% 62%74% 15%100%
Cost per claim7 39% 50% 11%67% 20%81%
Productivity 61 25% 20% 20%30% 0.2%80%
Labor costs 6 43% 32% 17%69% 10%85%
Scrap/errors 8 67% 75% 59%85% 8%100%
Turnover 34 48% 48% 40%56% 3%100%
Absenteeism 11 58% 60% 43%63% 14%98%
Payback period 36 0.7 years 0.4 years 0.41 year 0.034.4 years
Cost:Benefit ratio 5 1:18.7 1:6 1:7.61:45 1:2.51:72
Due to WMSDs.
Down arrows represent a reduction in the effectiveness measure.
Up arrows represent an increase in the effectiveness measure.
341R.W. Goggins et al. / Journal of Safety Research 39 (2008) 339344
Author's personal copy
setting, with the remainder in a variety of other industries. Just
over 150 of the case studies reported the results of ergonomics
programs, with the remainder being cost-benefit analyses of
individual control measures. Individual control measures were
further broken out by the type of risk factor they addressed (e.g.,
lifting, awkward postures) and the way in which they eliminated
or reduced exposure to risk factors (e.g., substituted mechanical
equipment for manual lifting, reduced level of exposure by
improving location of the lift or reducing weight of the object).
Table 2 shows the benefits reported for all 250 case studies.
Tables 35show reported benefits from case studies in non-
office environments, office environments, and healthcare,
respectively. Table 6 shows the reported effectiveness measures
for case studies on individual control measures such as lift assist
devices, workstation redesign, and tool redesign.
The individual control measure case studies were further
reviewed in order to break them out into four categories of
effectiveness:
1. Controls that, as described, were likely to eliminate the
hazardous exposure (e.g., substituting a mechanical lift
device for a manual lift; semi-automation of a process);
Table 4
Effectiveness measures from 40 office ergonomics intervention case studies
Effectiveness Measure Number of Studies Average Median 95% CI Range
Number of WMSDs 5 61% 50% 41%81% 43%100%
Incidence rate1 64% 64% --
Lost workdays4 88% 91% 74%102% 70%100%
Restricted days1 100% 100% --
Workers' comp costs3 81% 80% 72%90% 74%89%
Cost per claim1 81% 81% --
Productivity 25 17% 12% 11%23% 0.2%64%
Errors 2 32% 32% 15%79% 8%56%
Turnover 2 87% 87% 85%89% 86%88%
Absenteeism 3 46% 50% 11%81% 14%75%
Cost:Benefit Ratio 3 1:1.78 1:1.5 1:11:2.6 1:1.31:2.6
Payback period 9 0.4 years 0.4 years 0.180.62 yrs. 0.061 year
Due to WMSDs.
Table 5
Effectiveness measures from 36 healthcare program case studies
Effectiveness Measure Number of Studies Average Median 95% CI Range
Number of WMSDs 21 61% 60% 51%71% 18%100%
Incidence rate10 56% 46% 37%75% 16%100%
Lost workdays15 74% 80% 64%84% 38%100%
Restricted days8 49% 43% 23%75% 5%100%
Workers' comp costs13 70% 73% 58%82% 35%99%
Cost per claim1 20% 20% --
Turnover 8 37% 33% 15%59% 3%100%
Absenteeism 1 98% 98% --
Payback period 4 0.28 years 0.17 years 0.180.74 yrs. 0.060.71 years
Due to WMSDs.
Table 6
Effectiveness measures from 96 individual control measure case studies
Effectiveness Measure Number of Studies Average Median 95% CI Range
Number of WMSDs 18 64% 62% 51%77% 25%100%
Incidence rate28 71% 73% 61%81% 14%100%
Lost workdays30 77% 84% 67%87% 3%100%
Restricted days20 54% 61% 39%69% 5%100%
Workers' comp costs6 69% 79% 49%89% 33%91%
Productivity 30 28% 25% 21%35% 7%67%
Labor costs 4 51% 54% 14%88% 10%85%
Scrap/errors 6 79% 90% 58%100% 35%100%
Turnover 23 50% 58% 40%60% 3%100%
Absenteeism 6 57% 64% 40%74% 23%75%
Payback period 25 0.82 years 0.40 years 0.411.23 yrs. 0.034.40 years
Cost:Benefit ratio 3 1:29.3 1:10 1:12.61:71.2 1:61:72
Due to WMSDs.
342 R.W. Goggins et al. / Journal of Safety Research 39 (2008) 339344
Author's personal copy
2. Controls that would reduce the level of exposure (e.g.,
improving the location or reducing the weight of the lift;
modifications to workstations or tools)
3. Controls that would reduce the time of exposure (e.g.,
rotating to tasks with different or no risk factor exposure); and
4. Controls that primarily relied on employee behavior (e.g.,
training only or team lifting).
Fig. 2 shows the results of this effectiveness categorization.
The effectiveness estimates are based on the range of reductions
in WMSD numbers and incidence rates, as well as lost
workdays and workers' compensation costs, both of which
are indicators of injury severity. Effectiveness estimates are
presented as a range rather than as an average due to the
variability of the measures and the relatively small number of
studies in each category. While the estimates of the effective-
ness of controls that eliminate or reduce the level of exposure
are based on a reasonable number of case studies (37 and 57
studies, respectively), the estimates for reducing time of
exposure and controls that rely on behavior are based on only
one case study each, and therefore should be considered more
professional opinion than evidence-based estimates.
4. Discussion
The theory that reporting of results is biased toward positive
outcomes would appear to be borne out by the fact that, out of
525 individual effectiveness measures reported, only two were
negative, a 0.2% reduction in productivity in an office setting
(offset by a 7.75% reduction in errors) and a 20% increase in
costs per claim for a healthcare employer (although overall
workers' compensation costs for this employer were reduced by
35% for the same period). The scatter plot of sample size versus
injury reduction did show a funnel shape, with more variability
in effect size among the studies with smaller sample sizes. There
did not appear to be any asymmetry in the shape of the plot,
such as would be expected if there were a lack of reporting of
studies with no or negative effects (Peters, Sutton, Jones,
Abrams, & Rushton, 2006). Comparing Tables 1 and 2, the
results with the Internet case studies added in were, in general,
more positive than those from the DLI review alone, although
the case study numbers are mostly within the 95% confidence
interval used by DLI. Comparing Figs. 1 and 2, it appears that
the effectiveness estimates from the case studies compare fairly
well with those proposed by Oxenburgh (1991).
In addition to the injury-related effectiveness measures,
productivity, turnover, absenteeism, and payback period were
some of the more commonly reported metrics. The types of
effectiveness measures reported seem somewhat dependent on
their importance to the industry in which the intervention took
place. For example, productivity was reported in most of the
office ergonomics case studies; however, it was not reported at
all in the healthcare sector, which instead chose lost workdays,
restricted days, and turnover as the next most important metrics
to consider after injuries and costs. This seems logical, since
productivity is less important in patient care than is quality,
which can be negatively affected by staffing shortages. The
non-injury-related effectiveness measures also proved quite
positive; for example, 28 out of the 36 reported payback periods
were less than one year.
5. Conclusions
These results can have implications for the design of CBA
models. For example, the fact that most interventions have
payback periods of less than one year would allow for simpler
models that do not have to account for depreciation or
discounted cash flow. Since productivity was a commonly
reported benefit, it can be argued that it should be included in
even a basic model, while the effects on absenteeism, turnover,
and error rates might be reserved for more complex models.
Finally, these results provide an opportunity to develop CBA
models for different work settings, such as healthcare, office, or
industrial, as well as different situations, such as implementing a
comprehensive program versus an individual control measure.
There are numerous limitations to the use of these data,
however. The aforementioned bias toward reporting successful
interventions would suggest that more conservative numbers
might be appropriate in a predictive model, although one could
argue that the goal of implementing an ergonomics intervention
is to be successful, and therefore the more optimistic numbers
are appropriate. This large a number of positive case studies
would tend to reinforce the assertion that, when implemented
correctly, ergonomics interventions can provide considerable
benefits to organizations. Despite the large overall number of
examples, some of the categorized results such as the benefits
from individual control measures have relatively few examples
and quite a bit of variability, and so these numbers should be
used cautiously. Additionally, a relatively small proportion of
the case studies came from peer reviewed sources, and even
fewer are from randomized and controlled studies. Therefore, it
is possible that some of the benefits seen were not solely due to
the ergonomics interventions. In fact, the wide range of reported
effectiveness for essentially similar control measures may be
due to factors such as variations in the quality of each
organization's overall safety and health program, and the
level to which they have addressed other potential contributors
to injury rates, such as psychosocial risk factors.
Some questions also remain about the way in which the case
studies report productivity increases, and how this would
Fig. 2. A proposed relationship between level of control and estimates of
effectiveness based on results from case studies.
343R.W. Goggins et al. / Journal of Safety Research 39 (2008) 339344
Author's personal copy
translate into a benefit to the organization's bottom line. For
example, an intervention may increase productivity for a single
process by 25%, but does this translate to measurable savings in
reduced overtime costs or increased sales for the organization?
The wide range of productivity numbers that were reported does
seem to indicate that organizations use different definitions
when reporting productivity. There were also considerable
differences in time periods over which the benefits were
reported. While some organizations may have reduced WMSD
costs by 80% over a one-year period, others may have reported
the same benefit but over a three- or five-year period, or not
reported a time period at all. This makes estimating a typical
annual benefit for an intervention difficult. Issues such as these
must be resolved before these results can be put to practical use
in a predictive model. Certainly once a predictive model is
developed, it will need to be validated through more
intervention case studies similar to those upon which it is based.
References
Department of Labor and Industries [DLI] (2000). Cost-benefit analysis of the
ergonomics standard. Olympia, WA: Author.
Grant, K., & Habes, D. (1995). Summary of studies on the effectiveness of
ergonomic interventions. Applied Occupational and Environmental
Hygiene,10, 523530.
Guastello, S. J. (1993). Do we really know how well our occupational accident
prevention programs work? Safety Science,16, 445463.
Hendrick, H. W. (1996). Good ergonomics is good economics. Santa Monica,
CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
International Labour Organization [ILO]. (2002). Barefoot economics: Asses-
sing the economic value of developing an healthy work environment.
Finland: Department of Occupational Safety and Health.
Mossink, J. C. M. (2002). Understanding and performing economic assess-
ments at the company level. TNO Work and Employment Geneva: World
Health Organization.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA] (1999). Ergonomics
program, proposed rule: Appendix III-B. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Labor.
Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation [BWC] (2002). Ergonomics best
practices manuals.Columbus, OH: Author Accessed October 3, 2005 from
https://www.ohiobwc.com/employer/forms/publications/nlbwc/SafeHyg-
Pubs1.asp?txtCID=57033220.
Oxenburgh, M. (1991). Increasing productivity and profit through health &
safety. Sydney: CCH.
Oxenburgh, M., Marlow, P., & Oxenburgh, A. (2004). Increasing productivity
and profit through health & safety: The financial returns from a safe
working environment, 2nd edition Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Peters, J. L., Sutton, A. J., Jones, D. R., Abrams, K. R., & Rushton, L. (2006).
Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis.
Journal of the American Medical Association,295, 676680.
Silverstein, B., & Clark, R. (2004). Interventions to reduce work-related
musculoskeletal disorders. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology,
14, 135152.
U.S. Department of Defense (2004). Ergonomics Working Group, Search for
Success Best Practices Database. Retrieved April 1721, 2006 from http://
www.ergoworkinggroup.org/ewgweb/IndexFrames/index3.htm.
Volinn, E. (1999). Do workplace interventions prevent low-back disorders? If
so, why?: A methodologic commentary. Ergonomics,42, 258272.
Rick Goggins, M.S., CPE is a senior-level ergonomist with the Washington
State Department of Labor and Industries' Consultation Services group. He has
a B.A. in Biology from Columbia University and an M.S. in Human Factors/
Ergonomics from the University of Southern California. The primary focus of
his work is helping employers in all industry sectors to identify risk factors for
injury, and implement and evaluate solutions. He is a frequent presenter at local
and national conferences. He is also a Past President of the Puget Sound Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Peregrin Spielholz, Ph.D., CPE, CSP, is a principal investigator with the
Washington State Department of Labor and Industries' SHARP safety and
health research program. He completed his BSE and MSE degrees at the
University of Michigan and his PhD at the University of Washington. His areas
of focus are accident investigation, safety engineering, human-centered design,
and the assessment of workplace risk factors and interventions. Spielholz has
worked with companies and organizations across the country in most industry
sectors. He has published extensively in ergonomics and occupational safety
and health. Spielholz is the Principal Investigator for the NIOSH-funded
Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation (FACE) and Trucking Injury
Reduction (TIRES) Programs in Washington State and is an Affiliate Assistant
Professor in the University of Washington Department of Environmental and
Occupational Health Sciences.
Greg Nothstein, MS, MA, is now an energy policy analyst for the State of
Washington Energy Policy Office. Prior to this he was the Legislative
Economist at Washington State Department of Labor and Industries. He has a
BS in Chemistry from Pacific Lutheran University, a MS in Environmental
Engineer and a MA in Economics from the University of Washington. He was
part of the team that developed the Washington State Ergonomics rule in 2000.
344 R.W. Goggins et al. / Journal of Safety Research 39 (2008) 339344
... When it comes to estimate the implementation of ergonomic measures in organizations, costs are reported to be a limiting factor, as their rentability depends ultimately on the benefits obtained afterwards. In the light of this, there is an emerging trend to perform cost-benefit analyses (CBA) with a safety and productivity enhancing purpose, especially in the field of implementation of ergonomic measures for safety and health [36]. The development of CBA models [37,38] can allow the implementation of a cost-benefit calculator and optimization of the associated procedures and costs. ...
... The promising advance and implementation of robotic surgery seems to be a healthier and safer alternative for the surgeon's health, possibly displacing the traditional technique. Although this new alternative still causes muscle pain in surgeons, these professionals apparently develop less musculoskeletal pain in all body areas [36,39] and less mental fatigue for the surgeon [40]. However, longer preparation time and sterile drapes, and an increase in total operating time due to the slow movement of the robot's careful arms, have been reported against this technique [41]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background Surgical specialists experience significant musculoskeletal strain as a consequence of their profession, a domain within the healthcare system often recognized for the pronounced impact of such issues. The aim of this study is to calculate the risk of presenting musculoskeletal injuries in surgeons after surgical practice. Methods Cross-sectional study carried out using an online form (12/2021–03/2022) aimed at members of the Spanish Association of Surgeons. Demographic variables on physical and professional activity were recorded, as well as musculoskeletal pain (MSP) associated with surgical activity. Univariate and multivariate analysis were conducted to identify risk factors associated with the development of MSP based on personalized surgical activity. To achieve this, a risk algorithm was computed and an online machine learning calculator was created to predict them. Physiotherapeutic recommendations were generated to address and alleviate each MSP. Results A total of 651 surgeons (112 trainees, 539 specialists). 90.6% reported MSP related to surgical practice, 60% needed any therapeutic measure and 11.7% required a medical leave. In the long term, MSP was most common in the cervical and lumbar regions (52.4, 58.5%, respectively). Statistically significant risk factors (OR CI 95%) were for trunk pain, long interventions without breaks (3.02, 1.65–5.54). Obesity, indicated by BMI, to lumbar pain (4.36, 1.84–12.1), while an inappropriate laparoscopic screen location was associated with cervical and trunk pain (1.95, 1.28–2.98 and 2.16, 1.37–3.44, respectively). A predictive model and an online calculator were developed to assess MSP risk. Furthermore, a need for enhanced ergonomics training was identified by 89.6% of surgeons. Conclusions The prevalence of MSP among surgeons is a prevalent but often overlooked health concern. Implementing a risk calculator could enable tailored prevention strategies, addressing modifiable factors like ergonomics.
... These benefits have a direct impact on a firm's financial sustainability. The latter improves when insurance premium payments and health care costs are reduced, and costs related to sick leave, temporary work arrangements, and additional administration are lower (Goggins et al. 2008;Neumann and Dul 2010;Punnett 1999;Teufer et al. 2019). Such costs and related savings are significant although often incompletely measured by traditional accounting measures (Punnett 1999). ...
... • The students could be motivated to learn through case examples. HF/E success stories from different firms and industries could enhance student expertise in human-centric decision making (see the mini-cases in the next section and cases in, e.g., Hendrick 2008; Goggins et al. 2008). • Students could be encouraged to continue using comprehension exercises in their (future) working life, continuously learning from the practical examples within and outside their own workplace or the business they (will) manage. ...
Chapter
Human factors and ergonomics (HF/E) as a concept has been narrowed down to individual health and well-being and therefore excluded from business education as irrelevant. Such conceptualization neglects the synergistic goals of HF/E to simultaneously optimize individual well-being and overall system performance. Drawing on a systematic review of the literature on HF/E, we showcase that employee well-being and productivity are rarely integrated into the strategic management of firms in manufacturing industries. Moreover, the narrow interpretation of HF/E limits the possibilities to make human-centric decisions and, consequently, the ability to obtain various benefits that would contribute to productivity and firms’ better overall performance. The rapid growth of new technologies and the digitalization of work particularly require the highlighting of HF/E in managerial planning and the strategic renewal of the firm. Contradicting frequent erroneous expectations, the integration of new technologies or digitalized processes does not necessarily lead to better outcomes for the firm or individuals working in it. The benefits can only be reached if human-system interaction is designed and managed appropriately. To close the knowledge gap on HF/E in the strategic management of the firm, we present a framework that can be used when teaching (future) managers to integrate HF/E into strategy and its implementation. This framework can inform educators about the essential points of HF/E in strategy work and help to lead classroom discussions on this topic. As a result, our contribution helps address Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 8—Decent work and economic growth.
... 9 Ergonomic interventions can reduce or prevent WRMD and also improve productivity, efficiency, work quality, psychosocial factors, economic benefits, and reduce absenteeism. [10][11][12][13][14][15][16] Despite this evidence surgical ergonomics lags behind that of most other occupations or industries. 17,18 Otorhinolaryngologists (ORLs) have some of the highest rates of occupational MSK pain, with up to 97% reporting discomfort attributed to work tasks. ...
Article
Full-text available
Objective Endoscopic sinus and skull base surgery has led to significant improvements in patient outcomes, yet may have come at a cost to surgeons' musculoskeletal (MSK) health. We aimed to determine the prevalence and characteristics of work‐related MSK disorders (WRMDs) in endoscopic sinus and skull base surgeons; to investigate contributing factors for WRMD in this population; and to evaluate the effectiveness of ergonomic interventions on the severity or prevalence of WRMD in this population. Data Sources Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to April 2, 2024. A bibliographic examination was performed for further papers. Review Methods Inclusion criteria included original peer‐reviewed papers with work‐related MSK outcomes (prevalence, contributing factors, and interventions) relating to endoscopic sinus and/or skull base surgeons in any language. Results Of 25,772 unique citations, 37 studies met the inclusion criteria. The pooled lifetime, point, and 12‐month prevalences of WRMD were 75.9% (95% confidence interval; I ² , 67.2%‐83.6%, I ² 95.6%), 80.8% (77.0%‐84.3%, I ² 98.0%), and 82.0% (71.8%‐90.3%, I ² 60.96%) respectively. The neck, lumbar spine, and thoracic spine were the most commonly involved areas. One of 9 studies on contributing factors investigated discomfort as an outcome. The remainder focussed on surrogate outcomes (eg, posture, hand dysfunction). Two of the 13 intervention studies investigated pain or fatigue as an outcome. The remainder targeted posture, muscle activity, or workload. Conclusion WRMDs are highly prevalent in endoscopic sinus and skull base surgeons. Further studies focusing on the direct outcomes of WRMD such as pain are needed.
... A company's decision is usually based on monetary aspects, and the gained advantages, like the fenceless operation of the robot, may not be enough to compensate for these disadvantages. Furthermore, ergonomic advantages of HRC approaches are usually not included in such monetary calculations [31]. Based on this conclusion, several starting points for research are suggested: ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Human-robot collaboration (HRC) is designed to combine the repeatability and precision of robots with the flexibility and adaptability of human workers. However, despite being researched for several years, HRC applications are still not broadly adopted in the industry. This study aims to identify current barriers to HRC adoption in the industry from a practical perspective. Therefore, a qualitative explorative approach based on semi-structured interviews with knowledgeable industry experts was chosen. The study was conducted in cooperation between IMT Nord Europe and the Technical University of Munich in France and Germany. Thereby, several experts from various backgrounds in areas such as robot manufacturing, system integration, and robot application in manufacturing were interviewed. These interviews are inductively analysed, and the findings are compared to the state-of-the-art in scientific HRC research. The study offers insights into the practical barriers to HRC adoption resulting from the technical, economic, social, and normative dimensions as well as the trade-offs between them. Based on these insights, opportunities for future research are identified.
Chapter
Agricultural development is essential to minimize poverty, enhance broader prosperity, and supply food to an increased population in the future. Labor-intensive agriculture is common in low and middle-income countries. Small and medium-scale farm operations are predominant in those countries and the diffusion of technologies is slower when compared to countries with higher income levels. Farmworks usually involve a higher level of physical activities and manual labor, which push farmworkers to a posture with a high risk of causing work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). The workforce is the most valuable asset of any production operation. Therefore, serious attention should be given to working conditions for improving productivity and output quality. The MSDs can cause severe long-term negative consequences such as reduced workers’ productivity, a decline in farm income, other health problems such as depression or stress, and poor quality of life. Such negative consequences lead to less productive farming activities, impacting food security. Several ergonomic interventions in the agriculture and livestock production sector indicate improvements in productivity and performance by sustaining workers’ health. Ergonomic interventions create a common environment wherein farmers and their employers collaborate; this would benefit employees from enhanced safety, health, comfort, improved user-friendliness of tools, equipment, and software, and improved quality of work life, whereas employers can benefit from reduced costs and improved productivity. Sustainable agriculture requires a healthy workforce with sustainable human well-being, which is a vital part of a profitable and sustainable agricultural industry. The sustainability of farm workers’ well-being requires significant input from ergonomics. Plenty of research is conducted on agriculture ergonomics to address the health, well-being, and effectiveness of farm workers. However, more research on the micro-ergonomics level may be needed when considering the workforce’s contribution to agriculture and agriculture’s contribution to the country’s economy and food security.
Article
This study proposes a systematic approach to address ergonomic factors, including physical, environmental and psychosocial aspects, in solving assembly line balancing problems. A three-stage framework is developed, starting with determining weights for ergonomic risk assessment methods using the interval-valued spherical fuzzy analytical hierarchy process. In the second stage, a fuzzy logic model for integrated ergonomic risk assessment is constructed based on these weights, and the integrated ergonomic risk score is determined. In the third stage, a mathematical model is formulated to minimise the cycle time while balancing the ergonomic risk level. A case study conducted in a wire harness factory validated the effectiveness of the proposed approach, showing a 10-11% improvement in line efficiency and a 12-25% enhancement in ergonomic risk balancing performance. These findings underscore the potential benefits of implementing this approach, which can significantly improve occupational safety and overall performance.
Chapter
Full-text available
The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on educational delivery. Students are now enrolling in online classes offered by their respective schools to make the most of their time at home during quarantine. This means they’ll spend a lot of time in front of computers while learning. This requires them to spend extended periods behind their computers. Thus, the study’s objective was to assess the ergonomic risk factors for the musculoskeletal discomfort of Industrial Engineering students at Mapua University during online learning. Moreover, it was found that the causes of these MSDs were awkward posture, repetitive tasks, and maintaining a posture for an extended period. Consequently, the researcher gathered 152 enrolled IE students at Mapua University. To identify the ergonomic risks, the researcher utilized the ROSA method with CMDQ to analyze the level of discomfort of the students. A risk assessment matrix was also developed for the top five body parts: lower back, upper back, neck, hip/buttocks, and right shoulder. The analysis was then performed on the relationship between the risk factors and the five (5) body parts and hand parts with the highest risk of MSD. These body parts were obtained from the risk assessment matrix results. Correlation and ANOVA analysis with 0.05 alpha level and Hopkins [1] strength criterion was also used to determine their relation and significance to the factors. It was found that sex, workstation setup, screen time, and type of device contributed to the students’ discomfort. To minimize the MSD of the students, the researcher provided FMEA to analyze and evaluate the risks. Next was the proposed workstation design using 3D Sketch Up software and Ergonomics and Design [2] as an Anthropometric Reference Guide. Then, QFD was integrated to identify the wants and expectations of the students in purchasing the proposed ergonomic workstation. Finally, providing an ergonomic intervention plan incorporating the hierarchy of controls to meet the OSH standard to help the students mitigate or minimize accidents, injuries, and MSD while working from home.
Article
Full-text available
Egger's regression test is often used to help detect publication bias in meta-analyses. However, the performance of this test and the usual funnel plot have been challenged particularly when the summary estimate is the natural log of the odds ratio (lnOR). To compare the performance of Egger's regression test with a regression test based on sample size (a modification of Macaskill's test) with lnOR as the summary estimate. Simulation of meta-analyses under a number of scenarios in the presence and absence of publication bias and between-study heterogeneity. Type I error rates (the proportion of false-positive results) for each regression test and their power to detect publication bias when it is present (the proportion of true-positive results). Type I error rates for Egger's regression test are higher than those for the alternative regression test. The alternative regression test has the appropriate type I error rates regardless of the size of the underlying OR, the number of primary studies in the meta-analysis, and the level of between-study heterogeneity. The alternative regression test has comparable power to Egger's regression test to detect publication bias under conditions of low between-study heterogeneity. Because of appropriate type I error rates and reduction in the correlation between the lnOR and its variance, the alternative regression test can be used in place of Egger's regression test when the summary estimates are lnORs.
Article
Several reasons for the failure of business and government decison-makers to more adequately recognize the benefits of human factors/ergonomics and strongly support and endorse its application are reviewed. In particular, the failure of members of our profession to more consisistently and adequately document and publicize the cost-benefits of their ernonomic applications is noted. To support the notion that good ergonomics is good economics, a variety of actual ergonomic applications, and the documented cost-benefits of each, are described.
Article
This article summarizes evaluation data for ten types of accident prevention program drawn from 53 program evaluations: personnel selection variables, technological interventions, behavior modification programs, poster campaigns, quality circles, exercise and stress management, near-miss accident reporting, comprehensive ergonomics, the International Safety Rating System (ISRS), and the Finnish national control program. Standard measures of effect size were computed for source studies which described the effectiveness of programs in terms of the percentage reduction in accidents attributable to the program. By this standard, personnel selection techniques were the least effective (3.8%), and comprehensive ergonomics programs (49.5%) were the most effective. Some methodological issues in safety program evaluation are discussed in conjunction with some further thoughts on a previously published review of ISRS evaluation results (in 1991).
Article
The demand for workplace interventions to prevent low-back disorders has increased in recent years. At the same time, a crisis in the literature has become apparent: there are conflicting reports on whether or not these interventions work. With the aim of understanding the reason for the dissension in the literature, six studies were selected for close examination. These were studies of interventions based on differing principles, i.e. a change in organizational ethos to promote back safety, back belt use, the introduction of ergonomic devices, and back-strengthening exercises. If the studies are taken at face value, any of the interventions, regardless of type, has a tremendous effect. Methodological problems inherent in these studies may provide a clue to why essentially different interventions were found to be consistently successful. Study design quality has long been noted to exert a particular influence on the evaluation of outcomes: the quality of the study design is often inversely related to reported outcomes. Of the six studies selected for examination, four did not include a contemporaneous control group, five did not randomly assign subjects to test and control groups, and none included a placebo group. Given these research designs, variables other than those tested by the studies may have produced the reported results. These variables include 'beliefs of the intervention providers' and 'coalescence of the work group', both of which are discussed. Two approaches, the pragmatic and the explanatory, may be used to study workplace interventions to prevent low-back disorders. Most of the examined studies are pragmatically oriented. Having dealt with study design problems expeditiously, these studies may be characterized as more immediately responsive to the demand to evaluate workplace interventions than explanatory studies. On the other hand, explanatory studies, most notably associated with randomized clinical trials in medicine, are more rigorous. Enough pragmatically oriented studies have been conducted to suggest that workplace interventions may have an effect on low-back disorders. More conclusive explanatory studies may now be conducted.
Article
Work-related Musculoskeletal Disorders (WMSDs) continue to present a major challenge to workers and their employers in virtually every industry sector. Many disciplines have been involved in providing advice and working on interventions to prevent WMSDs or reduce their consequences. Since the early 1990s, 15 systematic reviews (excluding specific treatment modalities) have appeared in the peer-reviewed literature addressing musculoskeletal disorder reduction. The National Research Council-Institute of Medicine summarized many of these efforts in 2001. Using a systematic literature search strategy, we identified 20 randomized controlled studies, 17 quasi-experimental studies with control groups, and 36 paper reporting case studies with in the peer-reviewed literature between 1999-2003. Evidence is continuing to build that demonstrates combinations of measures appear to have the greatest effect in reducing WMSDs, although individual engineering and administrative controls can also have positive effects.
Understanding and performing economic assess-ments at the company level. TNO Work and Employment Geneva: World Health Organization. Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA] (1999) Ergonomics program, proposed rule: Appendix III-B Ergonomics best practices manuals
  • J C M Mossink
Mossink, J. C. M. (2002). Understanding and performing economic assess-ments at the company level. TNO Work and Employment Geneva: World Health Organization. Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA] (1999). Ergonomics program, proposed rule: Appendix III-B. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation [BWC] (2002). Ergonomics best practices manuals.Columbus, OH: Author Accessed October 3, 2005 from https://www.ohiobwc.com/employer/forms/publications/nlbwc/SafeHyg-Pubs1.asp?txtCID=57033220.
Summary of studies on the effectiveness of ergonomic interventions
  • Grant
Grant, K., & Habes, D. (1995). Summary of studies on the effectiveness of ergonomic interventions. Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 10, 523−530.
Increasing productivity and profit through health & safety
  • M Oxenburgh
Oxenburgh, M. (1991). Increasing productivity and profit through health & safety. Sydney: CCH.