Ergonomic risk factors of female nurses with musculoskeletal pain are higher

Öz

Aim: The aim of this study is to examine the pain with female nurses with musculoskeletal pain complaints. It is the determination of the difference between the female colleagues without complaints in terms of occupational-related ergonomic risks. Materials and Methods: The population of the study consisted of female nurses who have been providing professional nursing services for at least 6 months in the research and practice hospital affiliated to Süleyman Demirel University. During the study; the demographic information form, Visual Analog Scale, Work Role Functionality Questionnaire, Short Form 12 (SF-12) Health Survey Questionnaire and ErgoEnf-Questionnaire Survey of Ergonomic Risks Among Nursing Workers-TR (ErgoEnf-TR) were used. After the participants were informed about the research and their consents were obtained, relevant data collection tools were applied to female nurses using the face-to-face interview technique. Results: One hundred four female working in nursing services participated to the study. While 59.6% (n=62) of the individuals included in the study stated that they did not experience musculoskeletal pain in the last six months (Group control), 40.4% (n=42) of them stated that they had musculoskeletal system pain in the last six months. (Group painful). Between the groups; a statistically significant difference was found in the degree of pain felt in the last week, in the physical sub-dimension of general quality of life and in the biomechanical, organizational and psychosocial factors of the ergonomic risk assessment questionnaire (p< 0.05). Conclusion: Among the female nurses participating in our research, the participants who have had musculoskeletal pain for the last 6 months, according to those without pain complaints; It has a higher degree of pain felt in the last week, a physical subscale score of lower overall quality of life, and a higher risk when higher ergonomic risk assessment is performed.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ergonomics
• Nurse
• Musculoskeletal pain
• Quality of life

Kas iskelet sistemi ağrısı olan kadın hemşirelerin ergonomik risk faktörü daha yüksektir

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, kas-iskelet sistemi kaynaklı ağrı şikayeti olan kadın hemşireler ile ağrı şikayeti olmayan kadın meslektaşları arasında, maruz kalınan meslek ile ilişkili ergonomik riskler açısından farkın belirlenmesidir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Araştırma ve Uygulama Hastanesinde en az 6 aydır profesyonel olarak hemşirelik hizmeti veren kadın hemşireler çalışmanın evrenini oluşturmuştur. Çalışma sırasında; araştırmacılarca oluşturulmuş demografik bilgi formu, Görsel Ağrı Skalası, Çalışma Rolü İşlevselliği Anketi, Yaşam Kalitesi Ölçeği Kısa Form 12 (SF-12) ile Hemşirelik Hizmeti Verenlerin Ergonomik Risklerini Değerlendirme Anketi kullanılmıştır. Katılımcılar araştırma hakkında bilgilendirilip onamları alındıktan sonra kadın hemşirelere yüz yüze görüşme tekniği kullanılarak ilgili veri toplama araçları uygulanmıştır. Bulgular: Çalışmaya hemşirelik hizmetlerinde görev alan 104 kadın katılmıştır. Araştırmaya dahil edilen bireylerin %59,6 (n=62)’sı son altı ayda kas iskelet sistemi ağrısı yaşamadığını beyan ederken (Grup kontrol), %40,4 (n=42)’ü son altı ayda kas iskelet sistemi ağrısı yakınmasına sahip olduğunu (Grup ağrılı) söylemiştir. Gruplar arasında; son 1 haftada hissedilen ağrı derecesinde, genel yaşam kalitesinin fiziksel alt boyutunda, ergonomik risk değerlendirme anketinin biyomekanik ile organizasyonel ve psikososyal faktörlerinde istatistiksel anlamlı fark tespit edilmiştir (p<0.05). Sonuç: Araştırmamıza katılan kadın hemşireler arasında son 6 aydır kas-iskelet sistemi kaynaklı ağrısı olan katılımcılar, ağrı şikayeti olmayanlara göre; son 1 haftada daha yüksek hissedilen ağrı derecesine, daha düşük genel yaşam kalitesinin fiziksel alt boyut skoruna ve daha yüksek ergonomik riske sahiptir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ergonomi
• Hemşireler
• Kas-iskelet ağrısı
• Yaşam kalitesi

Kaynakça

1. 1.Coluci MZO, Alexandre NMC. Psychometric properties evaluation of a new ergonomicsrelated job factors questionnaire developed for nursing workers. Appl Ergon. 2014;45(6):1588-96.
2. 2.Gül A, Üstündağ H, Kahraman B, Purisa S. Evaluation of musculoskeletal pain among nurses. Journal of Health Sciences and Professions. 2014;1(1):1-10.
3. 3.Kanbay Y, Üstün B. Determinaton of nurse’s workplace stress and coping methods in Artvin and Kars. DEUHFED.2009;2(4):155-61.
4. 4.Cürcani M, Tan M. Occupational risk factors and health problems faced by nurses that working dialysis unit and nephrology service TAF Prev Med Bull. 2009;8(4):339-44.
5. 5.Ergüney S, Tan M, Sivrikaya S, Erdem N. Occupational risks that nurses face. Journal of Atatürk University School of Nursing. 2001;4(1):63-73.
6. 6. Özbaş A, Solmaz Ş, Çavdar İ, Akyolcu N, Urhan S, Yıldız L. Burnout of the nurses working in the otolaryngology clinic. Florence Nightingale J Nurs. 2006;14(56):41-8.
7. 7.Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB, Hoogduin K, Schaap C, Kladler A. On the clinical validity of the maslach burnout inventory and the burnout measure. Psychol Health. 2001;16(5):565-82.
8. 8. Ercan S, Önal Ö, Çelik G, Canbulut A, Acar HT, Arslan E, et al. Turkish validity and reliability study of the questionnaire survey of ergonomic risks among nursing workers. Suleyman Demirel University The Journal of Health Science. 2021;12(1):30-7.

9. 9. Hawker GA, Mian S, Kendzerska T, French M. Measures of adult pain: visual analog scale for pain (vas pain), numeric rating scale for pain (nrs pain), mcgill pain questionnaire (mpq), short-form mcgill pain questionnaire (sf-mpq), chronic pain grade scale (cpgs), short form-36 bodily pain scale (sf-36 bps), and measure of intermittent and constant osteoarthritis pain (icoap). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken).2011;63(11):240-52.
10. 10. Irmak A, Bumin G, Irmak R. The cross-cultural adaptation of the work role functioning questionnaire to Turkish, International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 2011, Springer, Berlin, Germany.
11. 11. Koçyiğit H, Aydemir Ö, Fişek G, Ölmez N, Memiş AK. Form-36 (KF-36)’nın Türkçe versiyonunun güvenilirliği ve geçerliliği. İlaç ve Tedavi Dergisi. 1999;12(2):102-6.
12. 12. Buğdaycı R, Kurt AÖ, Tezcan H, Şaşmaz T, Kuruloğlu N, Yüceer NT, et al. İçel ilinde görev yapan hekimlerde ruhsal tükenmişlik durumu ve etkileyen faktörler. Sağlık Çalışanlarının Sağlığı 2. Ulusal Kongresi, 2001, Ankara, Türkiye, 141.
13. 13. Souza AC, Alexandre NM. Musculoskeletal symptoms, work ability, and disability among nursing personnel. Workplace Health Saf. 2012;60(8):353-60.
14. 14. Violante FS, Fiori M, Fiorentini C, et al. Associations of psychosocial and individual factors with three different categories of back disorder among nursing staff. J Occup Health.2004;46(2):100-8.
15. 15. Squadroni R, Barbini N. Ergonomic analysis of nursing activities in relation to the development of musculoskeletal disorders. Assist Inferm Ric. 2003;22(3):151-8.
16. 16. Ülgüldür C, Dedeli Caydam O. Assessment of ergonomics and musculoskeletal system disorders in health professionals. IDUHeS. 2020;3(1):8-37.
17. 17. Gerbaudo L, Violante B. Relationship between musculoskeletal disorders and work-related awkward postures among a group of health care workers in a hospital. Med Lav.2008;99(1):29-39.
18. 18. Bazarko D, Cate RA, Azocar F, Kreitzer MJ. The impact of an innovative mindfulness-based stress reduction program on the health and well-being of nurses employed in a corporate setting. J Workplace Behav Health. 2013;28(2):107-33.
19. 19. Konstantinou MS, Efstathiou A, Charalambous G, Kaitelidou D, Jelastopulu E. Assessing the healthrelated quality of life of nurses in the public sector of Cyprus. Int J Caring Sci. 2018;11(1):100-7.
20. 20. Aydemir İ, Yaşar GY. The effects of ergonomic design on health professionals and patient safety. J Health Nurs Manag. 2016;3(2):174-84.
21. 21. Babayiğit MA, Kurt M. Hospital Ergonomics. İstanbul Med J. 2013;14:153-9.
22. 22. Hedge A, James T, Pavlovic-Veselinovic S. Ergonomics concerns and the impact of healthcare information technology. Int J Ind Ergon 2011;41(4):345-51.