1. Evaluation and Analysis of Office
Workstation and Worker
A Study to ascertain need for training in
office ergonomics and preventing MSDs
Dr. Amol Sangekar OTR (USA)

2. INTRODUCTION
• Computer work , A norm in modern business
• Highly repetitive
• Businesses
– Manufacturing
– Retail Banking
– Hospitals
– Travel
– Etc.

3. RATIONALE
The study focuses on various aspects of Office
work and hence aims to provide with data on
areas that require further ergonomic inputs

4. AIM
To analyse; based on the result; the areas of
computer work which require further ergonomic
inputs and training and enable us to correctly
identify problem ergonomic areas and provide
specific training in those areas with the goal of
MSDs prevention.

5. OBJECTIVE
Assess areas which are affected during repetitive
office work in sitting while using computers (either
desktop or laptop).

6. METHODOLOGY

7. METHODOLOGY
• A retrospective study was conducted using
survey data of 124 employees across three
different organisations.
• Data collection was done manually.

8. METHODOLOGY
• The data was gained using the modified OSHA
scale was blinded and coded and employees
were de identified.
• A total of 124 employees across three
different organisations were assessed using
the OSHA modified VDT (Visual desktop
Terminal) scale.
• Scoring was in ‘YES’ / ‘NO’ format.

9. MODIFIED OSHA SCALE

10. METHODOLOGY
• Statistics were derived using excel 2010.The
‘yes’ positive response was scored 1 and ‘No’
response was scored 0.
• A sum of ‘1’ and ‘0’ for each section was
calculated and presented in form of graph.
The ‘1’ and ‘0’ response were added up and
percentage was derived.

11. METHODOLOGY
• Exclusion criterion- Out of 135 employees only
124 were included. 6 employees were
excluded due to incomplete data and 5 due to
pre-existing MSDs
• Inclusion criterion- Employees with no pre-
existing MSDs were included

12. METHODOLOGY
• The scale was adapted for applicable working
scenarios. The questionnaire was divided into
6 areas.
1. Working postures.
2. Seating
3. Input devices
4. Monitor
5. Work Area
6. Accessories

13. RESULT

14. WORKING
POSTURES
Positive
Response
Negative
Response Total % Positive % Negative
a. Head , Neck
upright
39 85 124 31% 69%
b. Head , Neck
facing forward
117 7 124 94% 6%
c. UA and elbows
close to body
106 18 124 85% 15%
d. FA, wrists, hands
parallel to floor
100 24 124 81% 19%
e. Wrists and hands
straight
100 24 124 81% 19%
f. Thighs parallel to
floor, legs
perpendicular 65 59 124 52% 48%
g. Feet flat on floor
93 31 124 75% 25%
h. Organized VDT
to vary activities.
65 59 124 52% 48%
685 307 992 69% 31%

15. SEATING
Positive
Response
Negative
Response Total % Positive % Negative
a. Back rest
provides support
112 12 124 90% 10%
b. Seat width
and depth
appropriate 124 0 124 100% 0%
c. Seat front
does not press on
back of knees 124 0 124 100% 0%
d. Seat has
waterfall front
122 2 124 98% 2%
e. Arm rests
provide support
to both FA 55 69 124 44% 56%
537 83 620 87% 13%

16. INPUT
DEVICES Positive
Response
Negative
Response Total % Positive % Negative
a. Desk is large
enough to hold
keyboard and
mouse. 122 2 124 98% 2%
b. Mouse located
right next to the
keyboard to prevent
reaching.
40 84 124 32% 68%
c. Mouse shape.
Size fits hands of
operator
43 81 124 35% 65%
d. Wrists and Hands
do not rest on hard
edges
81 43 124 65% 35%
286 210 496 58% 42%

17. MONITOR Positive
Response
Negative
Response
Total % Positive % Negative
a. Top line of
screen at or below
eye level.
26 98 124 21% 79%
b. Monitor
distance allows
reading without
bending neck or
head
119 5 124 96% 4%
c. Monitor position
directly in front to
prevent head and
neck twisting 122 2 124 98% 2%
No glare on screen
118 6 124 95% 5%
385 111 496 78% 22%

18. WORK AREA
Positive
Response
Negative
Response Total % Positive % Negative
a. Thighs have
clearance space
between chair
and desk 124 0 124 100% 0%
b. Legs and feet
have clearance space
under the desk. 124 0 124 100% 0%
248 0 248 100% 0%

19. ACCESSORIES
Positive
Response
Negative
Response Total % Positive % Negative
Workstation and
equipment have
sufficient
adjustability ,
124 0 124 100% 0%
124 0 124 100% 0%

20. WORKING POSTURES
• 69% participants did not
maintain head and neck
upright while working at the
VDT.
• 6% failed to maintain their
head, neck and trunk to
face forward.
31%
69%
WORKING POSTURES- Head and
Neck upright
1
2
94%
6%
WORKING POSTURES- Head,
neck, trunk to face forward
1 2

21. WORKING POSTURES
• 48% failed to maintain
straight wrists and hands
while working.
• 48% failed to maintain feet
flat on the floor or on the
foot rest
52%
48%
WORKING POSTURES- Wrists
and Hands to be straight
1 2
52%
48%
WORKING POSTURES- Feet to
rest flat on the floor or on foot
rest
1 2

22. SEATING
• 10% failed to correctly use
the provided backrest.
• 56% failed to support their
forearms on the armrests
90%
10%
SEATING- Backrest provides
support
1 2
44%
56%
SEATING- Armrests support
both forearms
1 2

23. INPUT DEVICES
• 68 % participants failed to
place the mouse close to
the keyboard.
• 35% of participants rested
their wrists on hard edges
while working.
32%
68%
INPUT DEVICES- Mouse is
located right next to keyboard
1 2
65%
35%
INPUT DEVICES- Wrists and
hand do not rest on edges
1 2

24. MONITOR
• 79% of participants failed to maintain the top
line of the screen at or below eye level.
21%
79%
MONITOR-Top line of screen is at or below the eye level
1 2

25. RESULT
• All the three companies that were a part of
this survey had similar work desk and VDT
setups.
• Most items that are reported ‘negative’ are
common across companies.

26. RESULT
• WORKING POSTURES-Participants require
training for point # 1, #6 and # 8.
– A large population of participants failed to
maintain head and neck upright
– Maintain wrists and hands straight while working
– Place their feet flat on the floor or supported by
the foot rest.
– Average number of participants scoring negatives
under this section is 31% (38.44 participants) of
the total 124 assessed

27. RESULT
• SEATING-A staggering 69% of the participants
failed to
– Maintain their support both forearms while
performing VDT.
– Average number of participants scoring negatives
under this section is 13% (3.72)of the total 124
assessed.

28. RESULT
• INPUT DEVICES-A large number of participants
scored negatives on 4 out of 3 questions.
Participants failed to maintain-
– The mouse right next to keyboard so it could be
operated without reaching
– Mouse of shape and size that fit their hand
– Wrist and hands off the sharp edges
– Average number of participants scoring negatives
under this section is 42% (52.08)of the total 124
assessed.

29. RESULT
• MONITOR- Participants scored negatives on 1
out of 4 questions. Participants failed to
maintain-
– Top line of the screen is at or below eye level so
employee is able to read it without bending head
or neck down /back
– Average number of participants scoring negatives
under this section is 22% (27.28) of the total 124
assessed.
•

30. DISCUSSION

31. DISCUSSION
• In a study to find association of upper
extremity and neck disorders with keyboard
and mouse it was concluded that applying the
general principles of ergonomics to computer
work is probably the correct strategy to
pursue, with the aim of maintaining office
workers' well-being. (1)

32. DISCUSSION
• In another study with a questionnaire on (1)
work station, (2) posture during work, (3)
quality of break time, (4) job demands, (5) job
control, and (6) social support it was found
that Neck and Shoulder complaints are more
frequently reported among computer workers
than arm, elbow and hand complaints. (3)

33. DISCUSSION
• A study was conducted to ascertain if office
workers should spend fewer hours at their
computer (5). Moderate evidence was concluded
for a positive association between the duration of
mouse use and hand-arm symptoms. For this
association, indications for a dose-response
relationship were found. Risk estimates were in
general stronger for the hand-arm region than for
the neck-shoulder region, and stronger for mouse
use than for total computer use and keyboard
use.

34. DISCUSSION
• In yet another questionnaire based study on
work related complaints of neck, shoulder and
arm among computer office workers in a
developing country,(11) it was concluded that
the prevalence of work-related CANS among
computer office workers in Sri Lanka, a
developing, South Asian country is high and
comparable to prevalence in developed
countries.

35. DISCUSSION
• This study was carried out after initial training in
ergonomic seating and use of VDT while working.
• The findings of this study are in line with other
research conducted as in it highlights requirement of
training in areas which could prevent further neck and
upper limb problems. Participants scored the least
number of ‘YES’ in areas which required either neck or
arms to be positioned as per ergonomic norms.
• They also scored less number of ‘YES’ in positioning of
the monitor as per ergonomic norms

36. DISCUSSION
• Although the findings of this study does match
most of the research papers on arm, neck and
shoulder pain due to computer use a
prospective study is required with a larger
population
• Companies and organisations need to be
sensitized to the need for Office Ergonomics
training as an integral part of Health and
Safety.

37. DISCUSSION
• Every day a lot of employees across the
country suffer from various MSD related
problems. These convert into sick days, lower
productivity and higher attrition rate for the
companies.
• Various studies already indicate high ROI for
Office Ergonomic programs, if that is at all a
decisive factor to get aboard the ergonomic
bandwagon.

38. REFERENCES
1. Upper-extremity and neck disorders associated with
keyboard and mouse use. Mattioli1, Violante FS2, Bonfiglioli
R2.
2. Ergonomic design and training for preventing work-related
musculoskeletal disorders of the upper limb and neck in
adults. Hoe1, Urquhart DM, Kelsall HL, Sim MR.
3. Prevalence of complaints of arm, neck and shoulder among
computer office workers and psychometric evaluation of a
risk factor questionnaire.Eltayeb S1, Staal JB, Kennes
J, Lamberts PH, de Bie RA.
4. Ergonomic and physiotherapeutic interventions for treating
work-related complaints of the arm, neck or shoulder in
adults. A Cochrane systematic review.Verhagen AP1, Karels
C, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Feleus A, Dahaghin S, Burdorf A, De
Vet HC, Koes BW.

39. REFERENCES
5. Should office workers spend fewer hours at their
computer? A systematic review of the literature.IJmker
S1, Huysmans MA, Blatter BM, van der Beek AJ, van
Mechelen W, Bongers PM.
6. Hard work never hurt anyone--or did it? A review of
occupational associations with soft tissue
musculoskeletal disorders of the neck and upper
limb.Walker-Bone K1, Cooper C.
7. Clinical assessment, prognosis and return to work with
reference to work related neck and upper limb
disorders.Hagberg M1.
8. The influence of working conditions and individual
factors on the incidence of neck and upper limb
symptoms among professional computer users.Tornqvist
EW1, Hagberg M, Hagman M, Risberg EH, Toomingas A.

40. REFERENCES
9. Prevalence of complaints of arm, neck and shoulder
among computer office workers and psychometric
evaluation of a risk factor questionnaire.Eltayeb S1, Staal
JB, Kennes J, Lamberts PH, de Bie RA.
10. Perceived exertion, comfort and working technique in
professional computer users and associations with the
incidence of neck and upper extremity symptoms.
Lindegård A1, Wahlström J, Hagberg M, Vilhelmsson
R, Toomingas A, Tornqvist EW.
11. Work-related complaints of arm, neck and shoulder
among computer office workers in an Asian country:
prevalence and validation of a risk-factor
questionnaire.Ranasinghe P1, Perera YS, Lamabadusuriya
DA, Kulatunga S, Jayawardana N, Rajapakse S, Katulanda P.
12. Ergonomic design and training for preventing work-
related musculoskeletal disorders of the upper limb and
neck in adults.Hoe VC1, Urquhart DM, Kelsall HL, Sim MR.

41. REFERENCES
13. The impact of a computerized work environment on professional
occupational groups and behavioural and physiological risk
factors for musculoskeletal symptoms: a literature
review.Griffiths KL1, Mackey MG, Adamson BJ.
14. Identifying work organization targets for a work-related
musculoskeletal symptom prevention program.Huang
GD1, Feuerstein M.
15. Experiences of employees with arm, neck or shoulder
complaints: a focus group study. Hutting1, Heerkens YF, Engels
JA, Staal JB, Nijhuis-van der Sanden MW.
16. A self-management program for employees with complaints of
the arm, neck, or shoulder (CANS): study protocol for a
randomized controlled trial. Hutting1, Staal JB, Heerkens
YF, Engels JA, Nijhuis-van der Sanden MW.
17. Participatory ergonomic intervention versus strength training on
chronic pain and work disability in slaughterhouse workers:
study protocol for a single-blind, randomized controlled
trial.Sundstrup E1, Jakobsen MD, Andersen CH, Jay K, Persson
R, Aagaard P, Andersen LL.

42. THANKS-
DR. AMOL SANGEKAR
ERGONOMICS CONSULTANT
INDIAERGO