Introduction Women generally report more work-related musculoskeletal complaints than men and have higher rates of sickness absence, even within occupations. One likely reason is that work tasks within the occupation are gendered, i.e. women and men have different tasks, even when sharing the same job title. Retail is an appealing sector for studying working conditions and work environment in a gender context. The prevalence of work-related complaints is high, physical loads may differ considerably between tasks, and the distribution of tasks is likely gendered. The overall aim of this study in retail is to examine factors at the organisational and individual level that may, in a gender perspective, explain working conditions, work tasks, workloads, and musculoskeletal health.

Methods and analyses Data will be collected in two grocery stores, each with 50-70 workers, at two occasions interspersed by about one year. In each of these four waves, data collection will include a web-based questionnaire to all workers addressing, e.g. work tasks, psychosocial factors, fatigue and pain; semi-structured interviews with managers and around 10 workers addressing, e.g. competences and decision levels; and technical measurements of postures, movements and heart rate in about 30 workers. The study is novel in combining an organisational gender perspective addressed through qualitative methods with a quantitative analysis of tasks, workload and health. The design allows an examination of both how genders may differ, and why they may differ, as well as analyses of the extent to which gendered working conditions change over time in the two participating stores.

Ethics and dissemination Approval of the study by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (reference number 2017/404) has been obtained. This work will be disseminated by publication of peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals, presentations at scientific conferences, and in meetings with representatives from Swedish retail, including unions and employers’ organisations.

Background Gendered patterns of physical activity behaviours may help explaining health inequalities between men and women. However, evidence on such patterns in the working population is sparse. This study aimed at documenting and comparing compositions of sitting, standing and moving at work and during leisure among male and female office workers of different age.

Methods Sitting (including lying), standing and moving were measured using accelerometry for, on average, four working days in 55 male and 57 female Swedish office workers. Behaviours were described in terms of time spent in four exhaustive categories: sitting in short (<30 min) and long (≥30 min) bouts, standing, and moving. In a compositional data analysis approach, isometric log-ratios (ilr) were calculated for time sitting relative to non-sitting, time in short relative to long sitting bouts, and time in standing relative to moving. Differences between genders (men vs. women), domains (work vs. leisure), and according to age were examined for each ilr using ANOVA.

Results At work, time spent sitting in short bouts, sitting in long bouts, standing, and moving was, on average, 29%, 43%, 21% and 7% among men, and 28%, 38%, 26% and 7% among women. Corresponding proportions during leisure were 34%, 27%, 27% and 13% among men and 28%, 27%, 32% and 13% among women. Men spent more time sitting relative to non-sitting (partial eta-squared=0.04, p=0.03) than women, and less time standing relative to moving (pes=0.07, p=0.01). At work compared to during leisure, both genders spent more time sitting relative to non-sitting (pes=0.47, p<0.01); within sitting more time was spent in long relative to short sitting bouts (pes=0.26, p<0.01), and within non-sitting, more time was spent standing than moving (pes=0.12, p<0.01). Older workers spent less of their non-sitting time moving than younger workers (pes=0.07, p=0.01).

Conclusion Male office workers spent more time sitting relative to non-sitting than female workers, and more time moving relative to standing. Both genders were sitting more at work than during leisure. Older workers moved less than younger. These workers could likely benefit from interventions to reduce or break up prolonged sitting time, preferably by moving more.

Objective: To determine the extent to which male and female office workers differ in their time-use composition of sitting behaviors (SB) and physical activity (PA) during work and leisure.

Methods: SB and PA was measured using thigh-worn accelerometers for up to 8 full days in 77 male and 104 female office workers. Daily time-use compositions during work and leisure were described in four exhaustive categories, i.e. sitting in short (<30  min) and long (≥30 min) bouts, standing, and active behaviors. Following a compositional data analysis procedure, isometric log-ratios (ilr) were calculated to express time in sitting relative to non-sitting, short relative to long sitting bouts, and standing relative to active behaviors. Differences between sexes (men and women) and domains (work and leisure) were examined on the basis of these ilrs using ANOVA.

Results: At work, time spent sitting in short bouts, long bouts, standing, and active was, on average, 34%, 36%, 22% and 8% among men and 31%, 37%, 24% and 8% among women. Corresponding proportions during leisure were 34%, 25%, 28% and 13% among men and 29%, 28%, 31% and 12% among women. Time spent sitting relative to non-sitting differed significantly between work and leisure (ilr sitting-vs-non-sitting, partial eta squared=0.09, p<0.01). During leisure, men used proportionally more time than women in short sitting bouts (ilr short-vs-long, partial eta squared=0.06, p<0.01) and spent more time in active behaviors relative to standing (ilr standing-vs-active, partial eta squared=0.04, p<0.01). No significant sex differences were observed during work (p>0.05).

Conclusions:  The leisure behavior observed among men is probably more beneficial for health than that observed for women. However, both men and women spent a major proportion of their time sitting, both at and outside their office work, and they were, in general, only little active. Thus, both men and women could benefit from interventions to reduce SB and increase PA both at work and during leisure.

Background. Excessive sitting is an increasing concern in working life. Negative health effects may, to some extent, be mitigated by interrupting prolonged sitting by standing or more active behaviours, like walking. Alternations between these behaviours may also influence variation in neck-shoulder-arm exposures, and thus musculoskeletal disorder risks. This study examined time spent sitting, standing and active among office workers, and determined the extent to which these behaviours differed by gender and age.

Methods. Ninety-nine workers at a Swedish government agency (50/49 men/women; mean(SD) age 47.1(9.0) years) wore a thigh accelerometer (Actigraph GT3X) for five working days. Data were processed to give the percentage of time spent sitting in short (<30 min) and long (≥30 min) bouts, in standing, and in more active behaviours. In adding up to 100%, such data are constrained and inherently dependent. This requires further examination to be performed using Compositional Data Analysis (CoDA). Thus, Isometric Log-transformed Ratios were constructed, describing sitting vs. non-sitting (sit/nonsit), short-bout vs. long-bout sitting (shortsit/longsit), and standing vs. active (stand/active). These ratios were examined for pairwise correlations, and for associations with gender and age.

Results. On average, workers spent 28.9%, 42.2%, 21.6%, and 7.3% time in shortsit, longsit, standing, and active. Sit/nonsit correlated negatively with shortsit/longsit (r=–0.49) and stand/active (r=–0.64); shortsit/longsit correlated positively with stand/active (r=0.19). Gender showed small associations with all three ratios (partial-ƞ²=0.01-0.03; p=0.08-0.43). Stand/active increased with increasing age (partial-ƞ²=0.07; p=0.01), while sit/nonsit and shortsit/longsit were very weakly associated with age (partial-ƞ²=0.01 and 0.01; p=0.26 and 0.40).

Conclusions. Workers spending more time sitting also spent a larger part of that time in long, uninterrupted sitting bouts. However, when not sitting, these workers were more physically active than workers who sat less. These behaviours differed little by gender and age, besides older workers being relatively less active during non-sitting periods.

Bakgrund

Det har länge varit känt att kvinnor har betydligt sämre arbetshälsa än män. En viktig orsak är att kvinnor och män till stor del befinner sig i olika branscher, men forskning tyder påatt arbetshälsan är ojämnställd även inom t.ex. städbranschen, monteringsyrken och detaljhandel. Kvinnor och män i dessa yrken har ofta olika arbetsuppgifter och kvinnornas uppgifter är överlag mer enahanda och repetitiva än männens. Kvinnor tros också ha en högre biomekanisk belastning än män när de utför samma arbetsuppgift, möjligen därför att arbetsstationer och verktyg ofta anpassats utifrån mannen som norm. Könssegregeringen på arbetsmarknaden och inom organisationer verkar alltså vara en viktig orsak till bristande jämställdhet i belastningsrelaterad arbetshälsa inom vissa yrken. Kunskapen om hur arbetsroller och arbetsvillkor påverkar belastningar hos kvinnor och män är i stora delar åldersdigen och inte anpassad till svenska förhållanden. Dessutom saknas studier av könsskillnader i fysisk belastning i relation till hur arbetet organiseras på enskilda arbetsplatser. Detaljhandeln är en lämplig bransch att studera då den sysselsätter män och kvinnor i någorlunda likartad omfattning och förekomsten av belastningsbesvär är hög. Dessutom har forskning visat att de arbetsuppgifter som förekommer i detaljhandeln har en stor spännvidd i fysisk belastning och att de olika arbetsuppgifterna är genuskodade, dvs ses som ”kvinnliga” eller ”manliga”.

Syfte

Att undersöka kvinnors och mäns arbetsuppgifter, arbetsbelastningar, arbetsvillkor och belastningsbesvär inom en organisation i detaljhandeln, och förklara organisatoriska orsaker till könsskillnader och -likheter. Syftet är också att ta reda på hur dessa förhållanden ändras över tid.

Metod

Två matvarubutiker inom samma koncern med vardera ca 50 anställda studeras. I varje butik samlas data in vid två tillfällen med ett års mellanrum. Kvantitativa och kvalitativa metoder används: Semi-strukturerade intervjuer med chefer för att kartlägga organisationoch bemanning; enkät till de anställda med frågor om arbetssituation, muskuloskeletala besvär mm; fokusgruppsintervjuer med ett urval anställda för fördjupad insikt i arbetsroller, arbetsvillkor och arbetsmiljö; mätning av arbetsställningar, arbetsrörelser och puls på ca hälften av de anställda. Under mätperioden dokumenteras olika arbetsuppgifter i en dagbok och under en dag videofilmas den anställde under arbete. Datainsamling påbörjas i mars 2018 och preliminära resultat väntas tillgängliga under våren. Studien finansieras av Arbetsmiljöverket och Högskolan i Gävle.

Introduction: Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (wrmsds) are one of the most common causes of absence from work. Exposures in the work environment can cause or aggravate the impact of these musculoskeletal disorders and the identification of ergonomic exposures are essential in risk assessment. It is important to assess all three key indicators of these exposures (intensity, frequency and duration) for being able to estimate the risk level for the development of wrmsds. Aim: This paper aims to give an overview of some of the observational methods that can be used for assessment of ergonomic risks at the workplace. Methods: This study was conducted as a scoping review of the medical and ergonomic literature and official governmental webpages in Sweden, U.S.A. and the Netherlands. Results: In total, 19 different observational methods were identified. We summarize our findings based on the body parts that were studied and what key indicators were assessed: 1) intensity of the work load (posture and force production), 2) frequency of the work load (e.g. repetitive movements), and 3) the duration of the work load (e.g. static work). In an appendix we include a brief presentation of these methods together with the work sheet (if available) and the source reference of the observational method. Conclusion: For ergonomists that perform risk assessments, there is a large number of observational assessment tools available and it is important to understand that different methods can be used simultaneously to be able to estimate the objective risk levels for wrmsds. © 2018, Universidad del Rosario. All rights reserved.

BACKGROUND: Clinical examinations are subjective and often show a low validity and reliability. Objective and highly reliable quantitative assessments are available in laboratory settings using 3D motion analysis, but these systems are too expensive to use for simple clinical examinations. Qinematic™ is an interactive movement analyses system based on the Kinect camera and is an easy-to-use clinical measurement system for assessing posture, balance and side-bending. The aim of the study was to test the test-retest the reliability and construct validity of Qinematic™ in a healthy population, and to calculate the minimal clinical differences for the variables of interest. A further aim was to identify the discriminative validity of Qinematic™ in people with low-back pain (LBP).

METHODS: We performed a test-retest reliability study (n = 37) with around 1 week between the occasions, a construct validity study (n = 30) in which Qinematic™ was tested against a 3D motion capture system, and a discriminative validity study, in which a group of people with LBP (n = 20) was compared to healthy controls (n = 17). We tested a large range of psychometric properties of 18 variables in three sections: posture (head and pelvic position, weight distribution), balance (sway area and velocity in single- and double-leg stance), and side-bending.

RESULTS: The majority of the variables in the posture and balance sections, showed poor/fair reliability (ICC < 0.4) and poor/fair validity (Spearman <0.4), with significant differences between occasions, between Qinematic™ and the 3D-motion capture system. In the clinical study, Qinematic™ did not differ between people with LPB and healthy for these variables. For one variable, side-bending to the left, there was excellent reliability (ICC =0.898), excellent validity (r = 0.943), and Qinematic™ could differentiate between LPB and healthy individuals (p = 0.012).

CONCLUSION: This paper shows that a novel software program (Qinematic™) based on the Kinect camera for measuring balance, posture and side-bending has poor psychometric properties, indicating that the variables on balance and posture should not be used for monitoring individual changes over time or in research. Future research on the dynamic tasks of Qinematic™ is warranted.