ArticleApplied ergonomics2022
Manufacturing worker perceptions of using wearable inertial sensors for multiple work shifts.
Article in Applied ergonomics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- From factory floors to dream doors: a systematic review of sleep interventions in industrial workers.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
- Review
- Work conditions and determinants of health status among industrial shift workers: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Applications of wearable sensors in upper extremity MSK conditions: a scoping review.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Evaluation of In-Cloth versus On-Skin Sensors for Measuring Trunk and Upper Arm Postures and Movements.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Heart rate prediction with contactless active assisted living technology: a smart home approach for older adults.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2023Article
- Automatic Ergonomic Risk Assessment Using a Variational Deep Network Architecture.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Wearable inertial sensors may be used to objectively quantify exposure to some physical risk factors associated with musculoskeletal disorders. However, concerns regarding their potential negative effects on user safety and satisfaction remain. This study characterized the self-reported daily discomfort, distraction, and burden associated with wearing inertial sensors on the upper arms, trunk, and dominant wrist of 31 manufacturing workers collected over 15 full work shifts. Results indicated that the workers considered the devices as generally comfortable to wear, not distracting, and not burdensome to use. Exposure to non-neutral postures (discomfort, right arm, beta = 0.02; trunk, beta = -0.01), non-cyclic tasks (distraction, beta = -0.26), and higher body mass indices (discomfort, beta = 0.05; distraction, beta = 0.02) contributed to statistically significant (p < 0.05), albeit practically small increases in undesirable ratings. For instance, for each additional percentage of time working with the right arm elevated ≥60°, self-reported discomfort ratings increased 0.02 cm on a standard 10 cm visual analog scale. Female workers reported less discomfort and distraction while wearing the sensors at work than males (discomfort, beta = -0.93; distraction, beta = -0.3). In general, the low ratings of discomfort, distraction, and burden associated with wearing the devices during work suggests that inertial sensors may be suitable for extended use among manufacturing workers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.