Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34507084›Full record

ArticleApplied ergonomics2022

Manufacturing worker perceptions of using wearable inertial sensors for multiple work shifts.

Xuanxuan Zhang, Mark C Schall, Howard Chen, Sean Gallagher, Gerard A Davis, Richard Sesek

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Xuanxuan ZhangDepartment of Applied Science and Technology, College of Engineering and Computer Sciences, Marshall University, Huntington, WV, USA; Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Samuel Ginn College of Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA. Electronic address: zhangxu@marshall.edu.
Mark C SchallDepartment of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Samuel Ginn College of Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA. Electronic address: mark-schall@auburn.edu.
Howard ChenDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Samuel Ginn College of Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA. Electronic address: howard-chen@auburn.edu.
Sean GallagherDepartment of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Samuel Ginn College of Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA. Electronic address: seangallagher@auburn.edu.
Gerard A DavisDepartment of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Samuel Ginn College of Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA. Electronic address: davisga@auburn.edu.
Richard SesekDepartment of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Samuel Ginn College of Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA. Electronic address: rfs0006@auburn.edu.
Auburn University · US

Funding

Deep South Occupational Safety & Health Education & Research Center-SupplementT42OH008436 · OH · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI LUNGU, CLAUDIU T · 2005 to 2025
$28.8M
NIOSH CDC HHS K01 OH011183NIOSH CDC HHS T42 OH008436
6 · The paper itself

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

Musculoskeletal DiseasesWearable Electronic DevicesFemaleHumansMalePerceptionPostureTorsoExposure assessmentField measurementInertial Measurement UnitMusculoskeletal disordersUser experienceWearables

Identifiers

PMID34507084
PMCPMC11627332
OpenAlexW3197787194

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.