Physical activity and loading among commercial construction workers

Transcription

1 Physical activity and loading among commercial construction workers Oscar E. Arias, Alberto J. Caban-Martinez, Peter Umukoro, Sonja Stoffel, Glorian Sorensen and Jack Dennerlein

2 Construction workers

3 Physical Activity

4 Physical Activity Moderate Vigorous

5 Research question: How does construction work contribute to a workers moderate and vigorous levels of activity? Physical demands at work Moderate and vigorous physical Activity

6 Aims 1. Measure and characterize physical activity at work and outside of work among 60 commercial construction workers during seven consecutive days. 2. Measure and characterize trunk flexion while at work during a single shift..

7 Hypotheses H1: Construction workers do not meet recommended U.S. levels of physical activity. H2:Construction workers have bending profiles associated with higher risk for low back pain..

8 Hypotheses H3: Physical activity at work is positively associated to levels of perceived exertion at work. H4: A construction worker s trunk posture is associated to their direct measure of physical activity levels while at work..

9 Methods: Participants Cross-sectional observational study Convenience sample 60 workers Dec/12 to Mar/13 Five construction sites

10 Self-Reported Survey Data Collected Day #1: Accelerometer Log End of Shift Physical Demands Day #7: PACES Survey collected measures on: Worker Demographics Job Demands Fatigue Pain and Injury Physical Activity

11 Physical Activity Accelerometry 7 Days Parsed data into work and non-work Each minute assigned to Sedentary (Sitting) Lifestyle and Light (standing) Moderate (walking) Vigorous (running) Minutes of Moderate and Vigorous in modified 10-minute bouts Freedson. Med Sci Sports Exerc. May 1998;30(5): Troiano. Med Sci Sports Exerc. Jan 2008;40(1):

12 Trunk flexion Inclinometer G-Link, Microstrain Recorded 5 samples per second Data processing Duration in different levels of flexion Frequency of forward bends at: 20 degrees 45 degrees Faber et al. J. Biomech. 2009;42(14): Teschke et al. Ergonomics. 2009;52(9),

13 Participants

14 Participants

15 Work contribution to physical activity

16 Work contribution to physical activity Not including 10-minute bouts, the workers met recommended PA minutes Work 231 minutes of the 150 required U.S. Guidelines recommend: 150 Minutes of moderate per week

17 Work contributions to physical activity U.S. Guidelines recommend: 150 Minutes of moderate per week

18 Work contributions to physical activity Including 10-minute bouts, workers did not met recommended minutes U.S. Guidelines recommend: 150 Minutes of moderate per week

19 Whole week contribution to physical activity

20 Whole week contribution to physical activity Not including 10-minute bouts, workers met the recommended minutes Week 375 minutes of the 150 required U.S. Guidelines recommend: 150 Minutes of moderate per week

21 Whole week contributions to physical activity Including 10-minute bouts, workers did not meet recommended minutes U.S. Guidelines recommend: 150 Minutes of moderate per week

22 Construction Workers vs PCU workers * When comparing without 10 minutes bouts At work Whole week

23 Construction Workers vs PCU workers * When comparing with 10 minutes bouts At work

24 Trunk Flexion (% Shift) 71% -10 7% 20 15% 45 7%

25 Frequency of flexion (% Shift) /hour 45 68/hour

26 Overall exposure Flexion did vary across individuals creating different exposure levels LO W 16 MEDIUM 30 HIG H 10 < 15 of trunk flexion during 86% of the time at work is protective. Fathallah > 20 of trunk flexion during 33% of the time at work is an important risk. Punnet (1991) and (1998). Keyserling (1992). Fathallah et al. Spine. 1998, 23(9), Punnett et al. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1991, 17(5), Keyserling et al. Journal of Industrial Ergonomics.1992, 9,

27 Construction Workers vs PCU workers Trunk posture:

28 Spearman s correlation Different parameters of trunk posture vs. physical activity in minutes

29 Spearman s correlation Different parameters of trunk posture vs. physical activity in minutes

30 Spearman s correlation Perceived exertion vs. directly measured physical activity (minutes) during a single shift.

31 Study limitations Accelerometer Small convenient population Trunk flexion vs. Lifting

32 Conclusions Among construction workers, work contributes in meeting the recommended levels of physical activity. Compared to PCU workers, construction workers achieve much more moderate levels of physical activity at work.

33 Conclusions Among construction workers, trunk posture during a single shift contributes to meeting recommended levels for physical activity. Messages for improving and promoting cardiovascular health for construction workers must consider these results.

34 Acknowledgments Jack Dennerlein Glorian Sorensen Alberto Caban Torey Jerauld Peter Umukoro Mia Goldwasser Kincaid Lowe Ergonomic Lab

35 Thank you!

36 .. How physically demanding was your shift today? Circle one of the numbers from 6 to On a typical shift, how physically demanding is your shift. Circle one of the numbers from 6 to 20. Perceived exertion

37 Perceived exertion

38