We compared hand activity and force ratings in women and men doing identical hand-intensive work tasks. Musculoskeletal disorders are more common in women and hand-intensive work leads to an increased risk of these disorders. Knowledge of the gender influence in the rating of work exposure is lacking. The aim of this study was to investigate whether women and men performing identical hand-intensive work tasks were equally rated using hand activity and normalized peak force levels with the Hand Activity Threshold Limit Value^®. Fifty-six workers participated, comprising 28 women–men pairs. Four observers—two woman–man pairs—were also involved. Self-ratings and observers’ ratings of hand activity and force level were collected. The results of these ratings showed no significant gender differences in self-rated hand activity and force, as well as observer-rated hand activity. However, there was a significant gender difference in the observer-rated force, where the women were rated higher (mean (SD): women 3.9 (2.7), men 3.1 (1.8) (p = 0.01)). This difference remained significant in the adjusted model (p = 0.04) with grip strength and forearm–finger anthropometrics. The results provide new insights that observers’ estimates of force can be higher in women compared with men in the same work tasks. Force should be further investigated and preferably compared to objective measurements.

The objective of this study protocol is to describe the development of a process model for occupational health surveillance for workers exposed to hand-intensive work (the HIW-model), and to describe the studies that will explore the model. The studies are designed to: (1) explore stakeholders’ experiences of the model, and (2) explore if, and how, the model affects actions for reduction of exposure to hand-intensive work. The study protocol presents a research project that is described as two studies. The first study will explore company representatives’ and ergonomists’ experiences of the execution of the HIW-model and its various components concerning feasibility and values. Semi-structured interviews will constitute the data source. The second study will explore whether the execution of the HIW-model leads to work environmental changes, such as actions for reduction of exposure to hand-intensive work, and whether these potential actions are based on the ergonomist’s feedback of the exposure assessment and the medical health checks. A mixed method approach will be applied, in which the data sources will be comprised of semi-structured interviews, questionnaires, and documents. The project is expected to generate knowledge regarding the values of the HIW-model. The project is anticipated to shed light on factors that facilitate or impede execution of the model from the different stakeholders’ perspectives; the employer’s as having the legal responsibility for the work environment, and the occupational health service consultants’, being the work environment experts supporting the employers.

Exposure assessment seldom precedes the medical health checks in occupational health surveillance. In order to emphasize the interconnection between exposure assessment and medical health checks, a process model was developed. The process model aimed to guide employers and Occupational Health Service providers through the execution of occupational health surveillance. The objective of this qualitative study is to explore company representatives’ experiences of the process model, in terms of feasibility and values, and to identify factors that facilitate or impede the process. Thirty-three company representatives from ten companies were interviewed. Interviews were analyzed using content analysis. The company representatives experienced that the model contributed to increased risk awareness and understanding of the exposure effects on workers’ health. They valued the exposure assessments performed by an ergonomics expert, which led to the discovery of previously unidentified risks. The feasibility was facilitated by: a joint start-up meeting in which the process was planned, clear communication between the involved parties, and clarity regarding the process ownership. The findings reveal that a guiding process model is valuable for the execution of occupational health surveillance. However, the model should not only define the components included; a practical guide concerning how the process can be executed is also needed.

This mixed method study aimed to describe what risk-reducing actions were proposed by ergonomists after the execution of a guided process for occupational health surveillance for workers exposed to hand-intensive work in ten companies. Another aim was to describe the exposed workers' proposals for risk-reducing actions, including their perceptions of potential changes in the self-assessed exposure levels and work-related pain. Several actions, targeting organizational, technical, and/or individual measures were proposed. Proposals from the ergonomists more often targeted the personal measures, whereas the workers' proposals targeted technology or organizational changes. Six companies implemented at least one of the action proposals. These action proposals were not related to evaluation metrics, nor were they evaluated. This study indicates that both ergonomists and companies need guidance on how to improve to work in a participatory process for the implementation and evaluation of risk-reducing actions, e.g., by how to better include workers' experiences.

Among workers performing hand-intensive tasks, musculoskeletal disorders in the upper extremities are more frequent in women than in men. However, risk assessments are generally not sex-specific, and it is not known whether exposures in regular work differ between females and males. The aim of this study was to compare measured wrist joint velocity and muscle activity between men and women performing identical tasks. Participants (28 female–male pairs) performed one of eighteen hand-intensive on-site tasks. Wrist velocity was measured using inertial units. Forearm muscle activity was measured via surface electromyography and normalized to maximal voluntary electrical activation (MVE). The 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles and time in muscle recovery (< 0.5 %MVE) were computed. Between-sex differences were tested using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Wrist angular velocities did not significantly differ between sexes in any percentile (all p > 0.374). The muscle activity was significantly higher in female workers (p < 0.001–0.004), ranging from 1.3 to 2.8 times higher, and they spent less time in muscle recovery (p < 0.001). In hand-intensive tasks involving women and men, risk assessments should prioritize assessments of women to ensure protection against work-related musculoskeletal disorders for all workers.

An accurate rating of hand activity and force is essential in risk assessment and for the effective prevention of work-related musculoskeletal disorders. However, it is unclear whether the subjective ratings of workers and observers correlate to corresponding objective technical measures of exposure. Fifty-nine workers were video recorded while performing a hand-intensive work task at their workplace. Self-ratings of hand activity level (HAL) and force (Borg CR10) using the Hand Activity Threshold Limit Value^® were assessed. Four ergonomist observers, in two pairs, also rated the hand activity and force level for each worker from video recordings. Wrist angular velocity was measured using inertial movement units. Muscle activity in the forearm muscles flexor carpi radialis (FCR) and extensor carpi radialis (ECR) was measured with electromyography root mean square values (RMS) and normalized to maximal voluntary electrical activation (MVE). Kendall’s tau-b correlations were statistically significant between self-rated hand activity and wrist angular velocity at the 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles (0.26, 0.31, and 0.23) and for the ratings of observers (0.32, 0.41, and 0.34). Significant correlations for force measures were found only for observer-ratings in five of eight measures (FCR 50th percentile 0.29, time > 10%MVE 0.43, time > 30%MVE 0.44, time < 5% −0.47) and ECR (time > 30%MVE 0.26). The higher magnitude of correlation for observer-ratings suggests that they may be preferred to the self-ratings of workers. When possible, objective technical measures of wrist angular velocity and muscle activity should be preferred to subjective ratings when assessing risks of work-related musculoskeletal disorders.