Wearables offer a promising solution for simultaneous posture monitoring and/or corrective feedback. The main objective was to identify, synthesise, and characterise the wearables used in the workplace to monitor and postural feedback to workers. The PRISMA-ScR guidelines were followed. Studies were included between 1 January 2000 and 22 March 2023 in Spanish, French, English, and Portuguese without geographical restriction. The databases selected for the research were PubMed^®, Web of Science^®, Scopus^®, and Google Scholar^®. Qualitative studies, theses, reviews, and meta-analyses were excluded. Twelve studies were included, involving a total of 304 workers, mostly health professionals (n = 8). The remaining studies covered workers in the industry (n = 2), in the construction (n = 1), and welders (n = 1). For assessment purposes, most studies used one (n = 5) or two sensors (n = 5) characterised as accelerometers (n = 7), sixaxial (n = 2) or nonaxialinertial measurement units (n = 3). The most common source of feedback was the sensor itself (n = 6) or smartphones (n = 4). Haptic feedback was the most prevalent (n = 6), followed by auditory (n = 5) and visual (n = 3). Most studies employed prototype wearables emphasising kinematic variables of human movement. Healthcare professionals were the primary focus of the study along with haptic feedback that proved to be the most common and effective method for correcting posture during work activities.

Background: Postural changes are considered a public health problem, especially those that affect the spine, as they may predispose to degenerative conditions of the spine in adulthood. Musculoskeletal disorders are the main cause of chronic pain, illness, reduced educational performance, productivity, and quality of life, and are responsible for increased absenteeism, which could compromise the future career of students. The purpose of this study was to identify the prevalence of postural changes and the occurrence of musculoskeletal disorders in different anatomical regions in the 12 months prior and 7 days prior to the application of the questionnaire and the number of affected anatomical regions. Methods: This is an observational, descriptive, cross-sectional study. It included 508 students selected by a stratified random sample. Our outcomes were the Portuguese version of the Standardized Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire, the Adam’s test, a scoliometer, and the visual analog pain scale associated with the Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire. Results: In total, 79.3% of the students tested positive with the Adam’s test. The neck, shoulder, lumbar region, and knee stood out in all of the temporal references, the 12 months prior (44.3%; 35.2%, 50.2%, 34.1%) and the 7 days prior (16.5%, 16.9%; 28.9%, 17.5%), and even in the restriction of activity due to painful symptoms in the 12 months prior (4.3%, 5.3%, 10.6%, 8.5%). Conclusions: Out of 497 students, 403 were identified with postural changes. The high prevalence rate of identified musculoskeletal symptoms in the anatomical regions of the neck, lumbar region, and shoulder raises the need for intervention in students. Gender appears to generate differences between men and women. Pain from multiple body sites is frequent among young adults.

[Purpose] To determine if pressure biofeedback unit readings are related to abdominal muscle activation and centre of pressure displacement as well as to test the effects of using it as a biofeedback tool to control lumbopelvic motion. [Participants and Methods] Eighteen volunteers with chronic nonspecific low back pain (21.28 ± 1.41 years old) who performed an active straight leg raising (dynamic postural challenge) with and without pressure biofeedback. Changes in the pressure biofeedback unit and on centre of pressure displacement were assessed, as well as bilateral electromyographic abdominal muscle activity. Participants were not allowed to use a Valsalva manoeuvre. [Results] Pressure variation was not significantly correlated with abdominal muscle activity or with mediolateral centre of pressure displacement. When used as a biofeedback instrument, there was a significant increase in almost all abdominal muscles activity as well as a significant decrease in pressure variation and in mediolateral centre of pressure displacement while performing an active straight leg raising with a normal breathing pattern. [Conclusion] Despite not being an indicator of abdominal muscle activity or mediolateral load transfer in the supine position, the pressure biofeedback unit could have great relevance when used in the clinic for biofeedback purposes in individuals with low back pain.

This study reviews the scientific use of chest-strap wearables, analyzing their advantages and limitations, following PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies assessed chest-strap devices in adults and reported physiological outcomes such as heart rate, heart rate variability, R–R intervals, or electrocardiographic waveform morphology. Studies involving implanted devices, wrist-worn wearables, or lacking validation against reference standards were excluded. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect for studies published in the last 10 years. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, and results were synthesized narratively. Thirty-two studies were included. The most frequently evaluated devices were the Polar H10 and Zephyr BioHarness 3.0, which showed strong correlations with electrocardiography at rest and during light-to-moderate activity. Reported limitations included motion artefacts, poor strap placement, sweating, and degradation of the skin–electrode interface. None of the devices had CE or FDA approval for clinical use, and most studies were conducted in controlled settings, limiting generalizability. Ergonomic concerns such as discomfort during prolonged wear and restricted mobility were also noted. Overall, chest-strap sensors showed good validity and were widely used in validation studies. However, technical refinements and large-scale field trials are needed for broader clinical and occupational application. This review is registered in PROSPERO and is part of the SIREN project.

Background: Therapeutic exercise seems to minimize musculoskeletal risk factors related to swimmer’s shoulder. However, there is an absence of a qualitative evaluation of these programs and a great variability regarding the characteristics of exercises. The objective of this review was to identify, evaluate, and compare exercise programs used to minimize musculoskeletal risk factors related to swimmer’s shoulder. Methods: PubMed, CochraneLibrary, ScienceDirect, and Medscape were searched during January 2022. The research was limited to meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and RCTs written in English, Spanish, and Portuguese without publication time. The researched papers had swimmers as the population, compared an exercise program with another program or without intervention, and had as outcomes musculoskeletal risk factor variables. Results: Eleven articles were considered for analysis. There were three positive effects of strength programs on shoulder rotators’ strength and endurance, two positive effects of strength and stretching programs on shoulder posture, and one positive effect of a stretching program on shoulder ROM and a plyometric program on proprioception. Conclusions: There is high heterogeneity and little methodological quality evidence about the theme. However, strength programs with five or fewer OKC exercises performed out of the water seems to lead to better results in the swimmer’s shoulder prevention.