Objective: Over the course of the twenty-first century, work-related musculoskeletal disorders are still persisting among blue collar workers. At present, no epidemiological overview exists. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed on the epidemiology of work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSD) within Europe’s secondary industries. Methods: Five databases were screened, yielding 34 studies for the qualitative analysis and 17 for the quantitative analysis. Twelve subgroups of WMSDs were obtained for the meta-analysis by means of predefined inclusion criteria: back (overall), upper back, lower back, neck, shoulder, neck/shoulder, elbow, wrist/hand, leg (overall), hip, knee, and ankle/feet. Results: The most prevalent WMSDs were located at the back (overall), shoulder/neck, neck, shoulder, lower back and wrist WMSDs with mean 12-month prevalence values of 60, 54, 51, 50, 47, and 42%, respectively. The food industry was in the majority of subgroups the most prominent researched sector and was frequently associated with high prevalence values of WMSDs. Incidence ratios of upper limb WMSDs ranged between 0.04 and 0.26. Incidence ratios could not be calculated for other anatomical regions due to the lack of sufficient articles. Conclusion: WMSDs are still highly present among blue collar workers. Relatively high prevalence values and low incidence ratios indicate a limited onset of WMSDs with however long-term complaints.

To provide an overview of protocols assessing the effect of occupational exoskeletons on users and to formulate recommendations towards a literature-based assessment framework to benchmark the effect of occupational exoskeletons on the user. PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science database and Scopus were searched (March 2, 2021). Studies were included if they investigated the effect of one or more occupational exoskeletons on the user. In total, 139 eligible studies were identified, encompassing 33, 25 and 18 unique back, shoulder and other exoskeletons, respectively. Device validation was most frequently conducted using controlled tasks while collecting muscle activity and biomechanical data. As the exoskeleton concept matures, tasks became more applied and the experimental design more representative. With that change towards realistic testing environments came a trade-off with experimental control, and user experience data became more valuable. This evidence mapping systematic review reveals that the assessment of occupational exoskeletons is a dynamic process, and provides literature-based assessment recommendations. The homogeneity and repeatability of future exoskeleton assessment experiments will increase following these recommendations. The current review recognises the value of variability in evaluation protocols in order to obtain an overall overview of the effect of exoskeletons on the users, but the presented framework strives to facilitate benchmarking the effect of occupational exoskeletons on the users across this variety of assessment protocols.

Shoulder exoskeletons potentially reduce overuse injuries in industrial settings including overhead work or lifting tasks. Previous studies evaluated these devices primarily in laboratory setting, but evidence of their effectiveness outside the lab is lacking. The present study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of two passive shoulder exoskeletons and explore the transfer of laboratory-based results to the field. Four industrial workers performed controlled and in-field evaluations without and with two exoskeletons, ShoulderX and Skelex in a randomized order. The exoskeletons decreased upper trapezius activity (up to 46%) and heart rate in isolated tasks. In the field, the effects of both exoskeletons were less prominent (up to 26% upper trapezius activity reduction) while lifting windscreens weighing 13.1 and 17.0 kg. ShoulderX received high discomfort scores in the shoulder region and usability of both exoskeletons was moderate. Overall, both exoskeletons positively affected the isolated tasks, but in the field the support of both exoskeletons was limited. Skelex, which performed worse in the isolated tasks compared to ShoulderX, seemed to provide the most support during the in-field situations. Exoskeleton interface improvements are required to improve comfort and usability. Laboratory-based evaluations of exoskeletons should be interpreted with caution, since the effect of an exoskeleton is task specific and not all in-field situations with high-level lifting will equally benefit from the use of an exoskeleton. Before considering passive exoskeleton implementation, we recommend analyzing joint angles in the field, because the support is inherently dependent on these angles, and to perform in-field pilot tests. This paper is the first thorough evaluation of two shoulder exoskeletons in a controlled and in-field situation.

The aim of this study is to test the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) model for explaining the intention to use exoskeletons among industrial workers. Exoskeletons could help reduce physical workload and risk for injuries among industrial workers. Therefore, it is crucial to understand which factors play a role in workers’ intention to use such exoskeletons. Industrial workers (N = 124) completed a survey on their attitudes regarding the use of exoskeletons at their workplace. Using partial least squares (PLS) path modeling, the UTAUT model and a revised version of the UTAUT model were fitted to these data. The adapted UTAUT model of Dwivedi et al. (2017) was able to explain up to 75.6% of the variance in intention to use exoskeletons, suggesting a reasonable model fit. The model fit suggests that effort expectancy (how easy it seems to use an exoskeleton) plays an important role in predicting the intention to use exoskeletons. Social influence (whether others think workers should use exoskeletons) and performance expectancy (how useful exoskeletons seem to be for work) play a smaller role in predicting the intention to use. This research informs companies about the optimal implementation of exoskeletons by improving the determinants of acceptance among their workers.

Objective: This paper assesses the effect of a passive shoulder exoskeleton prototype, Exo4Work, on muscle activity, muscle fatigue and subjective experience during simulated occupational overhead and non-overhead work. Methods: Twenty-two healthy males performed six simulated industrial tasks with and without Exo4Work exoskeleton in a randomized counterbalanced cross-over design. During these tasks electromyography, heart rate, metabolic cost, subjective parameters and performance parameters were acquired. The effect of the exoskeleton and the body side on these parameters was investigated. Results: Anterior deltoid activity and fatigue reduced up to 16% and 41%, respectively, during isometric overhead work, and minimized hindrance of the device during non-overhead tasks. Wearing the exoskeleton increased feelings of frustration and increased discomfort in the areas where the exoskeleton and the body interfaced. The assistive effect of the exoskeleton was less prominent during dynamic tasks. Conclusion: This exoskeleton may reduce muscle activity and delay development of muscle fatigue in an overhead working scenario. For dynamic applications, the exoskeleton’s assistive profile, which mimics the gravitational torque of the arm, is potentially sub-optimal. Significance: This evaluation paper is the first to report reduced muscle fatigue and activity when working with an occupational shoulder exoskeleton providing one third of the gravitational torque of the arm during overhead work. These results stress the potential of occupational shoulder exoskeletons in overhead working situations and may direct towards longitudinal field experiments. Additionally, this experiment may stimulate future work to further investigate the effect of different assistive profiles.