Objectives This systematic review aimed to identify published observational methods assessing biomechanical exposures in occupational settings and evaluate them with reference to the needs of different users. Methods We searched scientific databases and the internet for material from 1965 to September 2008. Methods were included if they were primarily based on the systematic observation of work, the observation target was the human body, and the method was clearly described in the literature. A systematic evaluation procedure was developed to assess concurrent and predictive validity, repeatability, and aspects related to utility. At least two evaluators independently carried out this evaluation. Results We identified 30 eligible observational methods. Of these, 19 had been compared with some other method(s), varying from expert evaluation to data obtained from video recordings or through the use of technical instruments. Generally, the observations showed moderate to good agreement with the corresponding assessments made from video recordings; agreement was the best for large-scale body postures and work actions. Postures of wrist and hand as well as trunk rotation seemed to be more difficult to observe correctly. Intra- and inter-observer repeatability were reported for 7 and 17 methods, respectively, and were judged mostly to be good or moderate. Conclusions With training, observers can reach consistent results on clearly visible body postures and work activities. Many observational tools exist, but none evaluated in this study appeared to be generally superior. When selecting a method, users should define their needs and assess how results will influence decision-making.

Ergonomic epidemiology is a rapidly increasing field of research providing data on the occurrence of musculoskeletal disorders and possible risk factors. The present paper states, on the basis of a literature overview, that physical work load (mechanical exposure) is poorly denned and measured in most studies on ergonomic epidemiology. On this background the paper: (1) suggests adjustments of mechanical exposure concepts and terminology; (2) concludes that invalid exposure assessment may, to a large extent, explain the lack of quantitative data on relationships between mechanical exposures and musculoskeletal disorders; and (3) suggests some guidelines for future quantitative assessments of mechanical exposure in large populations.

Several recent reviews have reported that 'repetitive movements' constitute a risk factor for occupational musculoskeletal disorders in the neck, shoulder and arm regions. More variation in biomechanical exposure is often suggested as an effective intervention in such settings. Since increasing variation using extrinsic methods like job rotation may not always be possible in an industrial context, the intrinsic variability of the motor system may offer an alternative opportunity to increase variation. Motor variability refers to the natural variation in postures, movements and muscle activity observed to different extents in all tasks. The current review discusses research appearing in motor control, sports sciences and occupational biomechanics literature to answer whether motor variability is important to consider in an occupational context, and if yes, whether it can be manipulated by training the worker or changing the working conditions so as to increase biomechanical variation without jeopardizing production. The review concludes that motor variability is, indeed, a relevant issue in occupational health and performance and suggests a number of key issues for further research.

Shifting workforce proportions to sedentary occupations and technology developments in traditionally physically demanding occupations have resulted in low physical workloads for many workers. Insufficient physical stress is known to have detrimental short- and long-term effects on health and physical capacity. It is argued herein that many modern workers are at risk of insufficient physical workload. Further, it is argued that the traditional physical ergonomics paradigm of reducing risk by reducing physical loads (‘less is better’) is not appropriate for many modern occupations. It is proposed that a new paradigm is required, where ‘more can be better’. The potential for work to be seen as an arena for improving physical health and capability is discussed and the types of changes to work that may be required are outlined. The paper also discusses challenges and responsibilities presented by this new paradigm for ergonomists, employers, health and safety authorities and the community. The majority of workers in affluent communities now face the significant threat to health of insufficient physical workload. Ergonomics can design work to a prescription that can not only reduce injury risk but enhance health and capacity. However, this will require a change in paradigm.