Ergonomics Professionals Research Articles

The Role of Human Factors, Ergonomics, and 3D Modeling When Evaluating Incidents Involving Micromobility Devices: An E-Scooter Fall Case Study

Micromobility devices—encompassing a range of lightweight devices such as bicycles, pedal-assist bicycles, e-bikes, e-scooters, mopeds, and electronic skateboards—are promising as a complement to existing modes of travel. Human factors and ergonomics professionals can leverage available technology, education, and experience to assess aspects of human behavior, perception, expectations, performance, and kinematics when interacting with micromobility devices. This study discusses the application of Human Factors and 3D modeling when assessing micromobility devices during real-world incident investigations and showcases various tools that can be used for these types of assessments. This article outlines an incident case study involving an operator-owned e-scooter purchased from the manufacturer.

Supporting human factors and ergonomics professionals in anticipating future work changes in response to the anthropocene

Ergonomics is evolving towards including a broader consideration of ecological and political factors in the design of work environments by adopting an interconnected systems paradigm, highlighting the importance of considering the ecological and political impacts of business. The emergence of ‘green ergonomics’ encourages sustainable human systems integrated in their natural environment, while respecting ethical values such as respect for human rights and diversity. On the one hand, this is leading to new areas of ergonomic research and intervention, such as energy management and corporate CSR, and on the other, to the need to develop specific skills to anticipate the future in innovative ways. For Human Factors and Ergonomics professionals (HF&E professionals), this means adopting prospective approaches that incorporate tools and methods to promote foresight, as well as creativity to imagine potential future work activities.

NIOSH research efforts to prevent work-related Musculoskeletal Disorders

NIOSH researchers are pioneering the study of musculoskeletal health as professional ergonomists. We examine physical and social components of work environments to mitigate musculoskeletal injury risks. Part of our mission is to reduce the burden of work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) through a focused program of research and prevention that protects workers from MSDs, helps management mitigate related risks and liabilities, and helps practitioners improve the efficacy of workplace interventions. The purpose of this discussion panel is to disseminate research findings and recommendations (1) to practitioners to interpret and apply the results of research to real-world problems, and (2) to inspire researchers to continue their efforts to protect the millions of workers at risk.

Towards Building a More Diverse, Equitable, and Inclusive Society: Interactive Sessions with the HFES Csouncil of Affinity Group (COAG) Leads

Human Factors and Ergonomics (HF/E) professionals, as part of their job, are required to consider the differences and varying perspectives of their human stakeholders (e.g., users, customers, teammates, sponsors). Beyond the performance of purely HF/E methodologies, practicing empathy and engaging with affinity groups (AGs) are recognized methods for researchers, designers, engineers, or product managers to achieve such understanding. In this two-part panel, the leaders of AGs and of the Council of Affinity Group (COAG) of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES) will engage with the audience in conversational and interactive sessions aimed at both discussing and practicing empathy and engagement with community groups including AGs. The first session will be focused on experiential learning through interactive exercises. The second session will be reflective in nature and oriented toward follow-on actions and behavior change within and outside HFES. The sessions are expected to promote DEI in our HFES community and beyond. Discussion time: Two sessions (90 minutes each), one at the beginning of the conference and the second toward the end of the conference.

Intergenerational changes in body height, body mass, and body mass index in an understudied population.

Objectives: Secular trends in body height have been proved indicative of socio-economic development of a country or a region, as well as of childhood and adolescent (mal)nutrition. Being taller has been associated with enhanced longevity, with several body height related factors involved. While basic anthropometric measurements, including body height, have long been performed in developed societies, primarily in men and children, far less data are available for adults and women in particular. The aim of the present cross-sectional study was to collect basic anthropometric data related to the assessment of nutritional status of adult population, both men and women, to establish normative anthropometric data, and provide intergenerational analysis for height, body mass, and body mass index (BMI) of adults of both genders. Subjects and methods: Body height and body mass data of the participating 845 volunteers were collected from March 2017 to April 2018 by trained interviewers during home visits. BMI and gender-related percentile values were calculated, and percentile curves constructed. The protocol of the study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the Republic of Slovenia. Results: Eleven weighted percentile values (3, 5, 10, 15, 25, 50, 75, 85, 90, 95, and 97) for body height, body mass, and BMI are presented, as are the non-weighted percentile curves for these parameters for both, adult men and women. Secular trends and age-related height loss of the reported parameters are being discussed. Conclusion: The reported percentile values provide an insight into the secular trend of body height, mass, and BMI of an understudied population, i.e. adults of both genders in a transitional society. As such, they can be useful to researchers, ergonomic professionals, health programme coordinators, and policy makers.

Development of a certification system and core competencies for professional ergonomists in Thailand

To reduce ergonomic risks for their workforce, many industries in Thailand seek assistance from professional ergonomists. However, most academic programs are delivered by instructors with limited human factor and ergonomics (HFE) background, who incorporate either physical or cognitive parts of HFE. To reliably assess and design systems according to HFE principles and standards, programs should be provided by creditable HFE professionals and based on holistic HFE knowledge. The objective of the present study was to initiate a transformation of the professional development in Thailand. The process included a consolidation of the details of HFE education through questionnaires, and identification of requirements from industries through a focus group interview. The results showed a prevalent lack of holistic considerations of HFE knowledge and a primary focus on physical ergonomics. Problems with lack of resources and basic knowledge in design were also reflected by concerns from the industry regarding limited experience, design competency and use of objective methodologies of HFE practitioners. This information was subsequently used to constitute the development of preliminary competencies and a pilot certification system. The proposed competencies and system were then disseminated and additional requirements that need to be incorporated into the professional HFE system were identified.

Musculoskeletal disorder risk assessment tool use: A Canadian perspective

Canadian ergonomics professionals from the Association of Canadian Ergonomists (ACE) and Board of Canadian Registered Safety Professionals (BCRSP) participated in a web-based survey of their awareness, use, and factors influencing use of ergonomics musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) risk assessment tools. A total of 791 respondents (21.0% response rate) participated in the survey. Certified ergonomics professionals represented an important subpopulation of MSD risk assessment tool users, however; the vast majority (86.4%) of users within Canada were certified safety professionals. Average tool use varied between ACE and BCRSP groups, where ACE respondents on average use more tools than BCRSP respondents, however the top 10 tools used were similar between the groups. Over 45% of assessment tools were learned at school and average tool use was not influenced by years of experience or continuing education.

Ethics Education of Human Factors Engineers for Responsible AI Development

This panel discussion is third in a series examining the educational challenges facing future human factors and ergonomics professionals. The past two panels have focused on training of technical skills in data science, machine learning, and artificial intelligence to human factors students. This panel discussion expands on these topics and argues for a need of new and broader training curricula that include ethics for responsible development of AI-based systems that will touch lives of everybody and have widespread societal impacts.

Advancing Equitable and Just Practices in Human Factors and Ergonomics

Marginalized people are disproportionately harmed by systemic social inequities; human factors and ergonomics (HF/E) professionals can address these systemic issues by developing and implementing equitable and just practices. To identify practical steps to transform ergonomic practice, we thematically analyzed two group discussions from a session focused on diversity, inclusion, and justice at the 2019 Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES). We identified 36 recommendations to advance equitable and just practices in HF/E, for both practitioners and academics. HF/E professionals should be particularly mindful about historical harm when engaging with vulnerable populations and take appropriate steps to ensure the safety and well-being of all people. HF/E professionals can do so by building relations with and empowering community members as well as learning methods of engagement from other fields.

Assessing Authentic Diversity in the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society: Part 2

This article is Part 2 of a two-part series reflecting on diversity within the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES). Part 1 discussed what it means to pursue authentic diversity and reported recent demographic characteristics of HFES. Part 2 discusses a brief history of relevant efforts in HFES and recent scholarship that suggests sustained interest in diversity issues within human factors and ergonomics. Part 2 concludes with a discussion about how human factors and ergonomics professionals can continue to lead the design and implementation of systemic change that benefits all by embracing human complexity.

New activities of Committee on Certification of Professional Ergonomists

New activities of Committee on Certification of Professional Ergonomists

Formulate questions for “what are the good professional ergonomists of the future?! ”

Formulate questions for “what are the good professional ergonomists of the future?! ”

Scaling Our Impact: Emerging Human Factors Applications Addressing Societal Challenges

There is an increasing need and interest for Human Factors and Ergonomics (HFE) professionals to apply our discipline to a larger context. HFE researchers are starting to conduct research outside of traditional settings, focusing their efforts on complex societal challenges; however, this type of work is still in its infancy and there is a need to define how HFE can be used in broader contexts, outside of formal institutions. In this panel, we begin a formalized conversation of how our field can scale its impact. Each panelist will introduce a societal challenge they are addressing and discuss how HFE can be adapted to this context. The topics of this panel will span elections technology, sustainability and climate change, universal access to mental healthcare, social isolation in older adults, and food insecurity. This session will conclude with a moderated discussion between the panelists and audience to brainstorm specific societal challenges that HFE can address as well as how methods can be adapted to this context.

Rapid Development of a Hospital Checklist in a Time of COVID-19

The discipline of human factors and ergonomics is largely focused on principled development of generalizable solutions. The process is typically slow, spanning months, even years. A crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic presents a different problem. How can human factors and ergonomics professionals react quickly, within hours or days, to provide viable solutions to unanticipated problems as they become apparent? Here we report on a small project in which we were able to respond rapidly to an emergent COVID-19 requirement. Given time constraints, we had no opportunity to follow a systematic analysis and design strategy. Our development and testing strategies reveal lessons that can be applied more generally to development of human factors and ergonomics interventions within emerging crises.

Ergonomics in design and design in ergonomics: Issues and experience in education.

Articulating design and ergonomics skills through education is a major challenge for both fields. Indeed, professional ergonomists are increasingly deeply involved in design processes, and ergonomics education should train them in design skills. As courses in ergonomics education are often time-constrained, it is difficult to mobilize students in real-scale projects and to involve them in design processes. Conversely, activity analysis and active involvement of users in design projects (through co-creation or co-design processes) are rarely convened in architecture and design curricula. It is therefore necessary to develop effective and relevant pedagogical settings, enabling students of both fields to develop their abilities and equip them to act in concrete design situations. In this paper, we describe a large-scale pedagogical setting involving groups of students from different disciplines gathered around a real-scale design project (re-shaping the waiting room of a mental health center). The ergonomics students' main task is to analyze the needs and real activities of end-users; the interior design students' task is to produce the design project. This communication more precisely focuses on describing the ergonomics students' fieldwork and the practical and pedagogical innovations put in place to help them face the various challenges encountered during the project. Based on formal feedback from students, teachers and stakeholders, we address three main challenges: (1) dealing with the temporal constraints of the intervention, (2) documenting and observing a sensitive situation and (3) involving end-users to place them at the core of the design process. For each challenge, we describe the issue at stake, the work conducted to deal with this issue, and eventually the feedback collected from students, teachers and stakeholders. The paper concludes with an analysis of success and failure factors for such pedagogical settings, in particular for physical enquiry devices, co-creation processes, and co-constructed pedagogical settings. It shows the impact of these settings for students, but highlight that collaboration between ergonomists and designers is a key issue for learning in a positive experience.

Development and Validation of a Wearable Inertial Sensors-Based Automated System for Assessing Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders in the Workspace.

The industrial societies face difficulty applying traditional work-related musculoskeletal disorder (WMSD) risk assessment methods in practical applications due to in-situ task dynamics, complex data processing, and the need of ergonomics professionals. This study aims to develop and validate a wearable inertial sensors-based automated system for assessing WMSD risks in the workspace conveniently, in order to enhance workspace safety and improve workers’ health. Both postural ergonomic analysis (RULA/REBA) and two-dimensional static biomechanical analysis were automatized as two toolboxes in the proposed system to provide comprehensive WMSD risk assessment based on the kinematic data acquired from wearable inertial sensors. The effectiveness of the developed system was validated through a follow-up experiment among 20 young subjects when performing representative tasks in the heavy industry. The RULA/REBA scores derived from our system achieved high consistency with experts’ ratings (intraclass correlation coefficient ≥0.83, classification accuracy >88%), and good agreement was also found between low-back compression force from the developed system and the reference system (mean intersystem coefficient of multiple correlation >0.89 and relative error <9.5%). These findings suggested that the wearable inertial sensors-based automated system could be effectively used for WMSD risk assessment of workers when performing tasks in the workspace.

Gains, losses, and uncertainties from computerizing referrals and consultations

Consultations entail transitions in care between referrers and consultants, as patients visit different clinicians and care sites. This complex process has been consistently prone to communication breakdowns. Despite expectations and benefits of electronic health records (EHRs), incomplete, vague, or inappropriate referrals continue to hinder consultations; referrals can be sent to the wrong specialty service; and consultation findings frequently fail to reach referrers. Due to the inadequate support of interpersonal communication afforded by EHRs, these issues persist. Important aspects of ergonomics and human factors engineering frequently appear overlooked during the design and implementation of EHRs. Usability issues have contributed to delays in medical diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. Some of these delays contribute to patient harms. Our multidisciplinary team of clinicians and ergonomics professionals reflects on referral and consultation. We describe how computerization in healthcare should benefit from approaches informed and developed through applied ergonomics and human factors.

Comparison of nine heart rate-based models to predict work metabolism of Forest workers

Predicted work metabolism (WM) from 9 heart rate (HR)-based models were compared to measured WM obtained during work in 39 forest workers. Using measured (i.e. raw) HR in these models can overestimate actual WM since the HR increase associated with body heat accumulation is non-metabolic. Hence, accuracy of WM prediction was assessed on all possible combinations of models using raw HR and corrected HR (thermal component removed) and with five different estimates of maximum work capacity (MWC) for the models that require it as an input. The 50 model combinations produced a wide range of WM estimates. Three models using individual calibration produced the lowest RMSE and narrowest LoA with corrected HR (rRMSE ≤13%; LoA [rBias <5% ± 25%]). One of the models that requires neither determination of the thermal component nor individual calibration performed very well (rRMSE = 18%; LoA [rBias = 1% ± 36%]). Practitioner Summary: These results provide a better understanding of the accuracy of various HR-based work metabolism (WM) estimation models. This information should prove particularly useful to ergonomics professionals wishing to select a method that provides accurate estimation of WM from HR measurements during work in varied thermal environments. Abbreviations: BMI: body mass index; HR: heart rate (beats per min); HR99: HR value exceeded during 99% of the duration of the HR recording period; HRcorr: heart rate without thermal pulses; HRraw: measured heart rate; HRres: heart rate reserve; HRrest: heart rate at rest; LoA: limits of agreement; Mrest: resting metabolism; MWC: maximum work capacity; RMSE: root mean square error; VO2: oxygen consumption; VO2 max: maximum oxygen consumption; WM: work metabolism

Ergonomics in the Future World: Perspectives from Australia and New Zealand.

The International Ergonomics Association is a professional association for human factors and ergonomics (HFE) professionals. Australia and New Zealand are two of 52 Federated Societies within the IEA. This paper describes an Ergonomics and the Future World (EFW) workshop held at the IEA Triennial Congress in 2018 (IEA2018), and reports the findings of the Australia / New Zealand (Southern Cross) Cluster (SCC). Four questions were developed by the IEA EFW committee to evaluate the ergonomics state-of-play in various world regions. Southern Cross delegates (N = 17) participated in a 90-minute workshop discussion at IEA2018 (45% participation rate for SCC delegates). A summary was presented during the IEA2018 closing ceremony and as a written report for the IEA. Three themes emerged from the SCC discussions: (i) the impact of technology advances on HFE professional practice;(ii) communication with internal and external stakeholders; and (iii) HFE education. The workshop findings are similar to issues raised at local discussions in Australia and New Zealand over past decades and mirror comments and opinions published by authors in the HFE profession. They provide a benchmark for current SCC opinion and may provide direction for future discussion of these recurring issues.

Ergonomics assessment methods used by ergonomics professionals

A web-based survey was conducted of ergonomics practitioners holding certifications in the U.S., Canada, Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand. The survey follows 12 years after an earlier initial survey reported by Dempsey et al. (2005). Approximately 1221 eligible participants were invited by e-mail to participate, and 405 surveys were included in the final analysis. The survey queried use of basic instruments relevant to ergonomic practice as well as more specific analytical tools such as observational techniques for assessing postural demands of work and instrumentation for direct measurement of such demands. Some ergonomic assessment methods appear to have increased in their overall use by U.S. ergonomists compared to 2005 data. This was observed for: RULA, REBA, Psychophysical Upper Extremity Data, Strain Index, and ACGIH TLV for Hand Activity Level. There is minimal evidence of increased overall use of direct measurement approaches in the U.S. There appear to be geographic differences between countries/continents in terms of use of various methods. The use of mobile device/smart phone “apps” by ergonomists was queried and these technologies presently appear to be in early adoption phase with 24–28% of practitioners reporting use of an app in their ergonomics practice.