Skip to main content
Log in

Professional experience and ergonomic aspects of midwives’ work

  • Original Papers
  • Published:
International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health

Abstract

Objectives

The most frequent manner of attending childbirth imposes on midwives assuming poor body position affecting the musculoskeletal system. Long professional experience does not mitigate the negative effects. The adopted movement habit, as well as the type, number and frequency of actions influence the body posture. The aim of the study was to identify ergonomic threats of basic occupational midwives activities and how particular spinal segments arrangements while attending childbirth using the same technique in senior midwives differ from those of junior ones. It was also checked whether pain influences the working position assumed by midwives.

Materials and Methods

Examinations were conducted in 95 midwives aged 21–50 (X = 29.25±9.34): 51 graduates of BSc midwifery who worked 680 h in delivery rooms during obligatory practical classes and apprenticeship and 44 senior midwives with professional experience of 7–27 years (X = 14.84±5.98). The study was threefold. The spinal alignment while performing work activities associated with attending childbirth was assessed using the OWAS system and the SonoSens Monitor, the center of gravity projection on basal plane — using the AccuGait AMTI stabilometric platform. The measurements were taken during a simulation of attending childbirth (on examination model). A survey was conducted aimed at identifying spinal pain.

Results

Midwives’ working postures require unnatural body alignments. Postural instability in the working position and no maximal usage of basal plane were observed. The work overload may afflict the musculoskeletal system, which was confirmed by different pain discomforts in 67.3% of the examinees.

Conclusions

Spinal alignment while attending childbirth is individually differentiated and in every case non-ergonomic. Identifying explicitly spinal overloads is difficult, but the most prevalent ones affect lumbar and cervical regions altogether. Spinal pain is frequently noted, both in junior and senior midwives, and is characteristic for midwives working in maximal movement ranges.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Veelen MA van, Nederhof EAL, Goossens RHM, Schot CJ, Jakimowicz JJ. Ergonomic problems encountered by the medical team related to products used for minimally invasive surgery. Surg Endosc 2003;17:1077–1081.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bilski B, Kandefer W. Determinants of locomotor system load and their health implications in a selected population of midwives. Med Pr 2007;58(1):, 7–12 [in Polish].

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Engels J A, Landeweerd J A, Kant Y. An OWAS-based analysis of nurses’ working posture. Ergonomics 1994;37(5):909–919.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Li G, Buckle P. Current techniques for assessing physical exposure to work-related musculoskeletal risks, with emphasis on posture-based methods. Ergonomics 1999;42(5):674–695.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Baum K, Hoy S, Essfeld D. Continuous monitoring of spine geometry: A new approach to study back pain in space. Int J Sports Med 1997;18(Suppl 4):331–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Katz S, Ford AB, Moskowitz AW, Jackson BA, Jaffe MW. The index of ADL: A standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. JAMA 1963;185:914–919.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Stanisz A. Accessible statistics course using STATISTICA PL on examples from medicine. Wyd. StatSoft, Kraków 2006 [in Polish].

    Google Scholar 

  8. Konishi K, Kumashiro M, Izumi H. Work posture of student midwives using frontal birth assistance techniques and examination of psychological burden — comparison with experienced midwives. Jpn J Ergon 2006;42(4):251–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Adams MA. Biomechanics of back pain. Acupunct Med 2004;22(4):178–178.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Browne JE, O’Hare NJ. Review of the different methods for assessing standing balance. Physiotherapy 2001;87(9):489–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kavounoudias A, Gilhodes J-C, Roll R, Roll J-P. From balance regulation to body orientation: two goals for muscle proprioceptive information processing? Exp Brain Res 1999;124(1):80–88.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kavounoudias A, Roll R, Roll J-P. Foot sole and ankle muscle inputs contribute jointly to human erect posture regulation. J Physiol 2001;532(3):869–878.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Dietz V, Gollhofer A, Kleiber M, Trippel M. Regulation of bipedal stance: dependency on “load” receptors. Exp Brain Res 1992;89(1):229–231.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olga Nowotny-Czupryna.

About this article

Cite this article

Nowotny-Czupryna, O., Naworska, B., Brzęk, A. et al. Professional experience and ergonomic aspects of midwives’ work. IJOMEH 25, 265–274 (2012). https://doi.org/10.2478/S13382-012-0034-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/S13382-012-0034-6

Key words

Navigation