Professional experience and ergonomic aspects of midwives’ work

  • Olga Nowotny-Czupryna
  • Beata Naworska
  • Anna Brzęk
  • Janusz Nowotny
  • Anna Famuła
  • Bartosz Kmita
  • Krzysztof Bąk
Original Papers
  • 85 Downloads

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.

Key words

Midwives Working positions Spinal alignment Pain discomfort Stabilometry Sonometry 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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].PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Engels J A, Landeweerd J A, Kant Y. An OWAS-based analysis of nurses’ working posture. Ergonomics 1994;37(5):909–919.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stanisz A. Accessible statistics course using STATISTICA PL on examples from medicine. Wyd. StatSoft, Kraków 2006 [in Polish].Google Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Adams MA. Biomechanics of back pain. Acupunct Med 2004;22(4):178–178.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Browne JE, O’Hare NJ. Review of the different methods for assessing standing balance. Physiotherapy 2001;87(9):489–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© © Versita Warsaw and Springer-Verlag Wien 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olga Nowotny-Czupryna
    • 1
    • 6
  • Beata Naworska
    • 2
  • Anna Brzęk
    • 3
  • Janusz Nowotny
    • 4
  • Anna Famuła
    • 3
  • Bartosz Kmita
    • 3
  • Krzysztof Bąk
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of PhysiotherapyInstitute of Backgrounds of Physiotherapy, Higher School of AdministrationBielsko-BiałaPoland
  2. 2.Department of Woman’s HealthInstitute of Obstetric Propaedeutics, Medical University of SilesiaKatowicePoland
  3. 3.Department of PhysiotherapyInstitute of Kinesiology, Medical University of SilesiaKatowicePoland
  4. 4.Department of PhysiotherapyInstitute of Physiotherapy, Higher School of AdministrationBielsko-BiałaPoland
  5. 5.Department of PhysiotherapyInstitute of Physiotherapy, Medical University of SilesiaKatowicePoland
  6. 6.Higher School of AdministrationInstitute of Backgrounds of PhysiotherapyBielsko-BiałaPoland

Personalised recommendations