SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Harran Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 23 Sayı: 1

The Impact of Ergonomic Risks on Musculoskeletal Disorders and Quality of Working Life: The Case of The Health Sector

Ergonomik Risklerin, Kas-İskelet Sistemi Sorunlarına ve Çalışma Yaşam Kalitesine Etkisi: Sağlık Sektörü Örneği

Abdurrahman Şahin(HARRAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ, TIP FAKÜLTESİ)0009-0002-8074-5274
Ufuk Acar(HARRAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ, TIP FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-2663-8307
Pages
64–76
Publication Date
2026-03-17
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings support integrated ergonomics programs combining workstation redesign, posture duration management, microbreaks, and workload/pace management.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background: To examine the direct and pain mediated indirect effects of ergonomic exposures on the quality of working life (QWL) among laboratory employees in a university hospital.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional analytical was conducted in a single center across 13 laboratory units (N=150).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings support integrated ergonomics programs combining workstation redesign, posture duration management, microbreaks, and workload/pace management.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Ergonomi · Kas iskelet ağrıları · Çalışma yaşam kalitesi

Abstract

Background: To examine the direct and pain mediated indirect effects of ergonomic exposures on the quality of working life (QWL) among laboratory employees in a university hospital. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional analytical was conducted in a single center across 13 laboratory units (N=150). Data were collected via researcher observations and face-to-face Questionnaire. The Quick Exposure Check the Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire and the QWL Scale were used as data collection tools. Findings were summarized with descriptive statistics, group mean comparisons, and correlation analyses. Subsequently, bootstrap based mediation analysis was performed while controlling for potential confounders. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Negative indirect effects on QWL via the number of painful body regions in the last 7 days were identified for shoulder/arm (B=-0.28; p<0.01), low back (B=-0.43; p<0.01), and stress (B=-0.21; p=0.02) exposures. Similar indirect effects were observed for predominantly standing work (B=-0.28; p=0.04) and mechanically demanding work (B=-0.36; p=0.03). Regarding direct effects, low back (B=-0.64; p=0.04), stress (B=-0.59; p=0.02), and work pace (B=-1.04; p=0.04) reduced quality of working life; predominantly desk-based (B=-0.90; p=0.04) and standing work (B=-1.13; p=0.02) also showed direct negative effects. Total effects were negative for shoulder/arm (B=-0.64; p<0.01), low back (B=-1.07; p<0.01), stress (B=-0.80; p<0.01), work pace (B=-0.83; p=0.04), and for desk-based/standing work (R²≈0.22-0.29). Conclusions: Among laboratory personnel, both biomechanical (particularly low back and upper limb) and psychosocial (stress, pace) exposures may adversely affect QWL through short-term pain burden as well as through direct pathways. The findings support integrated ergonomics programs combining workstation redesign, posture duration management, microbreaks, and workload/pace management.

Özet

Amaç: Bir üniversite hastanesinde görev yapan laboratuvar çalışanlarında ergonomik maruziyetlerin çalışma yaşam kalitesi (ÇYK) üzerindeki doğrudan ve ağrı aracılı dolaylı etkilerini incelemek. Materyal ve metod: Tanımlayıcı tipte bu araştırma, tek merkezde 13 laboratuvar biriminde yürütüldü (N=150). Veriler araştırmacı gözlemleri ve yüz yüze anketle toplandı. Hızlı Maruziyet Değerlendirme Ölçeği, İskandinav Kas İskelet Sistemi Anketi ve ÇYK Ölçeği veri toplama aracı olarak kullanıldı. Bulgular tanımlayıcı istatistikler, grup ortalaması karşılaştırmaları ve korelasyon analizi ile özetlendi. Ardından kafa karıştırıcılar kontrol altına alınarak bootstrap temelli aracılık analizi uygulandı. 0,05’in altındaki p değeri anlamlı kabul edildi. Bulgular: Omuz/kol (B= 0,28; p<0,01), bel (B= 0,43; p<0,01) ve stres (B= 0,21; p=0,02) maruziyetlerinin son 7 gündeki ağrılı bölge sayısı üzerinden çalışma yaşam kalitesini azaltan negatif dolaylı etkileri saptandı. Çalışma şekline göre “çoğunlukla ayakta” (B= 0,28; p=0,04) ve “mekanik zorlanma” (B= 0,36; p=0,03) için de benzer dolaylı etkiler izlendi. Doğrudan etkilerde bel (B= 0,64; p=0,04), stres (B= 0,59; p=0,02) ve iş temposu (B= 1,04; p=0,04) ÇYK puanını düşürdü; çoğunlukla masa başı (B= 0,90; p=0,04) ve ayakta çalışma (B= 1,13; p=0,02) da doğrudan negatif etkiye sahipti. Toplam etkiler omuz/kol (B= 0,64; p<0,01), bel (B= 1,07; p<0,01), stres (B= 0,80; p<0,01), iş temposu (B= 0,83; p=0,04) ve masa başı/ayakta çalışma için negatif bulundu (R²≈0,22-0,29). Sonuç: Laboratuvar çalışanlarında hem biyomekanik (özellikle bel ve üst ekstremite) hem de psikososyal (stres, tempo) maruziyetler, kısa dönem ağrı yükü üzerinden ve doğrudan yollarla çalışma yaşam kalitesini olumsuz etkileyebilir. Bulgular, iş istasyonu düzenlemeleri, postür süre yönetimi, mikro-mola ve iş yükü/tempo yönetimini birleştiren bütüncül ergonomi programlarını desteklemektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Şahin, A., Acar, U. (2026). The Impact of Ergonomic Risks on Musculoskeletal Disorders and Quality of Working Life: The Case of The Health Sector. Harran Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 23 Sayı: 1, 64–76. https://doi.org/10.35440/hutfd.1790892

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (30)

  1. Babayiğit MA, Kurt M. Hastane Ergonomisi. Istanbul Med J. 2013;14(3):153-9.
  2. Akpınar T, Çakmakkaya BY, Batur N. Ofis çalışanlarının sağlığının korunmasında çözüm önerisi olarak ergonomi bilimi. Balkan ve Yakın Doğu Sos Bilim Derg. 2018;4(2):76-98.
  3. Yürek K, Ersöz Kaya İ. Yol inşaatı şantiyelerinde ergonomik risk değerlendirmesi. Eur J Sci Technol. 2019;(17):1357-66.
  4. Aksüt G, Eren T, Tüfekçi M. Ergonomik risk faktörlerinin sınıflandırılması: Bir literatür taraması. Ergonomi. 2020;3(3):169-92.
  5. Norval M, Zare M, Brunet R, Coutarel F, Roquelaure Y. Operational leeway in work situations: do ergonomic risk assessment tools consider operational leeway for job analysis? Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2019;25(3):429-42.
  6. Rodrigues MS, Leite RDV, Lelis CM, Chaves TC. Differences in ergonomic and workstation factors between computer office workers with and without reported musculoskeletal pain. Work. 2017;57(4):563-72.
  7. Abdel-Aziem AA, Alzhrani AA, Alshhrani RS, Alsulimani AF, Alasmari MA, Alqurashi AA, et al. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders among healthcare staff in the hospitals of Taif, Saudi Arabia. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2025;43:49-57.
  8. Detroja S, Mahajan R, Sheth A. Comprehensive investigation of ergonomic challenges and predictors of work-related musculoskeletal disorders among intensive care unit nurses of Western India through convergent mixed methods study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2025;26(1):127.
  9. Santos W, Rojas C, Isidoro R, Lorente A, Dias A, Mariscal G, et al. Efficacy of Ergonomic Interventions on Work-Related Musculoskeletal Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Clin Med. 2025;14(9):3034.
  10. Vuelvas-Robles GM, Cano-Gutiérrez JC, Olguín-Tiznado JE, Camargo-Wilson C, López-Barreras JA, Cázares-Manríquez MA. Ergonomic and psychosocial risk factors and their relationship with productivity: a bibliometric analysis. Safety. 2025;11(3):74.
  11. Saygılı M, Avcı K, Sönmez S. Sağlık çalışanlarının çalışma yaşam kalitesine ilişkin bir değerlendirme: bir kamu hastanesi örneği. J Acad Soc Sci Stud. 2016;52:437-51.
  12. Sönmez K, Yilmaz S, Karabay D. Effects of psychosocial and ergonomic risk perceptions in the hospital environment on employee health, job performance, and absenteeism. Healthcare (Basel). 2025;13(9):1000.
  13. Kaya G, Alan H. Türkiye’de sağlık çalışanlarında iş yaşam kalitesi: sistematik derleme. YIU Saglik Bil Derg. 2023;4:50-6.
  14. David G, Woods V, Li G, Buckle P. The development of the Quick Exposure Check (QEC) for assessing exposure to risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Appl Ergon. 2008;39(1):57-69.
  15. Li G, Buckle P. Evaluating change in exposure to risk for musculoskeletal disorders—a practical tool. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet. 2000;44:5-407-8.
  16. Özcan E, Kesiktaş Sakar N, Alptekin HK, Özcan EE. Mesleki kas-iskelet risklerinin değerlendirilmesinde QEC ölçeğinin (Quick Exposure Check—Hızlı Maruziyet Değerlendirme) Türkçe uyarlamasının güvenilirliği. İstanbul Tıp Fak Derg. 2007;70(4):98-102.
  17. Saka Demir M: Hekim Dışı Sağlık Personelinde Kas-İskelet Sistemi Hastalıkları Sıklığı ve Hızlı Maruziyet Değerlendirme Ölçeği ile Risklerin Değerlendirilmesi. Uzmanlık Tezi, Trabzon: Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, 2019.
  18. Kahraman T, Genç A, Göz E. The Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire: cross-cultural adaptation into Turkish assessing its psychometric properties. Disabil Rehabil. 2016;38(21):2153-60.
  19. Aydın İ, Çelik Y, Uğurluoğlu Ö. Sağlık personeli çalışma yaşam kalitesi ölçeği: geliştirilmesi, geçerliliği ve güvenilirliği. Toplum ve Sosyal Hizmet. 2011;22(2):79-100.
  20. World Health Organization [homepage on the Internet]. Obesity and overweight. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021 [cited 15 May 2025]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight
  21. WHO [homepage on the Internet]. WHO guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Geneva: World Health Organization; 25 November 2020 [cited 15 May 2025]. Available from: https://www.who. int/publications/i/item/9789240015128
  22. Greggi C, Visconti VV, Albanese M, Gasperini B, Chiavoghilefu A, Prezioso C, et al. Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Clin Med. 2024;13(13):3964.
  23. Bezzina A, Austin E, Nguyen H, James C. Workplace Psychosocial Factors and Their Association With Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Systematic Review of Longitudinal Studies. Workplace Health Saf. 2023;71(12):578-88.
  24. Vijendren A, Devereux G, Tietjen A, Duffield K, Van Rompaey V, Van de Heyning P, et al. The Ipswich Microbreak Technique to alleviate neck and shoulder discomfort during microscopic procedures. Appl Ergon. 2020;83:102679.
  25. Khoshroo F, Seidi F, Bayattork M, Moghadas-Tabrizi Y, Nelson-Wong E. Distinctive characteristics of prolonged standing low back pain developers' and the associated risk factors: systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):6392.
  26. Shockey T, Alterman T, Yang H, Lu ML. Workplace Psychosocial Factors, Work Organization, and Physical Exertion as Risk Factors for Low Back Pain Among US Workers: Data From the 2015 National Health Interview Survey. J Occup Environ Med. 2024;66(6):467-74.
  27. Carriere JS, Donayre Pimentel S, Yakobov E, Edwards RR. A Systematic Review of the Association Between Perceived Injustice and Pain-Related Outcomes in Individuals with Musculoskeletal Pain. Pain Med. 2020;21(7):1449-63.
  28. McParland JL, Gasteen A, Steultjens M. The role of perceived organisational justice in the experience of pain among male and female employees. J Health Psychol. 2022;27(4):847-57.
  29. Babamohamadi H, Davari H, Safari AA, Alaei S, Pordanjani SR. The association between workload and quality of work life of nurses taking care of patients with COVID-19. BMC Nurs. 2023;22(1):234.
  30. Krishnanmoorthy G, Rampal S, Karuthan SR, Baharudin F, Krishna R. Effectiveness of Participatory Ergonomic Interventions on Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders, Sick Absenteeism, and Work Performance Among Nurses: Systematic Review. JMIR Hum Factors. 2025;12:e68522.