Journal of hand therapy : official journal of the American Society of Hand Therapists · 2025
Implementing a 3D dynamic arm support within the workplace of medical laboratory technicians: A nonrandomized feasibility trial.
Контролируемое клиническое исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dupuis Frédérique, Meidinger Philippe, Lachance Anthony, Desmeules François, Tremblay Jessika, Titley Jean, Bouffard Jason, Campeau-Lecours Alexandre, Roy Jean-Sébastien
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: A three-dimensional dynamic arm support (3D-DAS) was designed in response to medical laboratory technicians' need for solutions to reduce the physical demands on the upper extremities during biomedical manipulations.
PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility of implementing the 3D-DAS in medical laboratory technicians' workplaces, evaluate the potential for conducting a larger randomized controlled trial, and explore the effects of the 3D-DAS on clinical outcomes.
STUDY DESIGN: Nonrandomized feasibility study.
METHODS: Two hospitals employing medical laboratory technicians were recruited and assigned to either the experimental group (n=15; using the 3D-DAS for biomedical manipulations over 6months) or the control group (n=15; no intervention). Feasibility was assessed by examining compliance, acceptability, satisfaction with the 3D-DAS, and unintended effects. Semistructured interviews were also conducted. Clinical outcomes included the prevalence of work-related upper extremity disorders, symptoms intensity, functional limitations, and presenteeism. All outcomes were assessed at baseline, 3 and 6months. Descriptive data were presented for feasibility metrics, and generalized estimating equations were used to compare clinical outcomes between groups.
RESULTS: Feasibility was deemed very limited, with compliance rates at 16% at 3months and 6% at 6months. Acceptability and satisfaction with the device were also notably low. Three participants reported two unintended effects: increased physical demand at the elbow due to external resistance and skin irritation on the forearm. The 3D-DAS showed no impact on the prevalence of work-related upper extremity disorders, symptoms, disability, or presenteeism. However, participants indicated that the 3D-DAS was helpful in specific work situations, such as performing elevation tasks or when experiencing shoulder pain.
CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted significant barriers to implementing a 3D-DAS in the workplace of medical laboratory technicians. The findings underscore the importance of clearly defining the specific context in which the device is most beneficial before pursuing a larger study.
PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility of implementing the 3D-DAS in medical laboratory technicians' workplaces, evaluate the potential for conducting a larger randomized controlled trial, and explore the effects of the 3D-DAS on clinical outcomes.
STUDY DESIGN: Nonrandomized feasibility study.
METHODS: Two hospitals employing medical laboratory technicians were recruited and assigned to either the experimental group (n=15; using the 3D-DAS for biomedical manipulations over 6months) or the control group (n=15; no intervention). Feasibility was assessed by examining compliance, acceptability, satisfaction with the 3D-DAS, and unintended effects. Semistructured interviews were also conducted. Clinical outcomes included the prevalence of work-related upper extremity disorders, symptoms intensity, functional limitations, and presenteeism. All outcomes were assessed at baseline, 3 and 6months. Descriptive data were presented for feasibility metrics, and generalized estimating equations were used to compare clinical outcomes between groups.
RESULTS: Feasibility was deemed very limited, with compliance rates at 16% at 3months and 6% at 6months. Acceptability and satisfaction with the device were also notably low. Three participants reported two unintended effects: increased physical demand at the elbow due to external resistance and skin irritation on the forearm. The 3D-DAS showed no impact on the prevalence of work-related upper extremity disorders, symptoms, disability, or presenteeism. However, participants indicated that the 3D-DAS was helpful in specific work situations, such as performing elevation tasks or when experiencing shoulder pain.
CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted significant barriers to implementing a 3D-DAS in the workplace of medical laboratory technicians. The findings underscore the importance of clearly defining the specific context in which the device is most beneficial before pursuing a larger study.