Scoping review of studies on work-related musculoskeletal disorders: Quality of evidence, coverage of risk factors and types of risk assessment tools used

Le résumé fourni par la source

BackgroundDespite continual efforts globally in preventing work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs), they remain one of the most common occupational injuries with individual, organisational and societal impacts.ObjectiveThis scoping review analysed 265 studies on WMSDs published between January 2013 and December 2024, aiming to assess the quality of evidence, identify risk factors, and examine risk assessment tools used.MethodsA systematic search in Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Scopus, including subscription-based and open-access journals identified relevant studies. Inclusion criteria focused on WMSD risk assessment in occupational settings. Data extraction covered study characteristics, risk factors, assessment tools, and methodological quality.ResultsThe review revealed a significant increase in WMSD research in recent years, particularly from 2021 to 2024, possibly influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on work tasks and conditions. Lower back, neck, and shoulder pain were the most prevalent WMSDs reported. The review identified 79 risk factors across five categories. Physical task factors were most frequently investigated, while psychosocial and environmental factors were underrepresented. Self-report tools, particularly the Nordic Questionnaire, were the most commonly used assessment methods. Our review also highlights the need for more comprehensive risk assessment approaches that consider the interconnected nature of WMSD risk factors. Additionally, about 28% of the reviewed studies did not meet adequate quality of evidence criteria, indicating a need for improved research methodologies.ConclusionsThis review provides valuable insights for researchers and practitioners in occupational health and safety, emphasising the importance of holistic approaches to WMSD risk assessment and management.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.