Laboratory and field evaluation of user-perceived effort, comfort, and acceptance of passive back-support exoskeletons for masons

Résumé fourni par la source

Work-related musculoskeletal disorders affect over 30 % of construction workers globally, with back injuries particularly prevalent among masons who handle approximately 10,000 kg of masonry units daily. These injuries represent a critical occupational safety challenge, with masonry workers experiencing overexertion rates 33.4 per 10,000 FTEs compared to 21.5 across all industries. While back-support exoskeletons (BSEs) show promise as injury prevention interventions, most safety evaluations occur in laboratories, raising questions about real-world protective effectiveness. This study compared BSE performance between laboratory and field settings to assess ecological validity for occupational safety applications. A multiple case study examined two passive BSEs: HAPO (rigid, spring-based) and BISKO (soft, elastic-based), testing 23 laboratory and 15 field masons performing masonry tasks using psychophysical assessments. HAPO demonstrated superior laboratory performance (median overall score: 1.5) but significant field deterioration (median: 3.0, p < 0.001), with physical effort ratings increasing 200 % (median: 1.0 to 3.0) and movement restriction ratings doubling (median: 1.0 to 3.0). BISKO maintained stable performance across settings (median overall scores: laboratory 2.25, field 1.875, p = 0.217). Worker willingness to continue using HAPO declined sharply from laboratory (median: 1.0) to field (median: 4.0), suggesting potential non-adoption and continued injury risk. Laboratory testing inadequately predicts field safety performance. These findings necessitate field-validated protocols for exoskeleton safety assessment and highlight design importance for sustained injury prevention. Successful implementation requires prioritizing extended-wear comfort and movement flexibility over maximum support to ensure worker acceptance and sustained protective benefit.

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