BACKGROUND: Sitting posture may be related to risk factors, including inadequate weight-bearing support, particularly when maintained for long periods. Considering that body weight is loaded in a closed support system composed of the seat, backrest, floor and working surface, the aims of the present study were to describe the development of an ergonomic sitting workstation to continuously record weight-bearing at the seat, chair, backrest, work surface, and floor and to test its measurement properties: reproducibility, criterion-related validity, and sensitivity. METHODS: Rigid bodies (1 to 30 kg) and participant weights were recorded to evaluate the workstation measurement properties. RESULTS: Rigid body tests showed variation values less than 0.050 kg on reproducibility test and errors below 5% of measured value on criterion validity tests. Participant tests showed no statistically significant differences between repeated measures (p ≥ 0.40), errors were less than 2% of participant weights and sensitivity presented statistically significant changes (p = 0.007). CONCLUSION: The sitting workstation proposed showed to be reliable, valid and sensitive for use in future ergonomic studies to evaluate the sitting posture.
Body Weight ; Human Engineering ; Posture ; Risk Factors ; Weight-Bearing ; Weights and Measures

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate musculoskeletal and psychosocial perception and compare these conditions regarding the type of job (white or blue-collar) and the type of management model (private or public). METHODS: Forty-seven public white-collar (PuWC), 84 private white-collar (PrWC) and 83 blue-collar workers (PrBC) were evaluated. Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ) and Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) were applied to evaluate psychosocial factors. Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire (NMQ) was used to assess musculoskeletal symptoms. Pressure Pain Threshold (PPT) was measured to evaluate sensory responses. RESULTS: According to JCQ, all groups were classified as active profile. There was a significant association between work engagement and workers' categories (p < 0.05). PrWC workers had the highest scores for all the UWES domains, while PrBC had the lowest ones. PPT showed that PrBC workers had an increased sensitivity for left deltoid (p < 0.01), and for both epicondyles (p < 0.01), when compared to the other groups. PrWC workers had an increased sensitivity for both epicondyles than PuWC (right p < 0.01; left, p = 0.05). There was no significant association in the report of symptoms across the groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study showed differences in psychosocial risk factors and musculoskeletal symptoms in workers engaged in different types of jobs and work organization. Personal and work-related characteristics, psychosocial factors and PPT responses were different across workers' group. Despite all, there was no significant difference in reported symptoms across the groups, possibly indicating that the physical load is similar among the sectors.
Cumulative Trauma Disorders ; Human Engineering ; Humans ; Pain Threshold ; Physical Therapy Specialty ; Psychology ; Public Sector* ; Risk Factors*