Background: Functional Capacity (FC) is a multidimensional construct within the activity domain of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health framework (ICF). Functional capacity evaluations (FCEs) are assessments of work-related FC. The extent to which these work-related FC tests are associated to bio-, psycho-, or social factors is unknown. The aims of this study were to test relationships between FC tests and other ICF factors in a sample of healthy workers, and to determine the amount of statistical variance in FC tests that can be explained by these factors. Methods: A cross sectional study. The sample was comprised of 403 healthy workers who completed material handling FC tests (lifting low, overhead lifting, and carrying) and static work FC tests (overhead working and standing forward bend). The explainable variables were; six muscle strength tests; aerobic capacity test; and questionnaires regarding personal factors (age, gender, body height, body weight, and education), psychological factors (mental health, vitality, and general health perceptions), and social factors (perception of work, physical workloads, sport-, leisure time-, and work-index). A priori construct validity hypotheses were formulated and analyzed by means of correlation coefficients and regression analyses. Results: Moderate correlations were detected between material handling FC tests and muscle strength, gender, body weight, and body height. As for static work FC tests; overhead working correlated fair with aerobic capacity and handgrip strength, and low with the sport-index and perception of work. For standing forward bend FC test, all hypotheses were rejected. The regression model revealed that 61% to 62% of material handling FC tests were explained by physical factors. Five to 15% of static work FC tests were explained by physical and social factors. Conclusions: The current study revealed that, in a sample of healthy workers, material handling FC tests were related to physical factors but not to the psychosocial factors measured in this study. The construct of static work FC tests remained largely unexplained.
LINK
CC-BY Applied Ergonomics, 2021, March https://www.journals.elsevier.com/applied-ergonomics Purpose: To analyze progression of changes in kinematics and work physiology during progressive lifting in healthy adults.Methods: Healthy participants were recruited. A standardized lifting test from the WorkWell Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) was administered, with five progressive lifting low series of five repetitions. The criteria of the WorkWell observation protocol were studied: changes in muscle use (EMG), heart rate (heart rate monitor), base of support, posture and movement pattern (motion capture system). Repeated measures ANOVA’s were used to analyze changes during progressive workloads.Results: 18 healthy young adults participated (8 men, 10 women; mean age 22 years). Mean maximum weight lifted was 66 (±3.2) and 44 (±7.4) kg for men and women, respectively. With progressive loads, statistically significant (p < 0.01) differences were observed: increase in secondary muscle use at moderate lifting, increase of heart rate, increase of base of support and movement pattern changes were observed; differences in posture were not significant.Conclusions: Changes in 4 out of 5 kinematic and work physiology parameters were objectively quantified using lab technology during progressive lifting in healthy adults. These changes appear in line with existing observation criteria.
MULTIFILE
BACKGROUND: Physical therapists' recommendations to patients to avoid daily physical activity can be influenced by the therapists' kinesiophobic beliefs. Little is known about the amount of influence of a physical therapist's kinesiophobic beliefs on a patient's actual lifting capacity during a lifting test.OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the influence of physical therapists' kinesiophobic beliefs on lifting capacity in healthy people.DESIGN: A blinded, cluster-randomized cross-sectional study was performed.METHODS: The participants (n=256; 105 male, 151 female) were physical therapist students who performed a lifting capacity test. Examiners (n=24) were selected from second-year physical therapist students. Participants in group A (n=124) were tested in the presence of an examiner with high scores on the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia for health care providers (TSK-HC), and those in group B (n=132) were tested in the presence of an examiner with low scores on the TSK-HC. Mixed-model analyses were performed on lifting capacity to test for possible (interacting) effects.RESULTS: Mean lifting capacity was 32.1 kg (SD=13.6) in group A and 39.6 kg (SD=16.4) in group B. Mixed-model analyses revealed that after controlling for sex, body weight, self-efficacy, and the interaction between the examiners' and participants' kinesiophobic beliefs, the influence of examiners' kinesiophobic beliefs significantly reduced lifting capacity by 14.4 kg in participants with kinesiophobic beliefs and 8.0 kg in those without kinesiophobic beliefs.LIMITATIONS: Generalizability to physical therapists and patients with pain should be studied.CONCLUSIONS: Physical therapists' kinesiophobic beliefs negatively influence lifting capacity of healthy adults. During everyday clinical practice, physical therapists should be aware of the influence of their kinesiophobic beliefs on patients' functional ability.
