|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOTE: This document is provided for historical purposes only.
The authors ask you:
Aim: Assess the usefulness and adoption of “ergonomically designed” aviation snips among sheet metal workers in the field.
Methods: Twenty-five sheet metal workers
were recruited to participate in the evaluation of a newly designed aviation
snip. The new snip was designed with a narrower handle span in order to
accommodate workers with relatively small hands. Both the original design
(wide span) and a new design (narrow span) of aviation snips were provided
to each participant at an initial meeting. Each participant used the snips
for six weeks. Bi-weekly telephone interviews were administered by the investigators
to track frequency of snip use. At the end of the six week period, all participants
engaged in a focus group meeting and completed a follow-up questionnaire
designed to assess tool adoption and usefulness. Demographic data, hand
anthropometrics, and tool metrics were also obtained.
Results: A majority (80%) of the participants preferred the narrow snip over the wider snip. Four out of the five participants that preferred the wider snip had hand sizes greater than the group mean. When comparing the narrow snip to the wider snip, the majority of the participants indicated that the narrow snip was more comfortable, fit better in their hands, was easier to use, and easier to maneuver. When given the choice between the study snips and their personal snips, a majority (75%) of the participants preferred their personal snips. When comparing the narrow snip to their personal snips, the majority of the participants indicated that their personal snip was more comfortable, easier to use, and easier to maneuver. However, the majority of participants agreed that the narrow snip fit better in their hands than their personal snip.
Conclusions: While many manufacturers claim to have designed ergonomic hand tools, there are few studies that have evaluated the usefulness of the ergonomics tools or assessed the barriers and facilitators to adopting ergonomic hand tools among construction workers. The present study attempted to address these issues by comparing a newly designed aviation snip with a narrow handle span to other commonly used aviation snips. In the present study, tool adoption appeared to be related to factors beyond an engineering design modification. While many of the participants agreed that the narrow snip fit better in their hands than their personal snip, the majority of participants still preferred their personal snip based on other factors. Participants indicated that they preferred their personal snips for several reasons: the handles were more comfortable, the location and shape of the finger holds were more acceptable, there was less resistance, and the pivot point functioned better. During the focus group meetings, the subjects provided the following characteristics of the ideal snip: durable, comfortable handles, lightweight, smooth pivot action, streamlined, consistency, longer length of cut, and one that was manufactured in the USA. The information gained from the present study illustrates critical design elements related to the usefulness and adoption of newly designed hand tools as well as the barriers and facilitators to adoption by end users.
In the building and construction industry, hand tools are an important means of production but have been associated with hand pain, injury, and disability. For many years the design of hand tools has been task and specification driven with little attention paid to the characteristics of the end-user. The use of non-powered hand tools expose workers to excessive hand forces, awkward wrist postures, and high contact forces often resulting in musculoskeletal disorders such as carpal tunnel syndrome. The productivity of skilled workers is also impaired when using tools that cause pain and discomfort. While many manufacturers claim to have designed ergonomic hand tools, very few tools have been evaluated to determine if the new designs reduce risk factor exposure and if they are accepted by construction workers. Current aviation snip hand tool design accommodates approximately 90% of male hands and 65% of female hands.
Sheet metal workers were recruited from Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 91 located in Rock Island, Illinois to participate in the aviation snip field evaluation study. The local union was contacted based on previous working relationships with the investigators. Sheet metal workers were recruited using flyers and informational handouts located at the union and by the Local No. 91 apprenticeship instructor. Recruitment continued until twenty-five sheet metal workers agreed to participate in the study. Upon completion of recruitment and distribution of the hand tools, data were collected in a variety of methods. Detailed follow-up questionnaires and structured focus groups obtained information on tool usefulness and adoption by the participants. Refer to the ‘Abstract’ section for additional information on the methods.
A majority (80%) of the participants preferred the narrow snip over the wider snip. Four out of the five participants that preferred the wider snip had hand sizes greater than the group mean. When comparing the narrow snip to the wider snip, the majority of the participants indicated that the narrow snip was more comfortable, fit better in their hands, was easier to use, and easier to maneuver. When given the choice between the study snips and their personal snips, a majority (75%) of the participants preferred their personal snips. When comparing the narrow snip to their personal snips, the majority of the participants indicated that their personal snip was more comfortable, easier to use, and easier to maneuver. However, the majority of participants agreed that the narrow snip fit better in their hands than their personal snip.
While many manufacturers claim to have designed ergonomic hand tools, there are few studies that have evaluated the usefulness of the ergonomics tools or assessed the barriers and facilitators to adopting ergonomic hand tools among construction workers. The present study attempted to address these issues by comparing a newly designed aviation snip with a narrow handle span to other commonly used aviation snips. In the present study, tool adoption appeared to be related to factors beyond an engineering design modification. While many of the participants agreed that the narrow snip fit better in their hands than their personal snip, the majority of participants still preferred their personal snip based on other factors. Participants indicated that they preferred their personal snips for several reasons: the handles were more comfortable, the location and shape of the finger holds were more acceptable, there was less resistance, and the pivot point functioned better. During the focus group meetings, the subjects provided the following characteristics of the ideal snip: durable, comfortable handles, lightweight, smooth pivot action, streamlined, consistency, longer length of cut, and one that was manufactured in the USA. The information gained from the present study illustrates critical design elements related to the usefulness and adoption of newly designed hand tools as well as the barriers and facilitators to adoption by end users.
Tool designers should consider factors beyond tool dimensions and hand anthropometrics such as: familiarity, handle comfort, and cut quality and length. Further research into the behavioural and psychological aspects of tool choice should be performed. Information obtained from this research should be disseminated to tool manufacturers to aide in optimal tool design.
CDC/NIOSH Grant # 212-2005-M-13350 in collaboration with Jim Albers of NIOSH Mountain and Plains ERC (1 T42 OH009229)
The findings and conclusions in this poster are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Citations to Web sites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of these Web sites.
View Comments on this Poster