NIOSHTIC-2 Publications Search
A scientific look at back belts.
Improving safety at small underground mines. Peters RH ed. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, SP 18-94, 1994 Jan; :44-47
The foregoing information indicates a somewhat mixed bag of evidence-some in support of back belts and some in opposition. Evidence supporting use of back belts includes some restriction in end-range motion of twisting and side bending, clinical evidence of a decrease in lost time back injuries among those with prior back injuries, and a suggestion of increased trunk stiffness that may be of some benefit. Evidence in opposition of back belt use includes an increased risk of injury upon discontinuing belt use, increased blood pressure, and a false sense of security that may lead workers to overstrain their backs. This review of the literature indicates that the following approach to use of back belts should be followed: 1. Back belts should be treated as a prescription item and should be provided only to individuals having had a previous back injury. These workers should be weaned from the belts as soon as it is appropriate. 2. Back belts should not be universally distributed to all workers at a worksite, given the lack of demonstrated effectiveness among uninjured workefs and a potential increased risk of injury after discontinuation of use. 3. Individuals considered for a back belt prescription should be screened for cardiovascular risk because of the increased blood pressure associated with belt use. 4. Individuals using back belts should be required to participate in a mandatory exercise program and should continue in the program after being weaned from the belt during the period of increased back injury risk. 5. Workers using back belts should be exposed to a mandatory education program to ensure that the back belts are used properly. 6. A full ergonomic assessment of the workplace should be performed to reduce any physical hazards that may increase the incidence of back injuries. The evidence presented in this paper suggests that back belts have a rather limited role to play in controlling the costs and incidence of back injuries. Reliance on back belts as a sole method of combatting this problem clearly does not provide an effective solution. Effective back injury control programs tend to emphasize job redesign, where the worker's job is changed to reduce the amount of manual lifting that has to be done (or the lifting that must be done is made easier). Methods of job re- design applicable to the mining industry are contained in the USBM Information Circular 9235. Employers who are interested in keeping the cost of back injuries down are encouraged to focus on job design as a primary method of injury control, and if back belts are to be used, careful consideration should be given to the factors discussed above.
Musculoskeletal-system; Musculoskeletal-system-disorders; Injuries; Ergonomics; Analytical-processes; Safety-measures; Safety-education; Safety-practices; Materials-handling; Workers; Work-capability; Physical-capacity; Physical-fitness; Back-injuries; Safety-belts; Personal-protective-equipment; Personal-protection; Cardiovascular-function; Cardiovascular-system; Physical-exercise
Improving safety at small underground mines
Page last reviewed: April 12, 2019
Content source: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Education and Information Division