A review on workplace and individual factors in wrist tendinosis among blue-collar workers
Wrist tendinosis among blue collar workers is not a new topic in work places. It results from long hours of activities that cause injuries which do not heal properly. The tendinosis injuries are not superficial but are only felt (Shuval, K., & Donchin, M., 2005).
This study seeks to criticize a journal done by Harris C. et al on workplace and individual factors in wrist tendinosis among blue-collar workers. It was a peer reviewed professional journal that brings to the attention the correlation between exposure and factors that contribute to tendinosis.
Statement of the research ...view middle of the document...
Questionnaires and physical examinations were the research tools. Physical examinations were carried out every 4 months. The limitation of the research was; workers performing intensive manual work who were assigned four or fewer tasks. Those who were excluded from this study were;
i. workers who had worked for their current employer for less than 3 months
ii. workers who did not expect to work for their current employers for than more than 1 year
iii. Workers who spent more than 25% of their time on computers or forklifts.
The interview survey assessed job parameters, employment history, work organization factors and pain in various upper-body regions including the hand/ wrist regions. This was commendable for the researcher took those considerations that could have interfered with the research results and consequently conclusions. Interviews were done on the participants preferred language. This was remarkable since it language barriers were eliminated.
Physical examinations were prompted by a feeling of pain in the hand/ wrist persisting in the last four months which was thought to be work related. The pain reported would also be more than 5 on a 10 point scale in the last 7 days. The individual under the physical examination was one who had taken pain killers for more than 2 days in the past one week (Harris, C. et al, 2011).
Flaws in the procedural design
The researchers of the topic under this critique had taken some assumptions which contributed to the flaws of the design of his research. To start with, the populations of his study were workers performing hand intensive manual work who were not involved in greater than 4 tasks. The researcher was within his topic for considering the manual workers only. The researchers took a broad study which could not and cannot exclusively be relied upon. Having a sample of workers who were engaged in 2, 3 or 4 tasks deters the readers of the researchers work to know which specific task contributed to tendinosis. Again even if the tasks contributed to tendinosis, the effect is obviously not the same as the researcher assumed. Excluded from the research were workers who spent more than 25% of their time on a forklift or a computer. This raises the question whether it was obvious to get tendinosis if the worker performed his duties using a computer or a forklift for more than 25% of his time. It could...