KNOWLEDGE OF PHYSICAL ERGONOMIC IN THE WORKPLACE

AMONG OFFICE WORKERS

NURUL ALYANA BINTI NAMAWI

12106120036

Report Submitted to Fulfil the Partial Requirements

For the Diploma of Environmental Health
Universiti Kuala Lumpur

SEPTEMBER 2022
 DECLARATION

I declare that this report is my original work and all references have been
cited adequately as required the University.

Date: 10/02/2023 Signature: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Full Name: NURUL ALYANA BINTI NAMAWI
ID Number: 12106120037

I| P a g e
 APPROVAL PAGE

We have supervised and examined this report and verify that it meets the
program and University’s requirements for Diploma in Environmental Health.

Date: 10/02/2023 Signature: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Supervisor: Dr Khairul Nizam Mohd Isa
Official Stamp:

Date: 10/02/2023 Signature: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Co-Supervisor: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Official Stamp:

II| P a g e
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my supervisor as well

as our dean who gave me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project,
which also helped me in doing a lot of Research and I came to know about so
many new things. I am really thankful to them. Secondly, I would also like to
thank my parents and friends who helped me a lot in finishing this project
within the limited time. I am making this project not only for marks but to also
increase my knowledge. THANKS AGAIN TO ALL WHO HELPED ME.

III| P a g e
TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION ............................................................................................. I

APPROVAL PAGE ........................................................................................ II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................... III

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................... VI

LIST OF FIGURES...................................................................................... VII

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................ VIII

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................. IX

ABSTRAK ..................................................................................................... X

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 1

1.1 BACKGROUND STUDY .................................................................. 1

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT ................................................................. 3

1.3 OBJECTIVES................................................................................... 5

1.4 HYPOTHESIS .................................................................................. 5

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................... 6

2.1 DEFINITION OF ERGONOMIC ....................................................... 6

2.2 BENEFITS OF ERGONOMICS IN THE WORKPLACE ................. 17

2.3 ERGONOMIC RISK FACTORS (ERF)........................................... 20

2.3.1 Awkward Posture .................................................................... 23

2.3.2 Force ....................................................................................... 23

2.3.3 Repetition ................................................................................ 24

2.3.4 Contact Stress ......................................................................... 24

2.3.5 Static Loading .......................................................................... 25

2.4 CONCLUSION ............................................................................... 25

IV| P a g e
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY .................................................................. 26

3.1 STUDY DESIGN ............................................................................ 26

3.2 STUDY AREA ................................................................................ 27

3.3 STUDY POPULATION ................................................................... 27

3.4 SAMPLE SIZE ............................................................................... 28

3.5 RESEARCH TOOLS ...................................................................... 29

3.6 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS .............................................................. 29

3.7 DATA COLLECTION FLOWCHART .............................................. 30

CHAPTER 4: RESULT AND DISCUSSION ................................................ 31

4.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 31

4.2 RESULTS ...................................................................................... 31

4.2.1 THE DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF OFFICE

WORKERS ........................................................................................... 31

4.2.2 SCORE OF KNOWLEDGE ..................................................... 33

4.2.3 THE KNOWLEDGE OF OFFICE WOKERS ............................ 33

4.2.4 KNOWLEDGE OF OFFICE WORKERS ACCORDING

SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS. ................................... 35

4.3 DISCUSSION................................................................................. 37

4.4 STUDY LIMITATION ...................................................................... 40

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ...................................................................... 41

5.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 41

5.2 FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................. 42

REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 43

V| P a g e
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 4-1: Demographic characteristics of office workers ........................... 32

Table 4-2: The knowledge of office workers relevant to ergonomics .......... 34
Table 4-3: Knowledge of office workers according to their sociodemographic
characteristics. ............................................................................................ 36

VI| P a g e
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1The Ergonomic Workstation & Desk Ergonomics ......................... 4

Figure 3-2 Map of all state in Malaysia........................................................ 27
Figure 3.2 Data Collection Flowchart .......................................................... 30

VII| P a g e
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

IEA INTERNATIONAL ERGONOMIC ASSOCIATION

CTD CUMULATIVE TRAUMA DISORDER

OSHA OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATIVE

WMSDs WORK-RELATED MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDER

ERF ERGONOMIC RISK FACTOR

MSD MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDER

MSI MUSCULOSKELETAL INJURY

BLS BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

VIII| P a g e
 ABSTRACT

Ergonomics is the scientific study of people and their work environment. Office
workers are a profession that generally produces a variety of musculoskeletal
disorders. If the principles of ergonomics are used among workers, they help
prevent occupational ergonomics health hazards and provide more comfort to
workers and employers. This study aimed to assess the ergonomic knowledge
level among office workers. A cross-sectional study was conducted among
174 of office workers in all states in Malaysia aged 20 years and above. An
adopted and self-administered questionnaire was distributed using online
platform on September until November 2022. Results shows that almost all
workers (77.6%) knew what is meant by ergonomics. About (39.0%) and
(42.6%) of females and full-time workers, respectively were classified as fair
knowledge level of ergonomics compared to male (36.2%) and internship
(30.0%) (p > 0.05). In conclusion, office workers and employers need to
ensure that knowledge of ergonomics in the value of employees needs to be
absorbed. This can be achieved through the addition of ergonomic knowledge
in their office.

IX| P a g e
 ABSTRAK

Ergonomik ialah kajian saintifik tentang manusia dan persekitaran kerja

mereka. Pekerja pejabat adalah profesion yang secara amnya menghasilkan
pelbagai gangguan muskuloskeletal. Jika prinsip ergonomik digunakan dalam
kalangan pekerja, ia membantu mencegah bahaya kesihatan ergonomik
pekerjaan dan memberikan lebih keselesaan kepada pekerja dan majikan.
Kajian ini bertujuan untuk menilai tahap pengetahuan ergonomik dalam
kalangan pekerja pejabat. Kajian keratan rentas telah dijalankan dalam
kalangan 174 pekerja pejabat di semua negeri di Malaysia berumur 20 tahun
ke atas. Soal selidik yang diterima pakai dan ditadbir sendiri telah diedarkan
menggunakan platform dalam talian pada September hingga November 2022.
Keputusan menunjukkan bahawa hampir semua pekerja (77.6%) tahu apa
yang dimaksudkan dengan ergonomik. Kira-kira (39.0%) dan (42.6%) pekerja
wanita dan sepenuh masa, masing-masing diklasifikasikan sebagai tahap
pengetahuan ergonomik yang saksama berbanding lelaki (36.2%) dan latihan
amali (30.0%) (p > 0.05). Kesimpulannya, pekerja pejabat dan majikan perlu
memastikan ilmu ergonomik dalam nilai pekerja perlu diserapkan. Ini boleh
dicapai melalui penambahan pengetahuan ergonomik di pejabat mereka.

X| P a g e
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND STUDY

This chapter introduces the current study which aimed at determined the
relationship of Knowledge in ergonomic among workers. Knowledge study
was conducted to investigate a certain topic to identify what people know
(Knowledge) related to human behaviour. A Knowledge survey is a
representative study to collect information on what is known, believed and
done in relation to a particular topic of a specific population (World Health
Statistics 2008, n.d.). Ergonomics comes from two greek words: 'ergon'
meaning work and 'nomoi' meaning natural law, which literally means the
science of work. Designing for humans is at the heart of ergonomics.
Ergonomics, which is defined as the science of customising a workspace to a
user's demands, strives to boost productivity and efficiency while minimising
discomfort. Consider the desk height or the angle of their computer monitor.
Consider whether their wrists from typing are sore at the end of the day or if
their eyes are tired. By adapting instruments to the user and emphasising
optimal posture to lessen the consequences of repeated motion, someone
with a strong understanding of ergonomics can prevent the majority of
workplace injuries. Therefore, ergonomics become very useful, and also
makes things comfortable and efficient in a game. The emphasis in
ergonomics is to ensure the design, strengths, and capabilities of people and
minimize the effects of their limitations, rather than forcing them to adopt them.
The necessity for ergonomics has grown as a result of the usage of computers
and quickly evolving technologies in contemporary workplaces. Whether
designing a workspace for the office or at home, desks, seats, monitors,
keyboards, and lighting must all be taken into consideration (Ergonomics,
1972).

1|Page
 Ergonomics also considers the needs of movement throughout the day.
Office furniture traditionally encourages stiff, fixed posture and little
movement. However, the balance between sitting and standing, which can be
assisted with a height-adjustable desk, is a proven way to combat the effects
of sedentary workplace behaviour. The implementation of good ergonomics
will lead to easy use of products, increase efficiency in manufacturing, make
furniture comfortable, and contribute to safety, and the environment needs to
make it fit for purpose (Fernandez, 1995).

Ergonomics is therefore an interdisciplinary science that includes topics

from anatomy to psychology to physiology to sociology to engineering to
anthropology to physics to medicine. The goal of ergonomics is to provide
working environments for employees that lessen physical demands, enhance
posture, make it easier to handle tools, and otherwise enhance working
conditions, lessen fatigue, increase worker productivity, and limit human error.
Mistake. Ergonomics aids in the investigation of how the workplace
environment affects productivity and, by extension, health and safety. The
employee's interest in the job depends more on the comfort and safety of the
workplace (Ross, 1994).

2|Page
 1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT

For workers in a variety of fields, ergonomics is essential. Despite working,

companies and employees must maintain proper ergonomic management to
prevent health effects that could lower productivity. Understanding how people
interact with various components of the work system is the focus of the
scientific field of ergonomics. Ergonomics may make work easier, ensure
worker health and safety, and promote optimal performance. Imagine if during
the eight hours of work every day, workers do work in awkward postures,
repetitive movements or extreme environmental temperatures, surely the
body will feel uncomfortable due to the musculoskeletal system being
disrupted (ergonomics, 2010).

As a result, workers will experience disruptions to the function of the joints,

ligaments, nerves, muscles and spine that affect the body parts including the
neck, shoulders, wrists, hips, knees and feet thus making movement difficult.
Starting with the selection of a comfortable desk and chair, the position and
level of the computer should also be considered. Resting for a while to give
relief to the body and eyes should also be practiced, in addition to light
exercise between working hours. When working from home, other
considerations should also be made, including enough lighting, proper
ventilation, a suitable working environment temperature, and noise levels. All
of these elements contribute to our ability to work effectively and completely
focus on the task at hand. (Ross, 1994)

3|Page
The correct position is described in the picture below:

Figure 1-1(The Ergonomic Workstation & Desk Ergonomics)

In addition, there may be employers who are not aware of workplace design,
including not providing adjustable chairs or tables for employees of different
heights, thus causing problems related to ergonomics. Community awareness
of the importance of ergonomic management is still lacking (Krieger & Higgins,
2002). People usually know about body, joint, muscle and nerve pain when
lifting heavy objects, but may not be able to relate it to other risk factors that
cause them pain. Our society also often associates this kind of pain issue only
with increasing age. It is the employer's responsibility to ensure that
employees carry out their duties in a safe and healthy situation (Meyers et al.,
1997).

4|Page
 1.3 OBJECTIVES

General:

To assess the knowledge of ergonomics among office workers.

Specific:

i. To determine the levels of knowledge of ergonomic among office

workers.

ii. To investigate the relationship between office worker’s ergonomic

knowledge levels and sociodemographic characteristics.

1.4 HYPOTHESIS

i. The levels of knowledge among office workers are associated with their
sociodemographic characteristics.

5|Page
 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 DEFINITION OF ERGONOMIC

The field of ergonomics, usually referred to as human factors, uses theory,

concepts, information, and design techniques to optimize both human well-
being and system performance. The scientific field of ergonomics aims to
comprehend how people interact with other system components (IEA, 1959).
Ergonomics is frequently related to people and their occupations. On a larger
scale, ergonomics examines people's behavioral, psychological, and
physiological capacities and limitations. Experts in ergonomics generally
design new work settings or modify current work environments based on
studies on human capabilities and limitations (Jaffar et al., 2011). Only a part
of them, in reality, are pertinent to ergonomics; regrettably, it is precisely this
portion that is likely to receive the least attention in medical courses. In
general, only the behavior of the intact organism is of importance in anatomy
and physiology. The pathophysiology of such biological systems is definitely
outside the scope of ergonomics, as are the micro characteristics of muscle
chemistry, for example. Psychology's scope of interest is limited to human
psychology and to healthy, normative behavior. The general strategy is the
same as that used by experimental psychologists, i.e., concepts and evidence
are drawn from data gathered through carefully controlled experimentation.

According to psychologists, people are information processors that make

judgments based on a range of inputs and communicate their decisions
through a number of outputs. In some ways, their behavior is similar to that of
a computer, but the comparison is not exact because arousal, weariness, and
circadian rhythm issues do not exist in the computer industry. It is important
to investigate motivation because, unlike a computer, humans may operate at
a variety of arousal levels. This calls for a study of both financial and non-

6|Page
financial incentives as well as social interactions. Changes in activity level with
the time of day are relevant to issues with shift work, rest breaks, and working
day length (Ergonomics, 1972).

All workers, sectors, and companies of all sizes are impacted by ergonomic
risks. Poor workplace design, repetitive motions, awkward body mechanics or
posture, and other dangers are the root cause or are closely associated to a
startling number of incapacitating cumulative traumatic illnesses and injuries.
The BLS estimates that 56% of all occupational injuries are caused by
repeated trauma, however CTD back injuries are not currently recognized as
cumulative trauma (U.S. Department of Labor, 1991). According to
Occupational Hazards (1992), CTD reports increased by 537 percent between
1980 and 1989, and 185,400 workers were reportedly impacted in 1990
(Ross, 1994).

Ergonomics is the science of making the workplace optimally effective,

safe, secure, and comfortable for the employees so they enjoy producing
more valuable output for the company to which they belong (Dul et al., 2012).
In general, ergonomics aims to adapt the human to the task rather than the
task to the individual (Fernandez, 1995). Today's widespread use of mobile
devices and gadgets increases the risk of numerous musculoskeletal
problems, which cannot be ignored. Numerous researchers assert that
continuous use of these devices causes poor postures with a substantial risk
of injury (Madhwani & Nag, 2017). For the purpose of creating an
ergonomically appropriate working environment, the demand for every task in
relation to workers' ability over a given length of time needs to be examined.
Depending on the type of occupation they hold, the person can complete their
task while sitting at a desk, standing, or walking. The amount of time spent
standing or walking against sitting varies by occupation, according to the
National Compensation Survey on Standing or Walking versus Sitting Jobs in
2016 and the Occupational Requirements Survey done by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics. For instance, only 3.7 percent of the workweek was spent

7|Page
sitting for waiters and waitresses, and 96.3 percent was spent standing or
walking. In 2016, it was discovered that, on average, software developers,
accountants, and insurance sales agents all spent their working days seated
(U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1967).

In comparison to 2006, when only 26.2% of people worldwide used

computers to browse the internet, it is predicted that 40.7% of people have
done thus in 2012. Access to the important ICT data for the world in 2013 from
the years 2006 to. According to Marshall's (2001) survey, six out of ten
employees use computers at work on average, and this percentage is
predicted to rise. According to Scott (2008), compared to the developed world,
the use of ergonomic principles in developing countries boosts productivity
and office advantages. According to numerous studies, working 5.41 hours
while seated at a desk and getting 7 hours of sleep at night significantly affects
both physical and mental health (Larsson et al., 2012). Government rules such
as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards state
that ergonomically designed workstations are necessary to lower the risk of
injury, boost output, promote healthier vision and joints, ease tension and
headaches, boost job satisfaction and high-quality work, and boost employee
morale (Fernandez, 1995).

The engineering discipline that studies numerous anatomical,

physiological, psychological, and engineering ideas and how they interact with
people is known as ergonomics, according to the International Ergonomics
Association (IEA, 1959) . Ergonomic design is the practise of using this
science to organise a workplace in accordance with worker tasks, equipment
usage, and general environment. A strong ergonomic design benefits the
business by lowering the expense of health and absenteeism, as well as
maximising the potential of employees by raising productivity and job
satisfaction. Or to put it another way, ergonomics enables "fitting the worker
to the task" (Khan et al., 2012).

8|Page
 The most ergonomic factors come from computer users, usage of
computers is now commonplace and no longer requires specialised expertise.
Computer use is becoming more and more prevalent in many aspects of life,
raising some serious "user" health problems. In the absence of a sound
ergonomic design, prolonged work for extended periods of time can
significantly impact not only vision but also the muscles in the neck, upper
back, shoulders, and arms, resulting in fatigue and discomfort in both the
muscles and the eyes (musculoskeletal disorder) (Karsh et al., 2010). In the
last ten years, there has been a 25% increase in the number of
musculoskeletal problems worldwide, which now account for 2% of all
diseases. Since many of these musculoskeletal disorders are frequent
computer-related ailments, ergonomics becomes a problem (Connelly et al.,
2011). Inadequate workstation design and bad posture are hazards, as
prolonged sitting for lengthy periods of time causes poor circulation, joint
stiffness, and pain. Continuous employment over lengthy periods of time can
raise the risk of injury, and repetitive strain injuries that build over time can
cause long-term impairment.

Critical studies have demonstrated that in order to satisfy stakeholders and

minimize musculoskeletal disorders, a prevalent source of chronic disability,
ergonomists should be aware of the ergonomic implications of typical
rationalization tactics at certain workplaces (Kryger et al., 2003). Workers who
are more likely than others to be exposed to both physical and psychosocial
workplace risk factors are more likely to report musculoskeletal disorder
symptoms (Devereux et al., 2002). The findings imply that these risk variables
interacted in the workplace in a way that increased the likelihood that
symptoms in the upper limbs would be reported. When exposure to physical
risk factors at work was high, psychosocial risk variables at work were more
significant than when physical exposure was low.

9|Page
 Based studied in Pakistan, ergonomics is still a relatively new idea and is still
not seen as being crucial to the majority of businesses. The association
between mechanical exposure of the upper limb during work and conditions
including eye strain and discomfort, numbness, and tingling in the wrist,
shoulder, back, and legs is acknowledged in the literature (Veiersted &
Wærsted, 2009). It takes a user-cantered approach to teach people about the
anatomy and physiology of the body, the nature of work, and workstation
design, so they may set up their workspace to avoid various health risks
(Candan & Celentano, 2005).

A risk-free, modular, and ergonomically designed way of life. Facts and

evidence exist demonstrating the numerous risk factors that might result in
work-related musculoskeletal problems, such as repetitive strain injuries,
awkward postures, strenuous activity, and static postures (WMSDs)
(Strazdins et al., 2004). According to Garvan TN (1997) and Berge Z (2002),
prolonged periods of static sitting can cause pain in the neck, back, shoulders,
and wrists as well as intervertebral disc prolapse, visual fatigue, and mental
stress (Roman-Liu et al., n.d.).

How to build a workplace that maximises employee well-being and overall

organisational success is addressed in ergonomics (IEA, 2016). Workplace
ergonomics is influenced by organisational elements like cooperation and
communication styles as well as physical aspects of repetitive work like the
weight of the load carried. Since psychological and psychosocial ergonomic
risk variables are mostly absent from the ergonomic evaluation techniques
now used by businesses, this research concentrates on physical ergonomic
risks, or the risk of developing occupational musculoskeletal ailments.

Some estimates place the number of workers in Europe who experience

occupational musculoskeletal problems at 44 million (Nunes, 2009).
Operators on assembly lines face ergonomic risks that are higher than normal.
35% of plant and machine workers and assemblers reported having regular

10 | P a g e
backaches and muscular problems in the Fourth European Survey on Working
Conditions (Schneider, 2010). Numerous studies of assembly line workers in
several nations have confirmed that musculoskeletal disorders are highly
prevalent (Bao et al., 2000).

The minimization of physical ergonomic risks has recently become a high

concern for production managers at assembly line companies, especially in
light of the ageing working population in a number of countries. On the one
hand, legal requirements mandate that businesses measure ergonomic risks
often and record the steps they take to lower them. On the other hand,
enhancements to workplace ergonomics frequently lead to an increase in the
company's financial and social performance measures. Poor workplace
ergonomics and quality in assembly lines are strongly correlated, according to
several case studies (Vayvay & Erdinc, 2008) and (Ivarsson & Eek, 2016). For
instance, the cost to remedy quality flaws that were caused by stations with
medium and high ergonomic loads was nearly eight times greater in the case
study of a car manufacturer (Falck et al., 2010) compared to stations with low
ergonomic loads. The Volvo car firm has been predicted to pay an additional
€90,000 per year for an assembly station with a high ergonomic load to cover
absenteeism, staff turnover, etc (Sundin et al., 2004). The average pay-back
period for ergonomic investments is less than a year due to fewer reported
work-related disorders, fewer lost workdays, increased productivity and
quality, as well as decreased turnover and absenteeism, according to a survey
of case studies on cost-benefit analysis of ergonomic interventions (Goggins
et al., 2008).

The majority of businesses already do post hoc analyses of ergonomic

concerns in current workplaces. When operational planning considers
ergonomic factors, there may be a reduction in ergonomic risk prevention,
according to recent academic studies. Some current studies look at
organisational aspects of how to include ergonomics into business planning
procedures, like stakeholder involvement or performance metrics

11 | P a g e
(Jaturanonda et al., 2015). There is no discussion of optimization models in
this review. Neumann and Dul presented the results of a case study
contrasting the human consequences, mostly physical workload and health,
and the system effects, namely productivity and quality, of various operations
management initiatives (2010). The requirements of pertinent ergonomic
norms for manufacturing businesses were developed by (Dul et al., 2004).

Ergonomics is a human-centered approach to understanding how people

interact with other system components. An ergonomically good workplace can
reduce musculoskeletal pain, boost efficiency and production, reduce
manufacturing costs, and improve workers' general wellbeing. According to
research conducted in Hong Kong, the term "workplace" refers to the location
where employees are employed, including both work and non-work places.
This definition is included in Chapter 509 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Ordinance. A safe workplace can have fewer fatalities and injuries.
According to a survey of 58 nations, Hong Kong has the costliest office space
in the world from 2013 to 2017. Companies are switching to hot-desking office
space arrangements in order to reduce the high cost of office rental. In these
arrangements, no fixed workstation is assigned to each employee. Employees
and the firm will profit from a well-designed workplace in Hong Kong, and the
corporation can use the financial resources generated by reduced leasing
costs (Chim, 2020).

The degree of physical ergonomic risks is dependent on the amount,

frequency, and duration of exposure to physical workload factors like lifting
heavy objects, awkward postures, extended sitting or standing, repetitive
movements, vibrations, as well as environmental factors like temperature,
humidity, noise, and lighting. The evaluation of these variables tries to identify
and assess workplace health concerns. Direct approaches, observational
methods, subjective methods, and additional psychophysiological measures
are some of the often-utilised ergonomics evaluation instruments. For more
information on measuring techniques, see Stanton, Hedge, Brookhuis, Salas,

12 | P a g e
and Hendrick (2004). For debates on the reliability and applicability of
ergonomics measurement techniques in the workplace, see Dempsey,
McGorry, and Maynard (2005) and Pascual and Naqvi (2008).

Based on next studied, Millions of employees in Europe suffer from the

most prevalent work-related health issues, known as musculoskeletal
diseases (MSDs). In the 27 Member States, 25% of employees express back
pain, while 23% report experiencing muscle pain (European Agency, 2007).
European figures show that 62% of workers in the EU27 spend at least a
quarter of their time doing repetitive hand and arm motions, 46% of their time
in uncomfortable or exhausting positions, and 35% of their time lifting or
transporting heavy objects. In 2007, the European Agency on Work and
Health launched the "Lighten the Load" campaign, indicating that physical
labour is still common throughout Europe. Particularly at risk are female
employees. According to some authors (Drury, 2005; Kahn, 2003), there will
be even more manual material handling than there already is, and there will
continue to be time pressure on the workforce to be productive and efficient
in order to produce high-quality, low-cost products that are delivered on time.
Additionally, as information technology has developed, new overload issues
have emerged, such as one-sided boring labour or work in a mandatory
position. Due to constant handling of loads, lengthy standing, repeated
motions of the hands and wrists, and awkward postures, monotonous
employment may cause worker tiredness to grow. The central nervous,
autonomic nervous, endocrine, and immunological systems all work together
as a complicated network to regulate how the human body reacts to stressors.
There are signs that workers may be exposed to both MSDs and
psychological risk factors (Reinhold et al., 2008), which together have a
stronger negative impact on workers' health. According to K. Johannisson
(Stress, 2006), the term "stress" was already in use in 1900, and people
started talking about "burnout" in 2000. Stress factors that affect the
functioning of the central nervous system include psychological and
physiological factors that affect human health at work (Randmann, 2002; Tint
et al., 2007). Poor workplace design is the primary physiological stressor

13 | P a g e
(Engels, 1994; Gunning, 2000; Hollmann, 2001). Other physiological risks
include carrying heavy objects, working out, getting tired, standing for
extended periods of time, receiving inadequate assistance from superiors and
peers, etc (Reinhold et al., 2008). All of them could have an impact on how
well the nervous system is functioning.

A few of the many factors that cause psychological stress include work
overload or underload, work pace (high levels of time pressure, machine
pacing), work schedule (shift work, night shifts, unpredictable hours), control
of work (low participation in decision-making, lack of control over workload),
inadequate equipment availability, and organisational issues (Maxwell
Asumeng1, LebbaeusAsamani2 & 1Department, 2015).

Different harms might result from exposure to various risks. For instance,
exposure to organic solvents can affect a person's mental health because of
how they affect the brain directly, how terrible they smell, and how worried
they make them feel that their exposure might be detrimental (RSBridger,
n.d.). Physical risks can have an impact on health through both physical-
chemical and psycho-physiological routes (RSBridger, n.d.). Significant
connections between risks and their impacts on health are also possible.

The duration of the occupational stress, the nature of the stressor, and the
organism's functional state are all factors in the dose-response connection
that determines how the occupational stress develops. The majority of these
ailments are associated with musculoskeletal disorders, which are the most
frequently cited issues in surveys conducted throughout Europe (Jones, 1998
and 2006; Paoli, 2000). Although occupational disorders brought on by stress
rank second only to musculoskeletal complaints in European surveys on work-
related health, issues brought on by mental stress at the workplace are not
yet regarded to be caused by working circumstances in Estonia (Jones, 2006,
Paoli, 2000).

14 | P a g e
 Preventing accidents is the primary objective of a risk assessment(Harms-
Ringdahl, 2001). As there is no government support for scientific studies in
the area of workplace accidents, the causes of this outcome have not been
thoroughly investigated. As a result, in Estonia, knowledge of the complex
nature of these events is still speculative at this time. Estonia is one of the few
remaining EU member states where the insurance law regarding occupational
illnesses and accidents is unresolved.

Next research, the most common occupational illnesses in a variety of jobs

are musculoskeletal ailments. There is strong evidence that ergonomic risk
factors such repetition, awkward posture, contact stress, and force can cause
WMSDs in workers if they exceed their biomechanical capacities (Violante et
al., 2005). According to certain reports, WMSDs are major factors in both
absenteeism and disability.

Office work today has a high prevalence of WMSDs due to computer use
in the workplace (Marcus M, 2002). The majority of office workers today
regularly utilise a computer and its accessories as part of their work
equipment, which presents numerous ergonomic risk factors, particularly
awkward postures (Mirmohammadi S et al., 2010). As a result, this
occupational group is prone to musculoskeletal issues in several body
regions, including the neck, shoulder, wrist, and hand (Jensen C, 2003).
According to some research, WMSDs among people who use video display
terminals (VDT) in various body areas occur at a rate of about 50%.
(Rosenman KD, 2006). With varying results, interventions like training,
ergonomic changes, rest breaks, and workplace exercises are used to treat
musculoskeletal problems or symptoms (Blangsted AK et al., 2008).

Numerous studies have decisively demonstrated that office workers'

musculoskeletal pain or discomfort can be decreased by making ergonomic
changes. After the installation of new chairs in an office setting, Amick et al.
investigated this impact and found statistically significant results (Robertson,

15 | P a g e
2003). They also found that, while to a smaller extent than ergonomic
improvement, training alone can reduce the occurrence of MSDs; this finding
was also shown in the authors' prior study on office workers. (Mirmohammadi
SJ, 2012). Arnetz et al. discovered that office worker absenteeism can be
reduced with workplace ergonomic intervention (Arnetz BB, 2003).

Although it has been demonstrated in certain studies that ergonomic

adjustments are highly helpful for reducing MSDs, their cost is a considerable
concern, especially in developing nations. Thus, it is probably more feasible
to think about other interventions in these nations, like as training, rest breaks,
or workplace activities. According to certain studies, WMSDs can be reduced
by implementing ergonomic programmes based on training or workplace
exercises. Authors discovered a positive benefit for training in reducing
uncomfortable postures in their prior work (Mirmohammadi SJ, 2012).

Tsauo et al. discovered that a rigorous team-exercise programme had a

positive impact on lowering neck and shoulder problems in sedentary
employees (Tsauo J-Y et al., 2004). Workplace workouts can considerably
reduce neck pain in office employees, according to a comprehensive study by
Coury et al. However, this effect was not significant for other body regions
(Coury HJ, 2009).

Exercise and ergonomic adjustments have been proven to have a positive

effect in studies, although compliance, particularly over time, is a worry
(Westgaard R, 2000). On the other side, other research hasn’t been able to
demonstrate a significant impact for exercise or ergonomic changes.
Verhaegen et alsystematic.'s review failed to clearly demonstrate the impact
of several ergonomic changes and exercises on arm, neck, and shoulder
symptoms at work (Verhagen A, 2007).

16 | P a g e
 2.2 BENEFITS OF ERGONOMICS IN THE WORKPLACE

When every employee knows what ergonomics is, this will benefit them more,
such as being able to avoid injuries while working. According to (Robin
Burgess-Limerick, 2018), all workers must show real interest and ongoing
commitment for the implementation to be successful. By learning when and
how to do this, employees can do it correctly. The first benefit is can improves
health. The health of those who work in ergonomic environments has
improved. The cardiovascular system is where it usually starts before
spreading to other organs. The heart will be in better shape than if the
employee worked in a typical setting. Additionally, because they will alter the
workstation to meet their body height, they will have less physical tension. The
eyes and neck won't strain from this natural position. Because the blood flow
will be good, workers will also reduce leg swelling. By creating a job to allow
for proper posture, fewer motions, better heights, less exertion, and reaches,
helps the workplace be more effective and productivity will frequently increase
as a result.

Second is can improve mental insight. Employees are better able to

concentrate on the task at hand when their bodies are at ease. Ergonomics
improves blood flow, strengthens muscles, and reduces pain. These improve
mental understanding when combined. Employees will feel less anxious, more
aware, happier, and more focused. Everyone may now concentrate more on
their work as a result. Their degree of productivity increases as they get more
concentrated. Worker frustration and exhaustion are eliminated by good
ergonomics, and employees are more motivated to provide high-quality work.
For example, a high force demand can cause the worker to not tighten the
screw adequately, which could affect the quality of the final product. Enhances
employee involvement when workers see that the organization is taking
measures to ensure health and safety and if an employee's workday does not
cause them any discomfort or tiredness. Next is can increase productivity
levels. Employee productivity might increase when their level of focus
increases. Ergonomics combines many concepts to improve the naturalness
of workplaces. Employee comfort and concentration are improved, which

17 | P a g e
increases production. For any work to be successful, productivity must
improve. They can change the workplace to attract better workers. Employees
desire to create more the better they feel about their jobs. Improves the safety
culture Ergonomics demonstrates a business's dedication to safety and health
as a key regulation. Greater safety culture in a firm is the result of the
preceding four advantages of ergonomics taken together. A safety and health
culture in the workplace will improve human performance for the firm because
healthy employees are one of the most expensive assets (Westgaard, 1985).

Next benefits are can decreased pains. The goal of ergonomics is to make
things feel safe and natural. The body will be less tense as a result of this
transformation, and the workers' health will also improve. Less discomfort will
be felt thanks to this mixture. Employees' capacity to work is impacted by their
discomfort. They can start out by switching the phone for a headphone or
working at a standing desk. Employees are better able to concentrate on
quality when they are not in pain. Then can decrease of quality work. An
ergonomic workspace has health, productivity, and work-quality advantages.
Aches, pains, tiredness, and other problems are possible for workers.
Ergonomics can help with these issues while also increasing worker
productivity. When people are comfortable, they can focus on generating high-
quality work. This, together with higher production levels, will maintain user
satisfaction. Six benefits are eliminated hazards. Establishing a more
productive workplace includes removing frequent dangers that can hurt
employees. These distraction-causing activities can be harmful in the long run.
To analyze the threats that are present, employees must pay attention and
become familiar with the office. Asking coworkers about the risks they face on
a regular basis is an additional wise decision. By asking their opinions, they
will demonstrate their concern for coworkers. Employees will feel heard if
changes are implemented.

18 | P a g e
 Then, increased employee engagement. Employees will come to
understand that workplaces offer the best conditions for enhancing employee
health and safety. Witness a rise in employee engagement since they won't
feel tired or uncomfortable. When workers perceive that the company values
them, their motivation will rise. This can lower turnover rates and make it
possible for firms to work together. Employing ergonomics can help people
take advantage of employee opinion, which is crucial. It also can encourage
safety. Ergonomics will improve awareness and make the workplace safer.
Hazards will be eliminated, workstations will be made more comfortable, and
workers will learn how to update their workspaces with safety in mind.
Additionally, the health advantages of ergonomics keep workers healthy at
work. This will advance safety in a new way. By giving workers a secure
environment in which to grow, it can also assure regular and reliable work.

Last benefits are happier employees, and more effective work. Happier
workers due to improved ergonomics. They will look forward to going to work
more than before, which will have an impact on others around them as well as
make them happier themselves. Employee productivity will rise if they are
comfortable at work. The firm will thrive the better they perform. All of these
contribute to ensuring everyone's safety and happiness (Benefits of
Ergonomics in the Workplace - BOSTONtec.).

19 | P a g e
 2.3 ERGONOMIC RISK FACTORS (ERF)

Workplaces have typically been built to efficiently move goods or support

machines. How people fit into the workplace receives less attention since they
always seem to be so adaptive. Ergonomics has emerged as a crucial element
in workplace safety due to the rising number of injuries brought on by repetitive
motion, excessive force, and uncomfortable posture. Hagberg et al. claim that
in the workplace, the terms ergonomics and human factors are frequently
used interchangeably. Both explain how personnel and workplace
expectations interact. Human factors emphasise design that lessens the
possibility of human error, while ergonomics concentrates on how labour
affects the worker. Although (Bongers et al., 2002) underlined that it can
prevent injuries to employees by addressing traditional and environmental risk
factors. The safety and applied ergonomics literature frequently make use of
the ideas of risk and risk factors. Risk consists of elements related to the
possibility or probability of an event as well as the gravity of the results or
severity if something bad happens. The frequency of accidents or injuries for
a particular exposure is frequently used to quantify risk.

Intuitively, risk varies across and within work environments. Risk indicates
the likelihood of harm, and the likelihood of harm depends on the worker's
exposure time and amount of risk. The lack of danger does not indicate the
absence of injury. Risk factors are described as behaviours or environmental
elements that raise the possibility of musculoskeletal injury. In many different
professions and work environments, the applied ergonomics literature
identifies a small number of common physical risk factors (Stack et al., 2016).
It is difficult to pinpoint the link between risk factor exposure and the likelihood
of suffering musculoskeletal injuries. Despite the fact that organisational and
psychosocial factors can cause disruptions or indirectly influence the impact
of physical risk factors, despite the fact that physical risk factors are significant
first-line risk factors, they are reasonable considerations (Hagberg et al) There
are three groups of risk variables identified: individual risk factors,
psychosocial stress, and biomechanical exposure (Bongers et al., 2002).
Poorly built workplaces and biomechanical exposures such as repeated

20 | P a g e
motions, excessive forces, and deviations from neutral body alignment are
some examples of such causes (National Research Council (U.S.) et al.,
2001). High perceived workplace stress, low felt social support, low perceived
job control, and time pressure are only a few examples of the psychosocial
stressors at work (Bongers et al., 2002); (Huang G.D, 2003).

Ergonomic Risk Factors (ERFs) are circumstances that exist or are

intentionally or unintentionally created that can or may contribute to choices
that are inconsistent with or contradict ergonomic tenets or philosophies and
that can or may jeopardise the health and wellbeing of users or workers while
at work or after work (Rani et al., 2016). Before a remedy to the issue is
identified, countermeasures must be taken, and understanding and being
aware of the negative features of ERF is crucial. Repetition, force, awkward
posture, contact pressure, and static loading are the primary ERFs. Exposure
to risk factors is a precursor to more serious issues, such as physical
symptoms and indicators that could result in serious damage.

Risk factor exposure over an extended period will lower quality of life. Risks
exist in any work. Relative risk is the major problem. By being aware of risk
factors, getting skilled in identifying and categorising these factors, and
considering alternatives to limit the frequency or duration of exposure to risk
factors, organisations and individuals can become better informed to lower the
risk of MSD injuries. Although it can be very challenging to pinpoint the exact
cause of each given occurrence of MSD, some risk factors are frequently
discussed in the field of ergonomic studies. An illness or problem affecting the
muscles, nerves, tendons, ligaments, joints, cartilage, or spinal discs is known
as a musculoskeletal disorder (MSD). These problems typically develop more
gradually and are not the product of a single, identifiable occurrence. MSD is
a sort of cumulative harm as a result. It is critical to comprehend what a risk
factor is and is not. Risk factors by themselves are not always the cause of a
specific MSD. The body may be strained by some tasks performed at work.
Injuries to the muscles, tendons, ligaments, and joints may result from this. A

21 | P a g e
musculoskeletal injury, or MSI, is the name given to this kind of harm. Risk
variables are those aspects of the workplace that could tax the employee's
body or raise their risk of injury (MSI).

Affected people may encounter risk factors when engaging in non-work

activities. Focusing simply on the workplace would be a mistake for
addressing any ergonomic issue. The main workplace risk factors are contact
stress, awkward and static postures, repeated, forceful work, and these types
of tasks. Risk factors are elements that raise one's susceptibility to MSI. An
injury can be caused by or contributed to by a risk factor. The chance of
damage can rise when two or more risk factors are present at once.
Employees could occasionally be unable to recognise all the risk elements
involved in a task. Employees must learn to identify circumstances where they
are more at risk. Additionally, not every person who is exposed to one or more
of these risk factors will develop MSD. Furthermore, any two individuals who
are exposed to the same set of risk factors to the same degree will react to
them in the same manner. However, in some combinations and among some
individuals, these common characteristics may result in MSD. There are
several Ergonomic Risk Factors (ERF) discussed in this study, namely
Awkward Posture, Force, Repetition, Contact Stress and Static Loading.

22 | P a g e
 2.3.1 Awkward Posture
An awkward posture is caused by any joint in the body that bends, twists, or
is out of its normal range of motion. If the body feels really sore after holding
a position for a prolonged period of time, the muscles have been held in place
for too long. A significant period of time is required to maintain a static posture.
This stance is referred to as posture based on the angle at the joints
connecting the various portions of the body. Postural stress is the term for
adopting an excessive posture at or close to the normal range of motion. One
of the most commonly cited occupational risk factors is posture (Jaffar et al.,
2011). Office workers may adopt unnatural postures by slouching or leaning
forward in their chair, clutching a phone between their ear and shoulder,
reaching up and over to use the keyboard or mouse, and bending at the waist
to load a copier. Poor posture is linked to an increased risk of injury. Certain
postures have been associated to injuries to the shoulders, neck, lower back,
wrists, and shoulders.

2.3.2 Force
Many office jobs, according to Washington L&I, include applying a moderate
amount of stress to tiny muscles, which may cause muscle and ligament
strains, edoema, and tiredness. Holding large folders, clutching a mouse too
firmly, and "pounding" on a keyboard to type are tasks that can put an
excessive amount of strain on an employee. Muscles and tendons may
become fatigued when we apply force to someone or something. A higher risk
of damage to the shoulders, lower back, neck, forearms, wrists, and hands
has been associated with high forces. The fact that additional labour risk
factors, such as posture, acceleration/velocity, repetition, and duration,
change the relationship between force and level of injury risk is crucial to
emphasise.

23 | P a g e
 2.3.3 Repetition
The joints and tissues all over the body might be damaged by continuously
performing the same motions throughout the day, such as typing on a
keyboard, turning pages of a book, clicking a mouse, or using a calculator.
Repetition rate is defined as the average number of movements or attempts
performed by a joint or body link in one unit of time, or performing the same
actions with the same body part with little rest or recovery. Another meaning
of repetition is the act of performing the same action or set of acts again. The
act of repetition involves utilising the same muscles repeatedly while allowing
little time for rest or recovery. This category includes muscles of various sizes.
When additional risk factors, such as awkward posture or powerful force, are
present, repetition raises the likelihood of damage. The relationship between
repetitions and the likelihood of injury is altered by additional risk factors such
as force, posture, length, and recovery time (Jaffar et al., 2011).

2.3.4 Contact Stress

This risk factor happens when a person's delicate tissues, such as their
tendons, nerves, or blood vessels, are compressed by a hard or pointed
surface or item. Over time, this can cause catastrophic damage. Mechanical
contact stress can occur when a worker's elbows rest against a firm armrest,
their wrists rest on the edge of a desk while they type, or they sit in a chair that
presses against the back of their thighs while at work. Muscles and tendons
collide when pushed up against a sharp edge. When the lid is securely closed
with the hand serving as a hammer, mechanical stress is also generated,
especially if the lid has raised surfaces or pointed edges. Localized contact
pressure occurs when a hard or sharp object makes contact with the skin.
Under the skin, tissues and nerves may be harmed by pressure.

24 | P a g e
 2.3.5 Static Loading
Static loading or ongoing effort Washington L&I states that although the word
may be unfamiliar, this risk factor has "increased in computerised offices."
When the muscles hold the body still for an extended amount of time, this is
known as static loading and it can affect the blood flow and produce muscle
tension. When force is exerted continuously for a long time, sustained
exercise takes the form of static loading. Examples include maintaining a
motionless posture while staring at a computer monitor, sitting still for
extended periods of time, and pressing the shift key on a keyboard.

2.4 CONCLUSION
The definition of ergonomics and workplace risk factors were the main topics
of this study. According to the review, the main definition of ergonomics is the
interaction between people, workplace design, and the environment.
Ergonomics often seeks to adapt the person to the activity rather than the
individual to the task. The study also determined the key ergonomic concerns
or risk factors that could increase the likelihood of musculoskeletal injuries.
Risk factors include working in uncomfortable positions and forces from
gripping, lifting, pushing, or pulling. Another significant risk factor is working in
extremely cold or extremely hot temperatures or repeatedly performing
actions that engage the same muscles with little time for recovery. Injury risk
is also increased by working in uncomfortable static positions or by placing
contact stress on muscles and tendons.

25 | P a g e
 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

3.1 STUDY DESIGN

A cross-sectional studied was chosen as the appropriate method to achieve
the objectives of this researched. This was because it was easy to carried and
quick to implement. A cross-sectional studied had been conducted over a
period of time to obtain the results of work-related ergonomic physical studied.
Office workers recruited for this studied must met the following criteria:

Inclusion criteria

i. Malaysian
ii. Employees from the appointed office
iii. Age 20 years old and above

Exclusion criteria

i. Suffering from physical injury

26 | P a g e
 3.2 STUDY AREA
This area of study or research is conducted on office workers in all states in
Malaysia.

Figure 3-2 Map of all state in Malaysia

3.3 STUDY POPULATION

The sample size of this study consists of several office workers in Malaysia
approached by UniKL MESTECH students such as their families and relatives
who are working as office workers involved as respondents from the entire
population of office workers in Malaysia.

27 | P a g e
 3.4 SAMPLE SIZE
Sample size was estimated in order to ensure adequate sample size and
power of study. The confidence interval (CI) was set as 95%. The minimum
number of respondents estimated from the sample size calculation needed to
factor in the response rate to avoid under sampling.

Based in the sample size estimation formula:

𝒛𝟐 × 𝒑 (𝟏 − 𝒑)
𝒏=
𝒅𝟐

Where,

n= sample size

z= reliability coefficient at 1.96 for 95% CI

p= expected prevalence of ergonomics based on previous study made by

(Chowdhury & Chakraborty, 2017) that is 85.6%

d= level of precision 5% (0.05)

𝟏. 𝟗𝟔𝟐 (𝟎. 𝟖𝟓𝟔) (𝟏 − 𝟎. 𝟖𝟓𝟔)

𝒏=
𝟎. 𝟎𝟓𝟐

𝟏, 𝟗𝟔𝟐 (𝟎. 𝟖𝟓𝟔)(𝟎. 𝟏𝟒𝟒)

𝒏=
𝟎. 𝟎𝟓𝟐

𝒏 = 𝟏𝟖𝟗. 𝟒𝟏

After being rounded off the value of minimum sample size is n= 189.
Considering an 80% response rate, the minimum sample size (n) of is required
for this study.

𝟏𝟎𝟎
𝒏= × 𝟏𝟖𝟗
𝟖𝟎

𝒏 = 𝟐𝟑𝟔. 𝟐𝟓 (rounded to the nearest)

𝒏 = 𝟐𝟑𝟔 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑠

28 | P a g e
 3.5 RESEARCH TOOLS

The questionnaire was adapted from studied conducted in Faculty of

Dentistry, Tanta University, Egypt among administrative workers. The
questionnaire consists of questions related to the socio-demographic section
refers to respondents’ gender, age, race and the leveled of job (El-sallamy et
al., 2018)

Next part would been section that was the question related to the respondents
Knowledge about ergonomic in workplace among office workers.

This questionnaire was conducted online through google form and contains
10 questions and requires respondent to answered all the questions. After
that, the questionnaire had been recorded and analysed to collected the data.

3.6 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Statistical analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel sheet and SPSS for
Microsoft Windows version 25.0. Descriptive statistical data analysis for all the
variables such as gender, age, ethnicity, and their level of the job was
tabulated and summarized in proportions and percentages, using the chi-
square test. Less than 5% significance was adopted in this study (p < 0.05).

29 | P a g e
3.7 DATA COLLECTION FLOWCHART

Approach the respondent via online platform

Get consent from the respondent

Give the adopted questionnaire for respondent to

answer in certain time

The questionnaire will be self-administered while being

guide about monitor by researcher

Analyses the recorded data

Figure 3.2 Data Collection Flowchart

30 | P a g e
 CHAPTER 4: RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1 INTRODUCTION

In this chapter, findings of the results and elaboration will be discussed. This
study set out with the aim of identify the level of knowledge about ergonomics
among office workers in all states in Malaysia. The respondents involved in
this study were 174 of office workers which are age above 20 years old both
of female and male, with a response rate of 73.7%.

4.2 RESULTS

4.2.1 The Demographic Characteristics of Office Workers

The demographic characteristic for 174 workers that involved in this study
were presented in table 4.1. Generally, respondents were male 69(39.7%)
less than female 105(60.3%) which is respondents in this study. Majority of
respondents are aged 20 above until 30 years old with percentage 60.3%,
ethnicity was Malay with percentage 81% and most of them are full-time
workers with percentage 58%.

31 | P a g e
 Table 4-1: Demographic characteristics of office workers

Demographic Frequency (n=174) Percentage (%)

variables
Gender
Male 69 39.7
Female 105 60.3

Age group

<30 years 105 60.3

31-40 years 34 19.5
>41 years 35 20.1
Ethnicity

Malay 141 81.0

Chinese 19 10.9
Indian 12 6.9
Other 2 1.1
Level of job

Full time 101 58.0

Part time 23 13.2
Internship 50 28.7
N=174

32 | P a g e
 4.2.2 SCORE OF KNOWLEDGE

As regards the knowledge, there were 10 questions, answered as Yes, No

and Maybe and score as 3, 2, and 1. The total score of knowledge ranged
from 0 to 30. Those who acheived 70% from total score (>21) were considered
to have a good knowledge, those from 50-70% (15-20) were fair knowledge,
and below 50% (below 15) were considered as had poor knowledge.

4.2.3 THE KNOWLEDGE OF OFFICE WOKERS

Table 4.2 shows the knowledge of students relevant to ergonomics, where

only 135 (77.6%) of participant knew what is meant by ergonomics. More than
three quarters of the workers (71.3%) knew the health hazards of their job
without ergonomics. Moreover, (71.8%) of workers knew the ergonomic
headrest and its benefits because most office workers use a chair with a
headrest. In addition, half of the respondents only (52.9%) know about the
benefits of ergonomic applications and as many as 47.1% of employees do
not know about the benefits of the ergonomic application. Next, most workers
as many as 105 (60.3%) knew the best posture for office workers to sit in.
Most of them (58.6%) know how to maintain a comfortable environment, light,
and temperature in the office room. Then, as many (62.1%) employees also
knew the popular operating posture that may cause musculoskeletal disorders
while as many as 37.9% lack knowledge. Ergonomics principles try to change
the worker's behavior and not to change the working environment. Most of the
workers (61.5%) answered the question correctly which is No because the
correct answer is Ergonomics principles are also known as human factors and
how apply to the working environment. Last, more than half (67.2%) knew that
ergonomics is beneficial to improve worker health, but it costs more money
than it saves.

33 | P a g e
 Table 4-2: The knowledge of office workers relevant to ergonomics

No. Knowledge related Yes No Maybe

questions No (%) No (%) No (%)

1 Do you know what is 135(77.6) 19(10.9) 20(11.5)

meant by ergonomics?
2 Do you know what are 124(71.3) 31(17.8) 19(10.9)
the health hazards of
your job without
ergonomics?
3 Do you know the 125(71.8) 29(16.7) 20(11.5)
ergonomic headrest and
its benefits?
4 Do you know the benefits 92(52.9) 42(24.1) 40(23.0)
of ergonomic application?
5 Do you know the best 105(60.3) 32(18.4) 37(21.3)
posture for office workers
to sitting?
6 Do you know how to 102(58.6) 33(19.0) 39(22.4)
maintain a comfortable
environment, light, and
temperature in the office
room?
7 Do you know the popular 108(62.1) 30(17.2) 36(20.7)
operating posture that
may cause
musculoskeletal
disorders?
8 Do you know, when 84(48.3) 45(25.9) 45(25.9)
designing and furnishing
an office room, what
specifications should an
office worker look for?
9 Ergonomics principles try 18(10.3) 107(61.5) 49(28.2)
to change the worker
behaviour and not to
change the working
environment.
10 Although ergonomics is 117(67.2) 21(12.1) 36(20.7)
beneficial to improve
worker health, but it cost
more money than what
saves.

34 | P a g e
 4.2.4 KNOWLEDGE OF OFFICE WORKERS ACCORDING
SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS.

Table 4.3 reveals the knowledge according to their sociodemographic

characteristics. There was no significant of the results of each
sociodemographic characteristic are significant below. More than a quarter of
male respondents (30.4%) have good knowledge compared to females
(27.6%). Then, less than half of female employees 41 (39.0%) have fair
knowledge compared to men, only slightly less than women (36.2%) while the
rest of women and men with the same percentage (33.3%) have poor
knowledge level. (p= 0.904 and 0.202, respectively). Office workers aged
between 20 and 30 years old (34.3%) have good knowledge. (35.2%) have
fair knowledge and the rest (30.5%) have poor knowledge. Then, between the
ages of 31 and 40, only (23.5%) have good knowledge of ergonomics. (38.2%)
respondents have fair knowledge and (38.2%) have poor knowledge. For the
age of 41 and above, the majority of respondents have fair knowledge, namely
(45.7%) and (37.1%) have poor knowledge and only (17.1%) have good
knowledge (p=0.343 and 4.498 respectively). Knowledge level for the ethnic
category, the majority of respondents are Malay. Most of them (37.6%) have
fair knowledge while (31.9%) have good knowledge and (30.5%) have poor
knowledge. For ethnic Chinese, (47.4%) have poor knowledge and (42.1%)
have fair knowledge, only (10.5%) have good knowledge. Half of the Indian
respondents (50.0%) have poor knowledge. (p= 0.323 and 6.977,
respectively) Most full-time employees (42.6%) have fair knowledge while
part-time employees with the same percentage (34.8%) have fair and poor
knowledge about ergonomics and internships, most of them (42.0%) have
good knowledge. (p= 0.144 and 6.850, respectively)

35 | P a g e
 Table 4-3: Knowledge of office workers according to their sociodemographic
characteristics.

Knowledge Level

Poor Fair Good X2 p-value

58(33.3) 66(37.9) 50(28.7)

Gender

Male 23 (33.3) 25 (36.2) 21 (30.4) 0.202 0.904

Female 35 (33.3) 41 (39.0) 29 (27.6)

Age group

<30 years 32(30.5) 37(35.2) 36(34.3) 4.498 0.343

31-40 years 13(38.2) 13(38.2) 8(23.5)

>41 years 13(37.1) 16(45.7) 6(17.1)

Ethnicity

Malay 43(30.5) 53(37.6) 45(31.9) 6.977 0.323

Chinese 9(47.4) 8(42.1) 2(10.5)

Indian 6(50.0) 4(33.3) 2(16.7)

Others 0(0.0) 1(50.0) 1(50.0)

Level of Job

Full time 36(35.6) 43(42.6) 22(21.8) 6.850 0.144

Part time 8(34.8) 8(34.8) 7(30.4)

Internship 14(28.0) 15(30.0) 21(42.0)

36 | P a g e
4.3 DISCUSSION

Therefore, the purpose of this study is to assess office workers' ergonomic

knowledge. Ergonomics play a significant part in office work and should be
known from the start of a career. Less emphasis is placed on ergonomics in
the curriculum, which causes workers to lack knowledge in this area. Previous
research noted a significant prevalence of MSD among office employees in
addition to these variables (Galla et al., 2022). This study revealed that nearly
of the workers had fair knowledge of ergonomics, and the same finding was
also previously reported (El-sallamy et al., 2018) and (Alhazim et al., 2022).

Based on the study of (Khan et al., 2012) Unfortunately, workplace health

and safety frequently receives less attention in developing nations like
Pakistan. Cases of work-related injuries frequently go unreported as a result
of regulatory shortcomings and a lack of awareness on the part of both
employees and employers. The workers are not properly taught to prevent
and regulate workplace dangers that could harm their health, have a limited
understanding of their rights, and have little experience with workstations.
Compared to Malaysia.

According to (OSHA Academy, 2022) the definition of ergonomics is how

to design, workstations, work practices, and workflow to accommodate the
ability of workers. The majority of respondents answered the question
correctly about meant by ergonomics. Many answered correctly the question
of health hazards of your job without ergonomics. Based on (MWCETP, 2018)
Ergonomic risk factors are workplace situations that cause wear and tear on
the body and can cause injury. To understand the best way to set up a
computer workstation, it is important to understand the concept of neutral body
position. This is a comfortable working posture where the joints are aligned
naturally. Working with the body in a neutral position reduces stress and
tension on the muscles, tendons, and skeletal system and reduces the risk of
MSD. (OSHA; 2022) The majority of subjects in this study were able to

37 | P a g e
correctly answer questions related to headrests and their benefits. However,
there is a lack of awareness about the benefits of ergonomic applications. The
majority of subjects were able to correctly answer questions related to
knowledge about the best posture for office workers to sit. Regarding the
question of how to maintain a comfortable environment, light, and temperature
in the office room, the majority of subjects were able to answer correctly.
According to the Health and Safety Executive, a workroom's minimum
temperature1 should be 16 degrees Celsius unless a significant portion of the
work requires intense physical effort, in which case it should be at least 13
degrees Celsius. But for sedentary employment, 16 degrees Celsius is rather
chilly. A temperature of 20 degrees Celsius is advised by the Chartered
Institution of Building Services Engineers. There are certain exceptions to this
rule, such as spaces that must be open to the outside or spaces where food
goods must be kept cold (Birmingham, 2006). However, there is a lack of
awareness about designing and furnishing an office room specification should
an office worker look for.

Based studied on (Robertson & O’Neill, 2003), Employees can use the
knowledge from office ergonomics training in their working environment.
Between the pre- and post-knowledge exam, there was also a noticeable
improvement in participant skills and understanding of office ergonomics.
Knowledge gained about how to use their workspace correctly to attain neutral
posture and enhance working posture, in line with their self-reported planned
improvement. These staff have been urged through training to use corporate
resources to make their new workspace ergonomically sound. The
participants acquired a high degree of information and awareness on who to
contact and where to go while using their firm. Corporate resources for
convenience, change, and ergonomic modifications.

In comparison to the workstation only and control groups, the workstation

and training group showed significantly less overall discomfort as well as
discomfort in the lower back, elbows, fingers, and legs, which suggests that

38 | P a g e
training equips workers with the knowledge they need to use their
workstations in an ergonomic and healthy manner. However, without coupling
training, significant overall health advantages are not shown. The finding that
the work station only group reported a larger decrease in overall discomfort
relative to the control group implies that giving ergonomic furniture alone is
beneficial.

These conclusions are in line with those made earlier by (Verbeek, 1991),
(Green and Briggs, 1989), and (Kukkonen et al, 1983). However, the following
restrictions must be kept in mind when evaluating the existing results: Threats
to internal and external validity can only be partially addressed because of the
nature of field studies and the related quasi-experimental research
methodologies. Before the intervention, there was only one data collection
period, and group sizes were uneven. Due to time and budget limitations, only
a small group received training.

It is important to increase ergonomic knowledge among all stakeholders,

including employers, workers, and the general public. At all stages of
education such as high school, college, and technical training. Ergonomics
should be taught in the classroom. Mass media should be used to increase
awareness of the signs, symptoms, and risks of musculoskeletal disorders put
on by poor ergonomic understanding (Sirajudeen et al., 2013). Through
ergonomic education, it is urgently necessary to change both employees' and
employers' mindsets. Workplaces should set up ergonomic training
programmes. In this effort, it should be sought the participation of both
government and non-government organisations, professional groups, and
employers' associations.

39 | P a g e
4.4 STUDY LIMITATION

There are several limitations identified in this study. The questionnaire

distributed to the respondents required 5 minutes to complete which caused
most respondents to refuse to answer the questionnaire due to the heavy
workload and time taken to answer the questionnaire. In addition, there was a
low response rate that resulted in the study not being able to reach the target
sample size due to time constraints and some of the target population not
being interested in participating in the study. This study also had incomplete
responses from those who had agreed to participate.

40 | P a g e
 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION

5.1 INTRODUCTION

In conclusion, as mentioned earlier in chapter 1 (introduction), the purpose of

this study was to determine the Knowledge of physical ergonomics in the
workplace among office workers in all states of Malaysia. The findings showed
that the majority of respondents have quite satisfying knowledge of
ergonomics as the female have a bit higher percentage of fair knowledge
compared to males.

This study shows that the majority of participants (37.9%) have fair
knowledge of ergonomics in the workplace. However, in the workplace,
ergonomic knowledge is rarely used. In this study, risk factors such as
awkward posture, force, repetition, contact stress, and static loading were
discovered. Applying ergonomics in the workplace is crucial to preventing
musculoskeletal problems; as a result, ergonomic principles must be included
in every office, such as by displaying them on notice boards so that all
employees are aware of them.

In addition, from the survey that has been conducted for this study, the
introduction and knowledge of ergonomics is low and still not many people
know about what ergonomics is and its effects if not taken into account.
Therefore, most young workers can be considered free of any health problems
because ergonomics is increasingly being introduced in every university now.
Therefore, the institute or industry should take early precautions and
intervention measures to increase the knowledge level of employees towards
ergonomics in the workplace before any unwanted health issues occur.

41 | P a g e
 5.2 FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that further research can be conducted on a big scale in

the area to get a better and equal ratio of gender for the study. Furthermore,
it is also recommended to add attitude and practice to see how often attitudes
and practices are done by respondents. Moreover, as the questionnaires can
be biased by the respondent's wishes to answer, future work can be done by
introducing interview sessions with selected respondents to get more detailed
information.

42 | P a g e
 REFERENCES

Alhazim, S. S., Al-Otaibi, S. T., & Herzallah, N. H. (2022). Knowledge,

Attitudes, and Practices Regarding Ergonomic Hazards Among
Healthcare Workers in a Saudi Government Hospital. Journal of
Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 15(August), 1771–1778.

Bao, S., Winkel, J., & Shahnavaz, H. (2000). Prevalence of musculoskeletal

disorders at workplaces in the people’s republic of china. International
Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 6(4), 557–574.

Benefits of Ergonomics in the workplace - BOSTONtec. (n.d.). Retrieved

November 4, 2022.

Birmingham, U. (2006). Temperature , Humidity , Ventilation and Lighting in

the Workplace. Health and Safety Fact File, 1–2.

Bongers, P. M., Kremer, A. M., & ter Laak, J. (2002). Are psychosocial factors,
risk factors for symptoms and signs of the shoulder, elbow, or
hand/wrist?: A review of the epidemiological literature. American Journal
of Industrial Medicine, 41(5), 315–342.

Candan, K. S., & Celentano, A. (2005). Lecture Notes in Computer Science:

Preface. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries
Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in
Bioinformatics): Vol. 3665 LNCS.

Chim, J. M. Y. (2020). 6Ws in Ergonomics Workplace Design : Volume VII :

Ergonomics in Design , Design for All , Activity Theories for Work Analysis
and Design , Affective Design 6Ws in Ergonomics Workplace Design: Vol.
VII (Issue November). Springer International Publishing.

Chowdhury, S., & Chakraborty, P. pratim. (2017). Universal health coverage

‑ There is more to it than meets the eye. Journal of Family Medicine and
Primary Care, 6(2), 169–170.

43 | P a g e
Connelly, L. B., Woolf, A., & Brooks, P. (2011). Cost-Effectiveness of
Interventions for Musculoskeletal Conditions. Disease Control Priorities
in Developing Countries.

Devereux, J. J., Vlachonikolis, I. G., & Buckle, P. W. (2002). Epidemiological

study to investigate potential interaction between physical and
psychosocial factors at work that may increase the risk of symptoms of
musculoskeletal disorder of the neck and upper limb. Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, 59(4), 269–277.

Dul, J., Bruder, R., Buckle, P., Carayon, P., Falzon, P., Marras, W. S., Wilson,
J. R., & van der Doelen, B. (2012). A strategy for human
factors/ergonomics: Developing the discipline and profession.
Ergonomics, 55(4), 377–395.

Dul, J., De Vries, H., Verschoof, S., Eveleens, W., & Feilzer, A. (2004).
Combining economic and social goals in the design of production
systems by using ergonomics standards. Computers & Industrial
Engineering, 47(2–3), 207–222.

El-sallamy, R. M., Atlam, S. A., Kabbash, I., El-fatah, S. A., & El-flaky, A.
(2018). Knowledge, attitude, and practice towards ergonomics among
undergraduates of Faculty of Dentistry, Tanta University, Egypt.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(31), 30793–30801.

Ergonomics, I. T. O. (n.d.). Introduction-to-Ergonomics-1972-eng.

ergonomics, S. N.-A., & 2010, undefined. (n.d.). Ergonomics and

occupational safety and health: An ILO perspective. Elsevier. Retrieved
January 13, 2023.

eTools : Computer Workstations | Occupational Safety and Health

Administration. (n.d.). Retrieved December 26, 2022.

Fernandez, J. E. (1995). Ergonomics in the workplace. Facilities, 13(4), 20–

27.

Galla, A., Chowdhry, A., Bagga, A., Moradia, L., Tadikonda, A. N., Pentapati,

44 | P a g e
 K. C., & Mysore, N. K. (2022). Dental practitioners’ knowledge, attitudes,
and practices of ergonomics – a cross-sectional web-based survey. Acta
Biomedica, 93(1), 1–7.

Goggins, R. W., Spielholz, P., & Nothstein, G. L. (2008). Estimating the

effectiveness of ergonomics interventions through case studies:
Implications for predictive cost-benefit analysis. Journal of Safety
Research, 39(3), 339–344.

Harms-Ringdahl, L. (2001). Safety Analysis : Principles and Practice in

Occupational Safety. Safety Analysis.

Ivarsson, A., & Eek, F. (2016). The relationship between physical workload
and quality within line-based assembly. Ergonomics, 59(7), 913–923.

Jaffar, N., Abdul-Tharim, A. H., Mohd-Kamar, I. F., & Lop, N. S. (2011). A

literature review of ergonomics risk factors in construction industry.
Procedia Engineering, 20, 89–97.

Jaturanonda, C., Nanthavanij, S., & Das, S. K. (2015). Heuristic Procedure for
the Assembly Line Balancing Problem With Postural Load Smoothness.

Karsh, B. T., Moro, F. B. P., & Smith, M. J. (2010). The efficacy of workplace
ergonomic interventions to control musculoskeletal disorders: A critical
analysis of the peer-reviewed literature.

Khan, R., Surti, A., Rehman, R., & Ali, U. (2012). Knowledge and practices of
ergonomics in computer users. Journal of the Pakistan Medical
Association, 62(3), 213–217.

Krieger, J., & Higgins, D. L. (2002). Housing and Health: Time Again for Public
Health Action. American Journal of Public Health, 92(5), 758.

Kryger, A. I., Andersen, J. H., Lassen, C. F., Brandt, L. P., Vilstrup, I.,
Overgaard, E., Thomsen, J. F., & Mikkelsen, S. (2003). Does computer
use pose an occupational hazard for forearm pain; from the NUDATA
study. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 60(11), 1–9.

Larsson, P., Brooks, O., & Loewenthal, D. (2012). Counselling psychology and
45 | P a g e
 diagnostic categories : A critical literature review. Counselling Psychology
Review, 27(3), 55–68.

Madhwani, K. P., & Nag, P. K. (2017). Web-based KAP Intervention on Office

Ergonomics: A Unique Technique for Prevention of Musculoskeletal
Discomfort in Global Corporate Offices. Indian Journal of Occupational
and Environmental Medicine, 21(1), 18.

Maxwell Asumeng1, LebbaeusAsamani2, J. A. and C. B. A., & 1Department.

(2015). Occupational Safety and Health Issues in Ghana. International
Journal of Business and Management Review Vol.3, 3(9), 60–79.

Meyers, J. M., Miles, J. A., Faucett, J., Janowitz, I., Tejeda, D. G., &
Kabashima, J. N. (1997). Ergonomics in agriculture: Workplace priority
setting in the nursery industry. American Industrial Hygiene Association
Journal, 58(2), 121–126.

MWCETP. (2018). Identifying and Addressing Ergonomic Hazards Workbook

(Midwest Worker Center Ergonomic Training Project). 3, 28.

National Research Council (U.S.), Panel on Musculoskeletal Disorders and

the Workplace., & Institute of Medicine (U.S.). (2001). Chapter 9: Work
now and in the future. In Musculoskeletal disorders and the workplace:
low back and upper extremities.

Nunes, I. L. (2009). FAST ERGO_X – A tool for ergonomic auditing and work-
related musculoskeletal disorders prevention. Work, 34(2), 133–148.

OSHA Academy. (2022). OSHAcademy Course 711 Study Guide Introduction

to Ergonomics. www.oshatrain.org

Rani, N. H., Abidin, E. Z., Ya’cob, N. A., Karuppiah, K., & Rasdi, I. (2016).
Musculoskeletal Symptoms Risk Factors and Postural Risk Analysis of
Pineapple Plantation Workers in Johor. Journal of Occupational Safety
and Health, 13(1), 17–26.

Reinhold, K., Tint, P., Tuulik, V., & Saarik, S. (2008). Innovations at workplace:
Improvement of ergonomics. Engineering Economics, 5(60), 85–94.

46 | P a g e
Robertson, M. M., & O’Neill, M. J. (2003). Reducing musculoskeletal
discomfort: Effects of an office ergonomics workplace and training
intervention. International Journal of Occupational Safety and
Ergonomics, 9(4), 491–502.

Roman-Liu, D., Lieven Eeckelaert, P., Op De Beeck, R., Willems, F.,

Konstantina Lomi, B., Koukoulaki, T., Adriano Papale, G., Gisela
Sjøgaard, I., Isabel Lopes Nunes, S., Miquel Cabeças, J., Dietmar
Reinert, P., Peter Ellegast, R., & Ditchen, D. (n.d.). Work-related
musculoskeletal disorders: Prevention report. Retrieved December 24,
2022.

Ross, P. (1994). Ergonomic hazards in the workplace: Assessment and

prevention. AAOHN Journal, 42(4), 171–176.

RSBridger. (n.d.). Introduction to Ergonomics, 2nd Edition. Retrieved January

4, 2023.

Schneider, S. P. (2010). Musculoskeletal Injuries in Construction: A Review of

the Literature, 16(11), 1056–1064.

Sirajudeen, M. S., Pillai, P. S., Mehjabinbanu, G., & Vali, Y. (2013).

Assessment of Knowledge of Ergonomics. International Journal of Health
and Rehabilitation Sciences, 2(4).

Stack, T., Ostrom, L. T., & Wilhelmsen, C. A. (2016). Elements of Ergonomics

Programs. Occupational Ergonomics, 121–162.

Strazdins, L., D’Souza, R. M., Lim, L. L. Y., Broom, D. H., & Rodgers, B.
(2004). Job strain, job insecurity, and health: Rethinking the relationship.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9(4), 296–305.

Sundin, A., Christmansson, M., & Larsson, M. (2004). A different perspective

in participatory ergonomics in product development improves assembly
work in the automotive industry. International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics, 33(1), 1–14.

The Ergonomic Workstation & Desk Ergonomics - PTandMe. (n.d.). Retrieved

47 | P a g e
 November 9, 2022.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (n.d.). Retrieved January 3, 2023.

Vayvay, O., & Erdinc, O. (2008). Quality improvement through ergonomics

methodology: Conceptual framework and an application. International
Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, 3(3), 311–324.

Veiersted, K. B., & Wærsted, M. (2009). Distal upper limb disorders and
ergonomics of VDU work: a review of the epidemiological evidence.
Norsk Epidemiologi, 9(1), 13–20.

Verbeek, J. (1991). The use of adjustable furniture: Evaluation of an

instruction programme for office workers. Applied Ergonomics, 22(3),
179–184.

Violante, F. S., Graziosi, F., Bonfiglioli, R., Curti, S., & Mattioli, S. (2005).
Relations between occupational, psychosocial and individual factors and
three different categories of back disorder among supermarket workers.
International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 78(8),
613–624.

What Is Ergonomics (HFE)? | The International Ergonomics Association is a

global federation of human factors/ergonomics societies, registered as a
nonprofit organization in Geneva, Switzerland. (n.d.). Retrieved
December 13, 2022.

What Work Requires of Schools: A SCANS Report for America 2000 - United
States. Department of Labor. Secretary’s Commission on Achieving
Necessary Skills - Google Books. (n.d.). Retrieved January 4, 2023.

World health statistics 2008. (n.d.). Retrieved December 13, 2022.

48 | P a g e