IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i4p2809-d1058309.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Commonly Used Subjective Effort Scales May Not Predict Directly Measured Physical Workloads and Fatigue in Hispanic Farmworkers

Author

Listed:
  • Ornwipa Thamsuwan

    (Department of Mechanical Engineering, École de Technologie Supérieure, Montreal, QC H3C 1K3, Canada)

  • Kit Galvin

    (Department of Environment and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98105, USA)

  • Pablo Palmandez

    (Department of Environment and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98105, USA)

  • Peter W. Johnson

    (Department of Environment and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98105, USA)

Abstract

In North America, Hispanic migrant farmworkers are being exposed to occupational ergonomic risks. Due to cultural differences in the perception and reporting of effort and pain, it was unknown whether standardized subjective ergonomic assessment tools could accurately estimate the directly measured their physical effort. This study investigated whether the subjective scales widely used in exercise physiology were associated with the direct measures of metabolic load and muscle fatigue in this population. Twenty-four migrant apple harvesters participated in this study. The Borg RPE in Spanish and the Omni RPE with pictures of tree-fruit harvesters were used for assessing overall effort at four time points during a full-day 8-h work shift. The Borg CR10 was used for assessing local discomfort at the shoulders. To determine whether there were associations between the subjective and direct measures of overall exertion measures, we conducted linear regressions of the percentage of heart rate reserve (% HRR) on the Borg RPE and Omni RPE. In terms of local discomfort, the median power frequency (MPF) of trapezius electromyography (EMG) was used for representing muscle fatigue. Then full-day measurements of muscle fatigue were regressed on the Borg CR10 changes from the beginning to the end of the work shift. The Omni RPE were found to be correlated with the % HRR. In addition, the Borg RPE were correlated to the % HRR after the break but not after the work. These scales might be useful for certain situations. In terms of local discomfort, the Borg CR10 were not correlated with the MPF of EMG and, therefore, could not replace direct measurement.

Suggested Citation

  • Ornwipa Thamsuwan & Kit Galvin & Pablo Palmandez & Peter W. Johnson, 2023. "Commonly Used Subjective Effort Scales May Not Predict Directly Measured Physical Workloads and Fatigue in Hispanic Farmworkers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-17, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:4:p:2809-:d:1058309
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/4/2809/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/4/2809/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bindu Panikkar & Mary-Kate Barrett, 2021. "Precarious Essential Work, Immigrant Dairy Farmworkers, and Occupational Health Experiences in Vermont," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-20, April.
    2. Yuko Caballero & Takafumi J. Ando & Satoshi Nakae & Chiyoko Usui & Tomoko Aoyama & Motofumi Nakanishi & Sho Nagayoshi & Yoko Fujiwara & Shigeho Tanaka, 2019. "Simple Prediction of Metabolic Equivalents of Daily Activities Using Heart Rate Monitor without Calibration of Individuals," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-15, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Athena K. Ramos & Suraj Adhikari & Aaron M. Yoder & Risto H. Rautiainen, 2021. "Occupational Injuries among Latino/a Immigrant Cattle Feedyard Workers in the Central States Region of the United States," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-13, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:4:p:2809-:d:1058309. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.