ergonomics at home - design for safe living and home care - diva
TRANSCRIPT
Ergonomics at Home
- Design for Safe Living and Home Care
Doctoral Thesis
Jenny Hjalmarson
School of Technology and Health
Royal Institute of Technology
2014
Academic dissertation which with permission from the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm is
presented for public examination for the Degree of Doctor in Technology and Health, Injury
Prevention; Friday, February 14, 2014, 13:00 in room 2105, Marinens väg 30 Haninge.
TRITA-STH Report 2014:1
ISSN 1653-3836
ISRN/KTH/STH/2014:1-SE
ISBN: 978-91-7501-991-8
© Jenny Hjalmarson, January 2014
1
Abstract
The home should represent safety and security for the person who lives there, and this is an
important factor for independence and autonomy in very old age. With aging populations, the
needs for long-term care increase, care provided by spouses and/or from the growing home
care sector. Injuries among these groups are common.
In this study, an ergonomics perspective was applied in the analysis of some basic daily
activities performed by old persons and by home care workers, assisting.
The postures and movements of home care staff assisting at toilet visits, and
transferring persons from wheelchair to toilet, were measured and analysed.
Some daily activities related to making food and washing clothes, performed by a group of persons between the age of 75 and 100, were measured and analysed.
The task of getting up from the floor – on your own and with the help of a walker equipped with a lifting device – was analysed with the help of older persons and nursing staff. The design was built on the knowledge gained from analysing how older people get up from floor.
Requirements for access with a four-wheeled walker in the local built environment
were investigated.
Observations were made with the help of video recording. Postures were recorded with the
CUELA measurement system. The VIDAR ergonomics evaluation instrument was used to
register the participants’ experiences of discomfort and pain during getting up from the floor
with or without the walker with a lifting device. Structured interviews were used to find out
about older peoples’ experience of using the four-wheel walker.
It is concluded that ageing at home requires improved architectural and technical bathroom
design and improved access in the local built environment.
Key words: Ergonomics, aging, work posture, four-wheeled walker, home care worker, living at
home, accessibility.
2
Acknowledgements
Many people and organisations have contributed with help and support to me while I have
been working with this thesis from start to finish.
First and foremost, I want to thank Micasa Fastigheter in Stockholm AB for funding the first
years of my studies. Anders Nordstrand, the CEO, has supported my work and gave me the
possibilities to combine theory and real life experiences, which have stimulated me in my work.
I would also like to thank my supervisor, Tore Larsson, who “found me” when I was working
hard developing Löjtnantsgården, full of enthusiasm and eager to learn new things. You
realized that I needed support but also challenge in order to be able to perform my best. Tore,
you have certainly challenged me, but always let me know that you believe in me. Stefan
Lundberg, my co-supervisor, you have been a good listener, always asking me questions which
have helped me go further in my work. You have always been there when I needed someone
to talk with.
I believe research is best if you work together in teams, which I have had the possibility to do
so. First of all, I would like to thank Sonja Freitag who taught me how to work with the
CUELA, David Seidel with whom I did the cooking and laundry study with, and Bo Glimskär
who has been my co-worker in three of my studies as well as become my friend. There is one
more; Hanna Svensson, you contributed in the accessibility study for older people with a
walker. Thank you for that but for all the other things you have helped me with. I am looking
forward to seeing your illustrations in my (our) next book! I also want to pay special attention
to my pleasant work colleagues at the Centre for Health and Building at KTH. It has been an
inspiring work environment with many interesting conversations about water, tomatoes,
ladders, tiles, skiing trips, insulin pumps, dogs, fishes, bus trips and everything else that our
research has brought into our minds.
The studies had not been possible without all the participants who contributed. A special
thanks to you! And also thanks to the Haninge Municipality who gave the home care workers
the possibility to participate on their work time. I also thank Marie Gullew who helped and
assisted me in most of my studies; you have listened and helped me with all things I asked you
to do, always with a smile. What would I have done without you?
Additionally, I am thankful for all the help with improvements and corrections of my English
provided by Lynn Stevenson. You did not only read my text and give me comments; you also
gave me encouragement to continue when I needed it.
Last but not least, I would like to thank my children Amanda and Axel; you make me smile
and stimulate my creativity. You are the best! And my husband Tomas, whom I have known
for many years, has always supported me. During this last year you have listened to my
frustrations, helped me with picture tables, and most of all took full care of the home when my
time was limited. This has not always been easy, but you have always let me know that you love
me and this means everything to me. I love you too!
3
List of publications
I. Hjalmarson, J., Lundberg, S. Work postures when assisting at toilet. Ergonomics in
Design Accepted 2013.
II. Hjalmarson, J., Larsson, T.J. Helping in Transfer from Wheelchair to toilet – a case
study analysing ergonomic postures in the bathroom for home care workers.
Submitted.
III. Seidel, D., Hjalmarson, J., Freitag, S., Larsson, T.J., Bayne, C., Clarkson, P.J. (2011).
Measurement of stressful postures during daily activities: An observational study with
older people. Gait and Posture, 34, 397-401.
IV. Hjalmarson, J., Glimskär, B. Getting up from the floor – Older peoples’ abilities and
experiences. Submitted.
V. Glimskär, B., Hjalmarson, J., Lundberg, S., Larsson, T.J. (2013) A walker used as a
lifting device. Disability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology, online
http://informahealthcare.com/idt
VI. Glimskär, B., Hjalmarson, J. (2013) A test of a walker equipped with a lifting device.
Assistive Technology Research Series, 33, 3-9.
VII. Hjalmarson, J., Svensson, H. Glimskär. B. (2013) Accessibility for elderly using a four-
wheeled walker – an interview and observation analysis. Assistive Technology Research
Series, 33, 27-33.
4
Author contributions
I. The author performed the study, analysed the data and compiled the paper. S.
Lundberg supervised the author.
II. The author performed the study, analysed the data and compiled the paper. T. J.
Larsson supervised the author.
III. The author performed the study together with D. Seidel, and assisted in analyse of the
data and compiled the paper. S. Freitag assisted in the collection of data. T.J. Larsson,
C. Bayne, P.J. Clarkson, supervised the author.
IV. The author and B. Glimskär performed the study, analysed the data and compiled the
paper.
V. B. Glimskär and the author performed the study, analysed the data and compiled the
paper. T. J. Larsson and S. Lundberg supervised the work.
VI. B. Glimskär and the author performed the study, analysed the data and compiled the
paper.
VII. The author performed the study with B. Glimskär. The author analysed the data and
compiled the paper. H. Svensson assisted in study, analysing the data and compiling the
paper.
5
Contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................................. 1
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................................ 2
List of publications............................................................................................................................................................. 3
Author contributions ......................................................................................................................................................... 4
Contents ................................................................................................................................................................................ 5
Foreword............................................................................................................................................................................... 7
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 9
1.1 Demography..................................................................................................................................................... 9
1.2 Living situation ..............................................................................................................................................10
1.3 Ergonomics at home....................................................................................................................................11
1.4 Home care.......................................................................................................................................................13
1.5 Work in home care .......................................................................................................................................13
1.6 Bathroom design ...........................................................................................................................................14
1.7 A home to age in ...........................................................................................................................................15
1.8 Falling and getting up again........................................................................................................................15
1.9 The four-wheeled walker ............................................................................................................................16
2 Aim .............................................................................................................................................................................17
2.1 Specific Aims..................................................................................................................................................17
3 Methods .....................................................................................................................................................................19
3.1 Participants .....................................................................................................................................................19
3.2 Study design....................................................................................................................................................20
3.2.1 Home care during a toilet visit - Studies I and II .......................................................................20
3.2.2 Older people preparing food and doing laundry - Study III ...................................................20
3.2.3 Developing a walker with a lifting device - Studies IV-VI.......................................................21
3.2.4 Accessibility with a walker close to home - Study VII..............................................................21
3.3 Test environment ..........................................................................................................................................23
3.4 Observations ..................................................................................................................................................24
3.5 Recording and analysis of postures ..........................................................................................................24
3.6 Description of the experiences..................................................................................................................25
3.6.1 Questionnaire .......................................................................................................................................25
3.6.2 VIDAR...................................................................................................................................................26
6
3.6.3 Interview................................................................................................................................................ 26
3.7 Summary methods........................................................................................................................................ 27
3.8 Ethics ............................................................................................................................................................... 28
4 Results........................................................................................................................................................................ 29
4.1 Home care during a toilet visit - Studies I and II................................................................................. 29
4.1.1 An ambulatory care recipient (I) ..................................................................................................... 29
4.1.2 A care recipient using the wheelchair (II) .................................................................................... 32
4.1.3 Needs in equipment or bathroom design for the Home care worker .................................. 34
4.2 Older people preparing food and doing the laundry - Study III ..................................................... 36
4.2.1 Needs in the kitchen and laundry room for older people........................................................ 37
4.3 Developing the walker with a lifting device - Studies IV-VI ............................................................ 38
4.3.1 Getting up on one’s own (IV) ......................................................................................................... 38
4.3.2 The walker with a lifting device ...................................................................................................... 39
4.3.3 Getting up with help from the walker with a lifting device (IV) ........................................... 40
4.3.4 Care workers’ experience in using the walker with a lifting device (VI) .............................. 41
4.3.5 Needs to consider developing the walker with a lifting device .............................................. 42
4.4 Accessibility with the walker close to home - study VII.................................................................... 42
4.4.1 Needs when using the walker close to home .............................................................................. 44
5 Discussion................................................................................................................................................................. 45
5.1 Methodological consideration ................................................................................................................... 48
5.2 Conclusions and Implications ................................................................................................................... 50
6 References................................................................................................................................................................. 53
Appendix 1. Analysis protocol Study II ..................................................................................................................... 61
7
Foreword
I am a physiotherapist who worked for a few years in the profession. I
loved the opportunity to work with older people in a nursing home and
also tutor colleagues and assistant nurses in ergonomics in their daily
work. After a few years as a physiotherapist, I was given the opportunity
to become the manager of a small hotel. It was a challenge in many ways and from these years,
among many other things, I brought with me an increased knowledge of the needs for well-
functioning and attractive facilities.
After this I became a project manager when Probitas, a real estate company owned by the
Immanuel Church, was building a new facility for older people in the center of Stockholm.
During these years I read everything I could find about the best environments for elderly
people. I thought that if I could create an environment which was attractive to older people,
which means it has to be accessible, easily orientated, safe and beautiful among other things, I
could create excellent opportunities for the best of care. An environment should be well suited
for the care worker, which means it has to have well-designed working areas and equipment
for care, administration, office work and cleaning, etc. The environment should include places
for social meetings, intellectual stimulation and relaxation for both the older people and the
care workers.
During this time I met two professors, Lena Borell and Tore J. Larsson, who tried to talk to
me about doing research. After some time Tore managed to find a solution for me; I got the
opportunity to do research and continue to have one foot left in the real world as a doctoral
student/project manager employed by Micasa, a real estate company mostly focusing on
homes for older people and people with disabilities. People who know me are well aware that I
always need and search for new challenges, and this thesis has certainly been a challenge. I
think the most difficult part for me has been to focus on the small parts of this big puzzle:
houses for life-long living and care. There are so many areas to target. I have tried to affect this
area as a politician, a project manager and I have even been to Beijing and tried to tutor
China’s professors, building designers and care personnel about this subject. But when I wrote
this thesis, I came to realize that the most important characteristic for a researcher is patience.
There are so many things which need to be investigated. Every corner of the home needs to be
evaluated with an ergonomic and injury prevention perspective, focusing on older people and
home care workers. This could take years, and I am happy to say that I have been taught a
great deal through my various projects. I hope my research could be more efficient in the
future, because I would like to continue to contribute in this field. I have come to some
conclusions in this thesis, i.e., conclusions about small details of the whole picture. I have
learned the importance for a researcher to have direct access to reality if changes should be
made. I hope my future research career will combine a deeper knowledge of older peoples’
needs with the practical designing of new homes and equipment as well as possibilities to share
8
my knowledge in “real life”. If the future politicians could contribute with interest and financial
support to me and my colleagues, we could have an opportunity to make these changes.
January 2014
Jenny Hjalmarson
9
1 Introduction
In Sweden there is an expression which says “Away is okay but there is no place like home”.
Research confirms that this is a feeling which stays with us to old age and that most people
prefer to live in their own home as long as possible [1, 2]. The older generation is growing all
over the world. The old can, as WHO points out, be a resource for the world, but there are
concerns about how to prevent disabilities and how to give the best of care at an affordable
cost [3]. Many countries work with the concept called “Age-friendly cities” to meet the
growing older populations’ needs [4]. Many countries also seek to increase and develop their
home care service, which is considered one important solution [5-10]. With a fast technical
development and higher living standards, the possibilities to stay at home longer increase. This
will increase the need for deeper knowledge of older peoples’ living situations and possible
difficulties in their daily life at home.
1.1 Demography The world’s demographics are changing. Between 2000 and 2050 the proportion of the
population over 60 years will increase from 605 million to 2 billion people. WHO estimates
that the need for long-term care will increase, part of it in home care, both provided by
relatives and by organizations. In a large part of the world the demographical changes grow
very fast. Countries such as China, Brazil and Thailand are expected to increase the population
above 65 years from 7% to 14% during a period of about 20 years; Sweden has gone through
the same changes during a period of about 80 years [3]. See Figure 1 for a description of time
expected for population changes in the world.
FIGURE 1 THE SPEED OF POPULATIONS AGING TIME REQUIRED OR EXPECTED FOR
THE PERCENTAGE OF POPULATIONS AGED 65 AND OVER TO RISE FROM 7 TO 14
PERCENT. (Source: Kinsella K, He W. An aging world: 2008. National Institute on Aging and U.S. Census Bureau)
Right now 19% of Sweden’s population is above 65 years and 3% above 85 years; the
prognosis shows that in 30 years the same proportion will be 24% above 65 and 5% above 85
years [11]. In Figure 2 the prognosis of the Swedish population is described in relation to age
groups. There are several reasons causing this change, but one is of course that people live
longer and longer. The life length after 65 has increased from 14 to 18 years among men and
10
from 18 to 21 years among women during the last 30 years in Sweden. Older people could
become a huge resource in the future. Many people maintain good health up to high ages and,
if the environment is well suited for the elderly’s needs, their possibilities to contribute in their
FIGURE 2 THE POPULATION PROGNOSIS IN SWEDEN IN RELATION TO AGE GROUPS.
(SCB Statistic Sweden database 2013)
community increase. To do so WHO, among others, brings forward several areas; for example,
the need for community and health service with good knowledge of the old people’s needs [3].
The housing situation varies between countries as well the ability to receive care at home [3, 6,
12].
1.2 Living situation The home means safety and security for the person who lives there [13], and it is an important
factor of independence and autonomy in very old age [14]. This is of course depending on the
homes’ characteristics, and if they satisfy the needs of the person living there. In Europe most
people, 78%, live in housing with a good standard, which means they don’t have any of the
four conditions below:
1. Leaking roof, damp walls/floor/foundation or rot in window frames or floor
2. No bath or shower in dwelling
3. No indoor flush toilet for sole use of toilet
4. Lack of appropriate lighting
The housing conditions vary between countries; in Sweden 88% live in housing with a good
standard in comparison with people in Slovenia and Romania where as many as 40% and 52%
of the people live in housing which at least has one of the difficulties mentioned above. The
main differences in standard are the availability of a flush toilet and a bath or shower [15].
Fifty percent of the male citizens above 80 years in Sweden live in houses and the other 50% in
apartment buildings. At the same age, 34% of the women live in houses and 66% in apartment
buildings. The trend of people moving from a house to an apartment building when they are
becoming older is common in Sweden; see Table 1. [16]
11
The reasons for moving vary of course; social factors, basic needs and barrier reduction are
important areas [17]. When older people in Sweden move, it is most common to stay in an area
close to the earlier home. One common time to move is after the husband/wife dies. In the
group of people above 80 years, 80% of the females and 40% of the men live alone [16]. An
aging population needs homes which are accessible, but in a Swedish survey from 2002/03 ,
47% of the older people answered that their home had insufficient accessibility [16].
TABLE 1 HOUSING SITUATION AMONG OLDER PEOPLE
WHO has since 2007 actively worked for what they call “Age-friendly Cities and
Communities”. They bring forward the need for both a suitable home for the needs and the
safety for the older population, but also several other areas for the cities to develop in order to
correspond to old people’s needs. The checklist of essential features is extensive; one example
is creating a good living environment: outdoor spaces and buildings which are safe and
accessible. There should be frequent public transportation and a safe traffic. Housing should
be designed to older people’s needs as well as be affordable, and there should be activities
provided for social interaction and possibilities to contribute to the cities for older people. [4]
1.3 Ergonomics at home In this thesis the ergonomics perspective is used to analyse most of the tasks. Ergonomics is
traditionally used as a perspective for analysing work-situations but has also been used when
analysing the home environment and older people[18]. Ahsan describes the basic principle of
an ergonomic home: a person´s basic needs are fulfilled and met without many problems in the
environment [19].
The definition of ergonomics is according to the International Ergonomics Association:
“Ergonomics (or human factors) is the scientific discipline concerned with the understanding
of the interactions among humans and other elements of a system, and the profession that
applies theoretical principles, data and methods to design in order to optimize human well-
being and overall system performance.” [20].
Ergonomics at home, in this thesis specifically aiming at homes for older people, means that
inclusive design needs to be a central part of developing the environment or devices for the
home. Inclusive design is defined according to the British Standards Institute:
“The design of mainstream products and/or services that are accessible to, and usable by, as
many people as reasonably possible ... Without the need for special adaptation or specialized
design.” [21].
12
There are different models to work with the inclusive design; one is the Waterfall Model which
helps in understanding the needs and helps to describe the requirements before creating and
developing a solution [22]. The inclusive design concept is brought forward as a challenge
assumption to ‘mainstream products’ for ‘fully able’ users or the ‘assistive technology’ products
for users with disabilities. To be able to do this there is a need to understand the capability
variation among the population [23]. Working with developing products for lifelong living does
not necessarily mean that the design is for all, but the first phase of the Waterfall Model aims
to find the needs. The inclusive design concept brings forward a wide perspective when
developing the products.
The inclusive design framework is commonly used in areas regarding homes and environments
for the aging population [24-26]. Argument for this is of course to aim for functionality among
older people regardless of their abilities, but another reason could be older people’s skepticism
to technical devices which they avoid if possible [2].
When describing ergonomics at home there is need for the definition of two other concepts
which have to be included: accessibility and usability. I use Iwarsson and Ståhl’s definition
from 2003 and the difference between them.
“Accessibility is a relative concept, implying that accessibility problems should be expressed
as a person-environment relationship. In other words, accessibility is the encounter between
the person's or group's functional capacity and the design and demands of the physical
environment. Accessibility refers to compliance with official norms and standards, thus being
mainly objective in nature.” [27]
Accessibility is widely used and most often described as an area which highly affects older
people's experience of their home and surroundings.
“Usability the concept of usability implies that a person should be able to use, i.e. To move
around, be in and use, the environment on equal terms with other citizens. Accessibility is a
necessary precondition for usability, implying that information on the person-environment
encounter is imperative. However, usability is not only based on compliance with official
norms and standards; it is mainly subjective in nature, taking into account user evaluations
and subjective expressions of the degree of usability. Usability is a measure of effectiveness,
efficiency, and satisfaction. Most important, there is a third component distinguishing
usability from accessibility, viz. The activity component.” [27]
Usability at home is described mainly within occupational therapy [27, 28]; it focuses on the
activity and functionality and how elderly perceive their possibility to perform necessary and
preferred activities in the home environment [29].
Most documentation regarding ergonomics and the home includes home care work [30-34],
which is relevant from a lifelong living perspective, where people will continue to live at home.
The ergonomics perspective contributes to buildings design and function [19].
13
1.4 Home care WHO writes that new systems for health care must be developed. These systems need to be
extended beyond the hospital settings because the older population is increasing, and older
people often have several chronic diseases and disabilities. One area brought forward by WHO
is home care [3]. Larsson describes factors which could increase the possibilities to continue
living at home: home care, support to relatives, home modifications and assistive devices[16].
Sweden has a long tradition of home care; the most common help provided is cleaning,
shopping, laundry, and support with personal hygiene and dressing [35]. At the moment 12%
of people over 65 years of age get help from a formal home care provider [36]. When people
above 80 in Sweden were asked about their needs for help in daily living, most of them
answered that they needed help with different small things such as making a doctors
appointment, cleaning, doing the laundry, changing light bulbs, etc. They also describe needs
for help with going out and participating in different activities [35]. Home care in Europe
differ between countries and the possibilities to get formal home care vary widely [6]. Many
countries describe an aim that older people should be supported to continue living at home as
long as possible [5, 6]. Home care is reported to cost less than institutional care [7] and also
increases the likelihood for people to continue to live independently [37]. The formal home
care varies, but it is clear that many older people need help. There is a great deal of informal
care giving support for older people, which is provided by husband or wife, children, other
relatives but also friends and neighbours. The informal care occurs alone but also in
combination with formal care. [8, 38-42]. It is impossible to know exactly how much help that
is provided by informal care givers, but that this care is a substantial complement to the formal
care is well known.
1.5 Work in home care The formal home care sector is increasing and is expected to continue to do so in the future
because of the demographic changes. The education level in the home care sector varies in
Sweden from assistive nurses to advanced intensive home care doctors. In this thesis, the focus
is on the assistive nurses’ work situation. The assistive nurse is also the most common person
to work in home care.
There are several studies reporting risks of injuries among home care workers; they describe
overexertion injuries to be the most common [43]. Fifty percent of the home care workers find
their work physically demanding [32]. The work is described by Dellve et al. as a reason for
disability pensions among 87% of the home care workers. In their report they describe regular
lifting, often heavy and in awkward positions, to be a reason for injuries [44]. The
musculoskeletal disorders that are common among home care workers are in the shoulders, the
neck and the lumbar back [45, 46]. Most of the home care workers describe their work as
physically demanding [32], and the most common reason for symptoms from back, neck and
shoulders are overexertion injuries [46]. According to Brulin et al., the home care workers
describe their work environment as narrow in width; “The bathrooms are usually very small,
especially in old apartments” [34]. The patient-handling task which is perceived to be the most
stressful for the care worker is the transfer from wheelchair to toilet and then the reverse
14
transfer back to the wheelchair [47]. Baptiste reports details about moving care recipients with
disabilities who are dependent on help to transfer, and points out the importance of learning
more about specific tasks to understand where the high risks occur [48]. The bathroom is a
frequently discussed area of work environment for care workers.
1.6 Bathroom design In a recent survey about what reasons make elderly people move from a regular
apartment/home to a nursing home, one of the main findings was that persons with
decreasing ability and an increasing need for help, especially in the bathroom, was a common
group [49]. The bathroom is known to be an area which creates difficulties for people with
disabilities [50, 51]. Home care workers describe the work environment as cramped and
narrow in the bathroom [34], and ‘poor posture’ occurs during 50% of the time when they are
helping someone to and from the toilet. The care workers often felt overexertion carrying out
the task [30, 52].
When designing housing for older people, the bathroom is one area which needs specific
consideration. In a Swedish standard bathroom there is a flush toilet, a basin, a shower and/ or
a bath tub. The size of the bathroom varies depending on when the house was built. Houses
built before 1965 have smaller bathrooms which are more difficult to make accessible [53]. In
Sweden there are detailed regulations for how a bathroom should be designed spatially to be
accessible for all. The regulations give two levels of accessibility, one normal, which should be
accessible for someone who needs no more than a space with 130 cm in diameter to turn and
one high-level, with a space allowed for turning that is 150 cm in diameter. The high-level
regulations are concerned with the accessibility for the person in the wheelchair who uses the
bathroom, and does not describe the space needs of the care worker in the bathroom [54]. In
Sweden, the Institute for Health Care Planning and Rationalisation (SPRI), in a study from the
late seventies, defined the need of space in a nursing home bathroom in relation to work area
and accessibility [55]. The measurement suggestions in the high-level accessible bathroom are
most often enough to perform the tasks including assistance from a care worker investigated
by SPRI.
Kroemer describes how to design for older people; his examples regarding the bathroom are
simple but clear;
“Provide ample space for dressing, washing, toileting, especially when less mobile because of
age or disability; grab bars may be desirable” [56].
It sounds simple but we need to learn more to be able to develop these bathrooms; what is
needed in the bathroom, and how to make them accessible, safe and comfortable. When
people need more care in the home, there is a risk that they lose their home as a private
territory because it turns into a working place where care workers come and go [57]. The home
is a complex dynamic system, and it is difficult to evaluate and design it to become a perfect
work environment without affecting the person’s privacy [58].
15
1.7 A home to age in People would like to stay in their own home as long as possible, and it does not matter if they
have disabilities or there are barriers in the housing [1, 59]. Most older people feel attached to
their home and neighbourhood, and they also spend more and more time in their home and in
the immediate outdoor environment [60, 61]. The home has a central place in the lives of very
old people: the home means security; the place is familiar; things function; and the memories
are there. The home also means freedom which includes a place for reflection, a social meeting
point but also the possibility to come and go as you like [13].
But there are also difficulties described in housing for the elderly. Which aspects are of
importance regarding housing for older people?
The home design could create barriers for people with disabilities; the bathroom is one critical
area but depending on the disability many areas might need changing [62]. With age the first
ability to be affected is the locomotion system, followed by reaching, thinking, hearing, vision
and dexterity [63]. Things which affect people’s ability to live independently are different
barriers; level differences, narrow passages, the kitchen design and laundry areas are parts of
the home which are reported as problematic areas [24, 64]. Fänge and Iwarsson did a survey
with 131 older people and barriers were found in all of their homes. Controls and taps required
fully functional hand and finger movements, and there were too high working surfaces for
persons who need to sit down and work. There were thresholds hindering people to get in and
out, slippery floors, narrow doors (less than 80 cm), no lifts, etc. [65]. These problems need to
be considered since they represent reasons for moving [2]. There is a need to make sure there
are accessible homes to move to. People who live in accessible homes experience their home
to be more useful and meaningful in relation to their routines and everyday activities [13].
Modifying the home environment can minimise disability-related outcomes and affect people’s
experience of disabilities [66, 67]. In Sweden, there has been a law since 1959 which allows
people with chronic disabilities to get economical support for housing adaptation. In 2011,
72,900 people were provided support and the cost for this was one billion SEK. The most
common actions in this area were to eliminate thresholds, put grab bars on the wall, install
ramps and automatic door openers [68]. One’s own home and the possibility to continue to be
independent is important for older people [2].
When designing homes for older people you need to consider the increased risk for injury .
Areas of particular importance are fire security and falls prevention [16].
1.8 Falling and getting up again It is estimated that about one third of all people over 65, and half of all people in the group
over 80 years, fall once a year [69-71]. Old people mainly fall in their own home on a flat floor;
most of the time falls are in the living room, bedroom or the hallway [69, 72, 73]. Elderly
people often experience a fear of falling [74-77]; the fear is also known to increase the risk of
falling [78, 79]. Earlier studies show that it takes longer time to get up after a fall the older you
get [80].
16
The cost of injuries caused by people falling is high and it will increase when the group of
elderly increases [81]. Injuries can be directly related to the specific fall , but even a seemingly
minor fall can lead to fatal consequences for the person if he or she is not able to get up soon
enough [82].
If someone needs help to get up there are various techniques for supporting or lifting
manually. It can be difficult to help someone who has fallen to get up from the floor. In
Sweden, it’s common to be two persons to support a person getting up from the floor. The
amount of support needed varies between individuals. But even if the lifting would be safe for
the staff, if for example a hoist of some kind was used, it is common for home care personnel
to be in a situation when lifting the person manually is the only way because the hoist or other
lifting equipment is not available. Earlier research report that home care workers experience
that an assistive device is heavy to transport and difficult to fit into a person’s home [83]. Most
of the lifting aids are based on the fact that the individual himself cannot help at all. If the
individual is injured, a pure lift manually or automatically may be the only way [84, 85]. But if
the person is only slightly injured or not hurt at all, it is in every way more convenient if the
getting up can be done with the individual’s participation and in a way that the person may feel
most comfortable with.
Davey et al reports about the impact on informal caregivers to people with Parkinson’s disease
and describe the difficulties when helping their spouses getting up; it is difficult and the
informal caregiver is frightened for new falls [86].
It is important to assist people in getting up from the floor and to avoid immobilisation for
extended periods, which could cause injuries[82].
1.9 The four-wheeled walker In Sweden, currently about 250,000 people use a four-wheeled walker [87]. Sweden has a long
tradition of developing walkers for increased stability and safety [88]. One reason for
prescribing a walker is impaired balance or other walking difficulties [89]. With age the
locomotion ability decreases [63] which could be a reason for using a walker. Studies show that
the amount of people using a walker in Sweden is high compared to other countries in Europe
[90]. Studies have surveyed elderlys’ experiences of using a walker; old people are pleased with
the walker as an assistive device. They described the walker to be a necessary device to be able
to be active and mobile [91, 92]. To walk with a walker could increase the ability to be active
but it also puts requirements on the surrounding environment. Mobility promotes healthy
ageing and well-being [93], and therefore it is important to work for an accessible environment.
17
2 Aim
The overall aim of this thesis is to increase the knowledge of the needs for good ergonomics in
the home environment and the possibilities for lifelong living at home.
Focus has been mainly on the use of the bathroom as a workplace for home care workers and
on the four-wheeled walker as a tool for older people.
2.1 Specific Aims The specific aims of each study were:
I. To analyse the home care workers’ movement patterns and back postures when
helping an ambulatory care recipient to and from the toilet.
II. To find out where exposure to risks for overexertion injuries are the highest in the
task of helping a care recipient move between a wheelchair and the toilet, and to
suggest how the bathroom environment or assistive devices could be improved to
decrease the risk of injury.
III. To investigate the body postures assumed by older people during cooking and
doing the laundry.
IV. To analyse the movement patterns of people over 75 years of age when getting up
from the floor and to find out what they describe as critical movements in getting
up.
V. To investigate if a lifting device on a walker could be used to help old people to get
up from a kneeling position.
VI. To analyse whether a walker equipped with a lifting device can facilitate the getting
up from the floor and how it is perceived by users - patients and care staff.
VII. To analyse which environmental difficulties old people over 65 years of age
experience in their daily life walking with a four-wheeled walker.
19
3 Methods
There are two main methodologies used in this thesis: one major with a purpose to describe
performances and experiences in different tasks, and one aiming to develop new inclusive
design products. Different descriptive methods are used in the studies. In Studies I-V, video
recording was used for observation and in Studies I-III the video was combined with an
instrument, CUELA, to measure the postures performed in the tasks. In Studies IV and V, the
video recording was combined with the VIDAR-evaluation instrument to describe how the
participants experienced the performance in the different tasks.
In Studies VI and VII, a questionnaire and structured interviews were the main methods.
3.1 Participants The studies in this thesis include two main groups of participants: care workers and older
people. Home care workers participated in Studies I and II, and they were recruited from the
Haninge Council’s home care services. The inclusion criteria were that they agreed to
participate, had no symptoms of musculoskeletal disorder, and had worked in home care for at
least one year. The home care workers who offered to participate in the study were scheduled
by their manager to be able to participate during their regular work hours. In Table 2, the
home care participants are described further.
TABLE 2 DESCRIPTION OF PARTICIPANTS IN STUDIES I AND II.
In Studies III-V, the participants were recruited through a newspaper ad and through senior
citizens’ organizations. Inclusion criteria were that they were positive to participate, were over
75 years and could come to the laboratory. Because of the task, getting up from the floor in
Studies IV and V, symptoms of heart disorders were added as an exclusion criterion. In Study
VI the participants who evaluated the walker with a lifting device were care workers at a
nursing home. To recruit persons who regularly used a four-wheeled walker to Study VII, we
chose to put ads in senior housing facilities in the Stockholm area. The inclusion criteria were
that they should be over 65, use a walker and be positive to participation. In Table 3, the
background information of the participants in Studies III-VII is presented.
TABLE 3 DESCRIPTION OF PARTICIPANTS IN STUDIES III-V AND VII.
20
3.2 Study design The work in Studies I-V has been done with similar study designs. All included a task for the
participant to perform. The instructions to the participant were given before the test began.
But how to solve the task was never described. How to perform the task was a decision made
by the participant and could be part of the analyses. All study designs are described below and
a summary of designs is presented in Table 4 at the end of the text in this part.
3.2.1 Home care during a toilet visit - Studies I and II The tasks performed in Studies I and II were to help a care recipient to and from the toilet. In
Study I, the scenario included help walking to the toilet, help with undressing (pants), help with
being seated on the toilet, help being raised up from the toilet seat, help with wiping the
bottom, and help with pulling up the pants. In Study II, the scenario included pushing the
wheelchair to the bathroom, preparation before moving to the toilet, assisting care recipient in
moving between the wheelchair and toilet and back, and pushing the chair out from the toilet.
The care recipient was always an actor that performed getting up and walking with balance
difficulties. The actor was used as a proxy to control such variables as different statures,
weight, and abilities. The task is similar in Studies I and II, but the abilities performed by the
actor vary. In Study I there is Case 1, where the care recipient was walking with the support of
a walker; and Case 2 where the care recipient has balance difficulties but was walking just with
support from the participant. In Study II, the care recipient used a wheelchair for
transportation this is Case 3. See Figure 3 for description of the scenario which was performed
in Studies I and II.
FIGURE 3 CASES AND DESCRIPTION OF SCENARIO IN STUDIES I AND II.
3.2.2 Older people preparing food and doing laundry - Study III The activities were simulated based on a task analysis [94] and task descriptions from the
Assessment of Motor and Process Skills [95]. First, the individuals were required to prepare a
pancake and serve it with a topping. The pancake had to be cooked in a frying pan; the batter
had to be prepared with dry ingredients, at least one liquid and one egg; and the topping had to
be put on before serving. Unnecessary items had to be returned to their original storage
locations, dirty utensils placed in or beside the sink, and waste discarded into a garbage bin.
21
Second, individuals were required to load laundry from a basket into a washing machine,
measure and add detergent, and set and start the machine. The type of washing machine which
was used had to be familiar and, therefore, both front- and top-loaders were provided. After
the washing cycle was finished, the laundry had to be removed from the machine and hung on
a clothesline to dry. Another basket of laundry was available for folding.
3.2.3 Developing a walker with a lifting device - Studies IV-VI In Study IV, the participants were helped down or asked to lie down on the floor in a supine
position. After the camera was turned on, they were asked to get up in the way they preferred.
If they needed help or support, they had to ask for it. The camera was turned off when the
participant was standing. In Study V the participants had to use the walker which limited
her/his options in how to perform the task. Otherwise the study design was similar to Study
IV with one difference; the start was in a kneeling position.
Study VI was done in a nursing home for people with Parkinson’s disease. The study started
with the collection of background data during a three-week period. After this period, the
walker was brought to the nursing home and all the staff was introduced to it as well as
educated in how to use it. The walker was accessible to use in the nursing home for one
month, and during this period falls reports were collected and questionnaires about the use of
the walker were distributed.
3.2.4 Accessibility with a walker close to home - Study VII The tests in Study VII took part at four different addresses in buildings which included senior
apartments. Times were scheduled in the different facilities and those who wished to come
were invited to participate. The test started with an interview. In order to be able to estimate
the area needed for moving with a walker, the last part of the test included an observation of
the participants when they were performing a given task: turning 360 degrees with the walker.
The turn took place on an analysis carpet which was designed with six circles with 10 cm
radius intervals and a range from the smallest circle 100 cm in diameter to the largest 150 cm in
diameter. See Figure 4. The participants were instructed to do the turn in the smallest way they
possibly could.
FIGURE 4 TURNING WITH THE WALKER.
22
In Table 4, the different procedures are summarised for each study.
TABLE 4 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY DESIGN.
23
3.3 Test environment In Studies I-V, the participants performed the tasks in a homelike environment, conducted in a
full-scale laboratory developed at the Centre for Health and Building, KTH. The laboratory
consists of two apartments, fully furnished and equipped with a bathroom, kitchen, living
room and 1-2 bedrooms. See Figure 5 for a drawing of one of the laboratory flats.
FIGURE 5 THE DRAWING OF ONE LABORATORY APARTMENT.
The laboratory has built in flexibility, but each test in the different studies was controlled and
the heights of toilet seat and kitchen sink, etc. were always according to the Swedish building
standards. This means the toilet seat was placed at a height of 43 cm and the kitchen sink at a
level of 90 cm. The laundry in Study VII took part in two different bathrooms; the participants
performed the task with a front-loaded or top-loaded washing machine depending on what
they used at home. The machines were placed in different bathrooms, but this was the only
difference in the test environment. Picture from the bathroom, see Figure 6, and picture from
the kitchen, see Figure 7.
FIGURE 6 THE BATHROOM IN THE LABORATORY APARTMENT.
24
FIGURE 7 THE KITCHEN IN THE LABORATORY APARTMENT.
Getting up from the floor in Studies III and IV was made in the living room of one of the
laboratory apartments.
The full-scale laboratory is equipped with a closed circuit video-camera system, which can
record all activities from more than one angle. Before each study, the cameras’ positions were
adjusted to suit the purpose and to make sure all activities in the task were recorded.
3.4 Observations All observations were made with the help of video recording, except for observation of turning
in Study VII. The video recording was made with one or more cameras to be able to catch all
parts of the task. The researcher’s interaction during video recording varied; in Studies I and II,
an actor performed the role of care recipient. This person was part of the research team and
her postures and performances were not part of the analysis. In Study III, the video recording
was made without any participation from the researcher. Studies IV and V included postures
which could be difficult and strenuous for the participant, and the researcher was therefore
participating when the task was performed. The interaction included standing close to the
participant without hindering any movement and providing assistance if the participant asked
for it.
The observations of the video files were done after the tests. An observational protocol,
including different questions on the participant’s performance, was designed for each task. The
protocol included questions which described the performance, postures and possible
difficulties visible for the observer. Every video was gone through at least two times. In
Appendix 1, an example of the observation protocol is presented from Study II.
3.5 Recording and analysis of postures For recording of postures performed during the task in Studies I-III, the CUELA (computer-
assisted recording and long-term analysis of musculoskeletal loads) measurement system was
used [96, 97]. In Figure 8, shows a participant wearing the CUELA system. The CUELA
system includes sensors which were attached to the thoracic and lumbar spine as well as to the
hip and knee joints. The movements recorded and measured were inclination and rotation of
the back and flexion in the knee joints. The back movement was recorded from the thoracic
25
and lumbar spine. CUELA could measure movement in the arms, hands and cervical spine,
but in our tasks the sensors would have affected the participant’s possibility to move freely and
therefore these were not used. All system components were attached to the individual, allowing
him or her to move about freely. At the start of the measurement, the individuals had to
assume a standardised upright position with all body angles set at zero.
FIGURE 8 ONE PARTICIPANT WEARING THE CUELA SYSTEM.
CUELA has been demonstrated to have good validity and reliability in field studies [96-98].
The data collected by CUELA measurement system was synchronized with the video file and
analysed in Widaan V 2.75. This program allowed analysis of range, time and frequencies of
performed postures and in which part of the task different postures were performed. The
analyse were complemented with an observational protocol. In Study II the protocol included
questions about shoulder and arm postures. The International Standard 11226:2000 on
ergonomics was used as a reference for posture limitations. The standard defines a back
inclination of <20O as ‘acceptable,’ of 20-60O as ‘conditionally acceptable’, and of ≥60O as
‘critical.’ Back inclination of ≥60O is critical, independent of the time, which should be limited,
and it should never be combined with rotation or lateral flexion. A raised-shoulder position
should be avoided [99]. According to the NIOSH standard, the recommendation for a safe
weight limit in manual handling is about 15 kilogrammes (35 pounds) [100].
3.6 Description of the experiences
3.6.1 Questionnaire Study VI sought to evaluate the walker with a lifting device in relation to how the care workers
experienced the use of the walker. The workers were asked to complete the falls report
whenever necessary in the same way as they always used to, but supplement the report with a
questionnaire where the care worker described how the getting up was carried out, which help
they provided, and how they experienced strain on their own body during the task. A second
26
questionnaire was used when the walker with the lifting beam was accessible in the nursing
home, and this included the same questions as the first but was complemented with questions
of experience from using the walker.
3.6.2 VIDAR In Studies IV and V, the VIDAR ergonomics evaluation instrument was used to register the
participants’ experiences of discomfort and pain during getting up from the floor. VIDAR is
an acronym for the Swedish expression of ‘Video- and computer-based work analysis’. The
instrument has been used mostly in evaluation of a person’s experience of discomfort and pain
during different work tasks [101]. VIDAR was used directly after the participants had
performed the task. Then the participants watched the video on the computer and used the
VIDAR program to estimate their experience of load, pain and discomfort on a body sketch.
They were assisted by the researcher and encouraged to use the comment field provided in the
VIDAR program to describe their overall experience of each part of the task. In Figure 9, a
picture from the VIDAR program is presented.
FIGURE 9 A PICTURE FROM THE VIDAR PROGRAM.
3.6.3 Interview In Study VII, structured interviews with the participants were used as a method. Eighteen
questions were included in a questionnaire, and all interviews were made by the same person.
The first part of the interview contained questions about why the participant used the walker,
when they used it, and how they used it. The second part of the interview focused on finding
out how they experienced their accessibility in their immediate environment.
The estimation of the experience was made by the participant on an ordinal scale. The
situations were described by the researcher and some of the questions were complemented
with pictures to give the participant an example of context for the described situation. The
participant was asked how he/she experienced the performance of the task related to five
stages ranging from very easy to impossible. See Figure 10 for an example with questions,
picture and scale.
27
FIGURE 10 PICTURE FROM INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE.
The collected data from VIDAR, observations, interviews and questionnaires were
summarised in frequencies with calculation of average and standard deviations. The
performance is described according to findings in the observations. Focus has been on how
the task was performed, which was structured in observation protocols and concluded in
analyses.
3.7 Summary methods
In Table 5, a summary of methods used is presented.
TABLE 5 METHODOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION
28
3.8 Ethics The participants were provided with written and oral information of the aim of the study and
their part in the project. All participants provided informed consent and were instructed that
they at any time could end their participation in the project. Ethical approval was obtained
from the Ethics Research Committee of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm for the different
studies.
29
4 Results
The results describe different difficulties in the performed tasks. To help a care recipient at the
toilet includes several situations which could contribute to increased injury risk; overexertion
occurs but not only because of insufficient postures. The results indicate that there are more
risks to consider.
Older people assume critical postures several times when they are cooking and doing their
laundry. Laundry work contains more negative postures. Getting up from the floor could be
done in several ways, but the results show that many of the participants chose to stand on their
knees before getting up, which indicates that a device for helping them to get up from kneeling
could be useful. The walker with a lifting device was developed and tested with positive results.
The test groups were small in all the studies, but the similarities in their performance and
experiences provided useful information for the design process. The results of the different
studies are presented below.
4.1 Home care during a toilet visit - Studies I and II In both Studies I and II, extreme postures occur but among less participants and in fewer
situations than in Study I.
4.1.1 An ambulatory care recipient (I) In the first and last parts of the task, the participant walks with the care recipient to and from
the toilet. After following to the toilet, the care recipient needed help with the pants and to sit
down and get up from the toilet. See Figure 11 for a picture from Cases 1 and 2.
FIGURE 11 PICTURE FROM CASE 1 WITH THE WALKER AND CASE 2.
When a four-wheeled walker was used in Case 1, the participants chose to work from the side
of the care recipient. One participant used both sides during the task. In Case 2, most of the
30
participants worked from the side of the care recipient, one participant chose to work from the
front of the care recipient, and one participant alternated working from the side and from the
front of the care recipient. A sketch of where the participants stood and moved during the task
in the bathroom is visualized in Figure 12.
FIGURE 12 A SKETCH OF THE SURFACES USED FOR WORK IN STUDY I.
4.1.1.1 Postures assumed: When the home care worker followed the care recipient to the toilet, no extreme postures
occurred. For all participants, the average of maximal back inclination was 24° (SD 9) in Case 1
and 21° (SD 6) in Case 2.
The maximum back inclination for Case 1 was 98° performed by one person; in Case 2, it was
74° performed by one person. The average maximum back inclination was 60° (SD 11) in Case
1 and 57° (SD 11) in Case 2. Minimum back inclination was on average 6° in both cases (SD in
Case 1 it was 6 and in Case 2 it was 5). Rotation and lateral flexion of the back occurred during
this task most of the time, but not always in combination with back inclination. These postures
were related to the times when the participant was helping the care recipient with personal
hygiene and pulling up or down the pants. In Tables 6 and 7, the data from both cases is
presented with postures performed in relation to different parts of the task.
TABLE 6 THE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS WHO ASSUMED DIFFERENT WORK POSTURES
IN SPECIFIC PARTS OF THE TASKS IN CASE 1.
31
Almost everyone performed a back inclination above 20° in all parts of helping a care recipient
during a visit to the toilet. To pull up or down the pants is difficult without a back inclination
above 40°.
The results presented show that back inclination occurs in combination with rotation in those
parts of the task when the participants help the care recipient with pants and hygiene.
TABLE 7 THE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS WHO ASSUMED DIFFERENT WORK POSTURES
IN SPECIFIC PARTS OF THE TASKS IN CASE 2.
Earlier research indicates that there are more risk factors which need to be considered. It can
be assumed that anything unforeseen which happens as a part of the task increases the risk of
injuries. One factor for causing overexertion injuries is ‘unpredictable’ movements which could
be a care recipient or care worker who loses her/his balance [47, 102]. The scenario includes
the risk by its assignment; the home care worker is there to help because the care recipient’s
strength and balance are reduced for various reasons. The tasks include both exposed working
postures for the home care worker and tasks affecting the care recipient’s balance. There are
two times when the risks for unpredictable movement are more obvious. Firstly, in the part
when they walk in and out of the bathroom and, secondly, when the care recipient is standing
in front of the toilet and the care worker is assisting with pulling down and putting back the
pants and assisting with hygiene.
FIGURE 13 HOME CARE WORKER TRIES TO HINDER A FALL FORWARD.
32
In Figure 13, a fictive picture of how this could happen is shown. The risk is the same when
helping to pull up the pants. If the falling is forward and the home care worker tries to hinder
the fall, he or she would have to reach out and, because of the initially exposed posture, the
risk of injury is acute.
4.1.2 A care recipient using the wheelchair (II) In the first part of the task most of the participants (10 of 15) pushed the wheelchair in front
of them. They passed the toilet before they turned the wheelchair about 225 degrees and
placed it at an angle of about 45 degrees on the right side of the toilet seat. Five participants
chose to walk backwards, which meant that they pulled the wheelchair and made a 180-degree
turn outside the bathroom. Twelve of the participants chose to place the wheelchair at a 45-
degree angle, close to the toilet on the right side. But three chose to place the chair at a 90 -
degree angle. See Figure 14 for a sketch of how the participants moved inside the bathroom
and placed the wheelchair.
FIGURE 14 A SKETCH OF HOW THE PARTICIPANTS MOVED INSIDE BATHROOM AND
PLACED THE WHEELCHAIR.
After the wheelchair was put in position, preparations were done for the transfer of the care
recipient to the toilet. The participants were taking off the leg and armrests which were closest
to the toilet. The most common way of working was standing or kneeling in front of the care
recipient. In the laboratory bathroom, a bench was available and most of the participants (11
of 15) chose to put the arm- and leg rests on the bench. One participant chose to put the leg
rests on the floor and the armrest on the bench, and three chose to put everything on the
floor. When the participants helped the care recipient move between the wheelchair and toilet,
they were always standing in front of the care recipient.
4.1.2.1 Postures assumed: When the home care worker pushed or pulled the care recipient in the wheelchair to the toilet,
no extreme postures occurred. During the preparation of the wheelchair, the main focus of the
posture analysis was on knee flexion, back inclination, and rotation of the back, which were
33
found to be the most exposed postures. The weight of the arm- and leg rests which the
participant moved was less than one kilogramme each. But the knees were exposed to the
participants’ body weight, which was on average 70 kilograms (SD 11). To take off the arm-
and leg rests took on average 26 seconds (SD 8), and it took the same time on average to put
them back on (SD 5). During this part of the task, 11 of the 15 participants performed a
maximum knee flexion, above a 130-degree angle. The maximum back inclination was 106
degrees, performed by one participant when she was kneeling and putting a leg rest on the
floor in front of her. The average maximum back inclination was 63 degrees (SD 13). All
participants rotated their backs during this part of the task.
When the participant helped the care recipient to get up and move between the wheelchair and
the toilet, the most exposed postures were found in the back and shoulders. The weight of the
care recipient was about 70 kilogrammes. The care recipient took part of the load on her legs,
but the weight which the participant was exposed to was estimated to be over the
recommended limit of 15 kilogrammes, which meant that all parts of lifting and moving during
this task are considered high risk. The transfer between the toilet and the wheelchair was
divided into different parts in the analysis. See Table 8 for pictures of the different positions
which occurred when the care recipient moved from the wheelchair to toilet and back.
TABLE 8 POSTURES PERFORMED IN DIFFERENT POSITIONS IN THE TASK.
During the part when the participant moved the care recipient between the wheelchair and the
toilet, the participant stood twice in positions with the back in an extreme forward-bent
position. The first time was when the participant was about to move the care recipient from
sitting to standing; this is described as Position 1. The second time was when the participant
helped the care recipient to be seated; this was in Position 3. In the results, we present the back
inclination in both positions and also present the minimum back inclination that occurs
between the two maximum postures; this is Position 2. The average maximum back inclination
in Position 1, moving from the wheelchair to toilet, was 41 degrees (SD 12). In Position 3,
moving from the wheelchair to toilet, the average maximum back inclination was 38 degrees
(SD 11). Back inclination data is presented in Table 8.
34
All participants rotated their backs while moving the care recipient. The maximum rotation
always occurred in Position 1 or 3, and the average maximum rotation was 14 degrees (SD 5)
moving from the wheelchair to toilet. The average maximum rotation was 12 degrees (SD 4)
moving from the toilet to the wheelchair.
The arm and shoulder movements and postures were observed in video analysis. Most of the
participants (8 of 15) moved their elbow or raised their shoulder (12 of 15) during raising and
moving the care recipient. Two of the participants did not move their elbows or raise their
shoulders during transfer of the care recipient between the wheelchair and toilet.
The parts of the bathroom task in which home care workers are exposed to the highest
overexertion risks are when they help the care recipient to get up and to be seated. The
maximum back inclination is on average more than 40 degrees, and this combined with
rotation of the back and the weight of the care recipient, is well over recommended limits. The
knees are exposed to a particularly heavy load in the part of the task when the preparation of
the wheelchair is done, when taking off the leg rests and putting them back on again.
4.1.3 Needs in equipment or bathroom design for the Home care
worker There are some different aspects which need to be considered in the future designs of the
bathroom if the goal is lifelong living at home. In many homes for older people, there is a need
for home care. The care in the bathroom is considered to be a difficult task, and the risk of
overexertion injuries in this task is high [30, 47, 52]. The first information learned in this study
was what areas were used by the home care worker in the different tasks in Studies I and II.
The most important area to work with is the triangle in front of the toilet illustrated in Figure
15. In this area the home care worker is standing, and in this area equipment to support in
getting up could be necessary. The risk of injuries is high if the care recipient falls forward and
the home care worker is standing partly behind the care recipient.
FIGURE 15 A SKETCH OF THE MOST USED AREA BY HOME CARE WORKER IN CASES.
35
For older people, the area in front of the toilet is important; you need space for the walker if
you use such equipment. If you use a wheelchair you need space to put it close to the toilet to
be able to move over to the seat by yourself or with help from a care worker. The exact
measure of the surface that is needed is not investigated in Studies I or II; the sketches are just
estimations.
To decrease the risk for overexertion injuries, the inclusively designed bathroom needs to
include solutions to decrease the risk for ‘unpredictable’ movements. If an older person needs
help during the toilet visit, most often a support is needed beside the toilet. There is also a
need for support in front of the care recipient, to hinder a fall forward. Such a support must be
flexible since it must not hinder movement to and from the toilet. Support could be integrated
in other equipment in the bathroom to decrease the risk of falling. It could be a towel hanger
or a shelf which, if it is correctly designed, is easy to hold on to, and well-fixed to the wall,
which would decrease the risk of injuries if there is an ‘unpredictable movement’.
One well known solution to decrease overexertion injuries is to shorten the time for exposure
to extreme postures. In Study I, one of the highest risks is when the home care worker is
helping the care recipient with their intimate hygiene. The time for this part of the task could
be shortened. There are already solutions which could decrease the time and effort for the
home care worker. A toilet seat bidet could be mounted to the toilet with both a cleaning and
drying function, and the time in a forward-bend position will decrease.
In Study II, there are two main parts of the task where the home care worker is exposed to
extreme postures. The first exposure to overexertion risk for the participants occurred when
they prepare the wheelchair before assisting and moving the care recipient. The participants
often chose a posture including extreme knee flexion, frequently combined with back
inclination; they bend forwards not only to reach the leg rest but also to see what they are
doing. The postures performed when preparing the wheelchair are extreme. The time it takes
seems short and the wheelchair parts are not heavy. This is a part of task which is described
with frustration among the participants and should be easy to modify. They reported: “You
never know how those work”; “Some are easy, some are difficult”; “Some get stuck”; “If
you’re lucky they come off immediately”, which were some of the comments from the video
recordings.
The participants who chose to place the leg rests on the floor performed the greatest back
inclination. We suggest that bathrooms should be equipped with a place to put the leg rests at a
height reachable from an upright position.
Tasks to help a care recipient get up, move and sit down are postures where the care workers
are exposed to high risks. The back and shoulders are in exposed positions and the weight is
difficult to calculate because the care recipients’ status and possibilities to participate vary.
When analysing this task, we calculated the weight handled by the participant as being well
over 15 kilogrammes at all times, which could bring us to the conclusion that this task should
be avoided. To decrease the time of exposure, a lifting device could be a solution. There is
equipment for this on the market, and most of these need to be put in front of the care
36
recipient. In Figure 16 there is an example, but there are more with different designs on the
market. However, care recipients still need assistance to move and they also need possibilities
to participate in the task. This participation is for many care recipients an important part of
keeping their functional status.
FIGURE 16 RE-TURN A SUPPORT FOR GETTING UP (Re-Turn is a product from Handicare)
To be able to use this kind of equipment, there needs to be space for both the care worker and the
assistive devices in front of the care recipient.
4.2 Older people preparing food and doing the laundry -
Study III The results are presented in time and in the number of ‘static-postures’, which are postures
maintained for more than four seconds. The cooking included making one pancake and
serving it at the table. The average time for completion of the cooking was 12 min (SD 4).
TABLE 9 TIME SPENT IN POSTURAL CATEGORIES AND FREQUENCY OF STATIC POSTURES (4+ SECONDS).
Participants spent on average 75% of the time assuming a back inclination of <20 O, 22%
assuming a back inclination of 20-60O, and 3% assuming a back inclination of >60O. The tasks
during which critical postures occurred were retrieving from and putting in lower cabinets,
retrieving from and putting in the refrigerator, disposing into the waste bin and others mainly
related to searching for tools and materials. The laundry task included loading the washing
37
machine, retrieving the laundry, hanging it on a line and folding the dried laundry. Participants
took on average 12 min (SD 3) to complete the laundry. They spent most of the time assuming
a back inclination of <20O on average 57%, followed by back inclination of 20-60O for 33% of
the time, and on average 10% of the time with a back inclination >60O. A summary of the
findings is presented in Table 9.
In this study the participants used a front-loaded or a top-loaded washing machine depending
on what they were accustomed to use at home. Those using the front-loader spent 12% of the
time assuming a back inclination >60O, but those using the top-loader spentonly 6% of the
time in this posture. Static postures were more frequent in the former as compared to the
latter, which had significantly more critical postures during operating the machine. In Table 10
the differences in postures between those using a front-loaded or top-loaded washing machine
are presented.
TABLE 10 CRITICAL POSTURES DURING LAUNDRY BY TYPE OF MACHINE USED.
The results suggest that the use of relatively stressful postures may decrease efficiency and
increase fatigue, eventually leading to difficulty with cooking and laundry. In analyses, the
levels in the ISO Standard were used; this standard is developed for people in their working
age. With an increasing age the limitations could be much different, and therefore developing a
standard for the evaluation of working postures specifically for older people would appear
timely.
4.2.1 Needs in the kitchen and laundry room for older people In the different tasks performed, critical postures occurred; conclusions are that to reach high
and low are difficulties which should be avoided but also targeted by designers in order to
improve the activities. Lack of storage is an often brought forward subject when people
complain about their housing [50], and if you cannot reach up or down the possibilities
become less. Solutions are available, but this is an area which could be developed with an
inclusive design perspective[22].
38
The results indicate that a top-loaded washing machine is easier for the older people’s posture.
The laundry is a task which older people often need help with. There are many aspects of using
the machine to load and retrieve the laundry, but also to read the instructions, open and close
the door, and press the start button. In Sweden an accessible washing machine is described as a
front-loaded machine which is supposed to stand on an elevation which is about 30 cm [103].
This description is aiming for all elderly people, including people using a wheelchair, but
according to the results it might be that all people could gain from a top-loaded washing
machine.
4.3 Developing the walker with a lifting device - Studies IV-
VI We found that older people get up in similar ways and have difficulties in the same part of the
task; this gave us background information in order to develop a walker with a lifting device
which was tested with older people.
4.3.1 Getting up on one’s own (IV) Most of the participants (18 of 20) managed to get up by themselves. Two needed help and
were provided with a chair to support them in getting up. The average time for getting up was
13 seconds (SD 16). The fastest was five seconds and the slowest was 78 seconds. The most
common way to get up was to start turning to a lateral position and then moving to a kneeling
position. In the next step, the participant moved one leg forward and then moved to a standing
position by pushing with hands and stretching the legs, and finished by stretching the back to
an upright position. The second common way of getting up was to first sit up before turning to
a kneeling position, and then continuing as above. Two participants chose to get up without
kneeling. The different kinds of getting up are presented in Figure 17.
FIGURE 17 THE WAYS OF GETTING UP - THE ARROW THICKNESS VISUALISES THE
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS PERFORMING EACH POSTURE. NUMBERS REPRESENT THE
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS EACH ARROW REPRESENTS.
39
The results show that there were two main techniques used to get up; with or without kneeling
first.
4.3.1.1 Experience of getting up Most of the participants (18 of 20) experienced some kind of discomfort during getting up.
The most common symptoms were from the legs, experienced by 14 participants, and it was
ranked as a pain or discomfort between three and ten expressed in VIDAR. Other symptoms
described by the participants were from the back by three participants and the arms by two
participants. It was not always easy for the participants to rank their experience related to
specific body areas, and 15 participants simply described that they felt difficulties mostly
related to balance or lack of strength without specifying where. In Figure 18 the number of
participants who experienced difficulties of any kind in different parts of the task is visualised.
FIGURE 18 THE PARTICIPANTS’ EXPERIENCE OF DIFFICULTIES: THE NUMBER
REPRESENTS HOW MANY OF THE PARTICIPANTS THAT EXPERIENCED ANY KIND OF
DIFFICULTIES IN EACH MOVEMENT. THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS THAT
PERFORMED THE MOVEMENT IS REPORTED IN PARENTHESIS.
Most elderly persons experience difficulties in getting up from the floor. The difficulties are
mainly described in the legs resulting in discomfort, weakness, and balance issues. Most of the
participants raised themselves, and most of them preferred a getting up that included kneeling
before standing up. The most critical part was when the participants lifted one leg forward and
then stretched the legs after kneeling; 17 of 18 described difficulties in this part.
When developing an assistive device to help persons who cannot get up themselves, focus
should be on the part after kneeling, and the main goal should be to reduce load on the legs
and support balance for the user.
4.3.2 The walker with a lifting device Based on the knowledge from Study IV, a prototype has been developed. The prototype was
built on the basis of a common walker, the Ono. The elevating construction consists of a seat
that runs along the vertical supports for the walker’s handles. An electric motor, a battery and a
control panel have been integrated into the elevation seat. Along the vertical supports for the
handles, a positive drive belt has been mounted. In this way the elevation seat can run along
40
the entire length of the support. See Figure 19 for a sketch of the walker and a photograph of
the prototype.
FIGURE 19 THE ELEVATING CONSTRUCTION AND THEPROTOTYPE OF WALKER WITH A
LIFTING DEVICE.
The elevation seat’s construction is lightweight and copes with loads up to 125 kg. It is
designed to give support for getting up from a kneeling position.
4.3.3 Getting up with help from the walker with a lifting device (IV) The test started with the participant in a kneeling position and the task from kneeling to
standing was divided into three stages: first, to crawl in and lie across the elevating seat;
second, to lift up the body with the walker so that the legs are straight in a vertical position;
and finally the third stage, to raise up the upper body from the elevating seat when elevation is
completed. In Table 11 the three stages are presented.
TABLE 11 DESCRIPTIONS OF THE ANALYSED STAGES OF GETTING UP WITH THE
WALKER.
41
Three participants reported pain in the knees when they crawled into the walker. They
estimated the pain at between 2 and 8 on a scale of 10. Four commented that they were
unaccustomed and felt uncertain in this position.In Figure 20 the experience of discomfort
described by participants in the starting position is presented.
FIGURE 20 EXPERIENSED DISCOMFORT AT THE STARTING POSITION.
The process of getting up from a kneeling position until the legs are straight takes an average
of 25 seconds. During this stage thirteen of the participants experienced discomfort in their
abdomens. The discomfort was on average 2 (SD2) on a scale of 10. The discomfort was most
of the times described in the start of the lifting. All except one felt secure in the lifting; this
person experienced anxiety and dizziness during the lifting. In Figure 21 the experience of
discomfort described by participants during the lifting process is presented. When the lift is
completed, the only step remaining is to get up the upper body. No participant described any
discomfort in this stage.
FIGURE 21 EXPERIENCED STRAIN DURING LIFTING.
After the test the participants were asked which they preferred, and most participants (13 of
20) preferred to get up by themselves when they compared with being lifted by the walker. The
two participants who could not get up without support in the first test were both included
among those seven which preferred being lifted by the walker.
4.3.4 Care workers’ experience in using the walker with a lifting
device (VI) Before the walker was introduced at the nursing home, a background questionnaire was used
to collect information about how to get people up was performed after a fall in the nursing
42
home. During a period of three weeks, 19 falls were reported. Most of the time, the care
recipient needed help from one (4 of 19) or two (12 of 19) persons to be able to get up from
the floor. Most of the time (11 of 19), no additional equipment was used when the care
recipient was getting up. When equipment was used, the most common product was a chair
which was used four times. A mobile lift was used twice. After one of the falls, the care
recipient managed to get up by herself.
The care workers described discomfort primarily in the back, arms and shoulders when they
were helping the care recipient.
When the walker with a lifting device was available at the nursing home, 17 falls were reported.
The walker was used four times. A care worker tried to use the walker one more time but
could not because the care recipients’ difficulties to participate and understand instructions.
Three times the care recipients managed to get up by themselves. Most of the time when the
walker with a lifting device was not used (7 of 12), two or more of the care workers
participated in helping the care recipient get up. Two times the walker was not available. In one
case the patient was stiff due to Parkinson’s disease, and the mobile floor lift was the only
option to provide help.
When the care workers describe their experience of using the walker, they are all positive but
all of them also describe difficulties in explaining to the care recipient how to participate in
using the lift. Most difficult is to get into position on the walker and maintain that position
during the lift. The assumptions in this study are made on a small group of trials and more
tests need to be made before making conclusions.
4.3.5 Needs to consider developing the walker with a lifting device The walker with a lifting device works, but further development of the design is necessary.
Areas which need to be taken into consideration are to make the lift more comfortable for the
user. In the tests we realized that the position chosen by the user was important for the
experience. One other aspect mentioned by users was the button for starting the lift procedure;
the older participants mentioned that it was important to be able to manoeuver it themselves.
The care workers stressed the importance of contact with the care receiver while still
maintaining a good posture.
The older participants were positive to the multifunctioning in the walker’s design, as the seat
could be used not only as a floor lift but also to sit on.
4.4 Accessibility with the walker close to home - study VII All the participants described the ability to walk on a hard ground surface such as asphalt. Only
three of the participants could walk on loose gravel; all of them had a walker especially
equipped for outside walking. Eight participants were able to walk on an uneven surface such
as cobblestones.
Passing a curb with the walker was possible for most of the participants (31 of 34) but difficult
for 19 of them. To walk up the stairs and at the same time bring the walker was impossible for
43
most of the participants. The participants were asked to describe their ability to walk on two
kinds of stairs with the walker; a two-step stairs and a three-step stairs. This assessment was
only described as possible for seven of the participants in each scenario. In both scenarios,
there were two participants who did not know their ability to walk in stairs. In Figure 22 we
present the data from the participants’ description of the ability to pass a curb or stair with the
walker.
FIGURE 22 THE PARTICIPANTS’ EXPERIENCE OF WALKING ON STAIRS OR PASSING A
CURB WITH THE WALKER.
The participants were asked about their ability to walk on a three-step stairs if they had
assistance from someone with the walker and instead could use a handrail to hold onto. To
climb the stairs was described to be “difficult” for most of the participants (10 of 34), but it
was only impossible for five participants. The results from this question are presented in Table
12.
TABLE 12 THE PARTICIPANTS’ EXPERIENCE OF WALKING ON STAIRS WITH SUPPORT
FROM A HANDRAIL.
Most of the participants (24 of 34) think it is “difficult” to pass an entrance door to a building
with the four-wheeled walker and four describe it as “impossible”. Only five people describe it
as “not difficult”. The results from this question are presented in Table 13.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Simple Neithereasy nor
difficult
Difficult Impossible Don'tknow
Curbs
2 stairs
3 stairs
44
TABLE 13 THE PARTICIPANTS’ EXPERIENCE OF PASSING AN ENTRANCE DOOR TO A
BUILDING.
Most of the participants (23 of 34) were able to do a turn with a space requirement of 100
centimetres in diameter or less. Only two participants needed more than 120 cm in diameter to
turn and no one needed more than 130 cm. The frequencies of space requirements for turning
360 degrees are presented in Figure 23.
FIGURE 23 DIAMETER OF TURNING AREA NEEDED FOR THE PARTICIPANTS.
During observations we found that the need for repair service on the participants’ walkers was
common. There were brakes which did not function, wheels in need of air, etc. None of the
participants had taken their walker to any repair service, since they did not know where to go.
4.4.1 Needs when using the walker close to home An environment accessible for all should include automatic door openers on all heavy doors.
An effort should be made to develop the technology so this product is reliable without being
too expensive.
Stairs are barriers for users of a walker. Stairs should be built only when absolutely necessary
and always supplemented with an alternative route which is accessible for persons using
wheelchairs or walkers. Other things which could make accessibility better are handrails and
the possibility to leave the walker outside.
In a continued project, we are developing a technical solution for walking with four-wheeled
walkers in stairs. The goal is to find a design, which is easily fitted on existing stairs, simple to
manage, and not too expensive. A prototype has been built and will be tested.
45
5 Discussion
This thesis is a contribution to the knowledge of how to provide a desirable place to live for
older people. The areas described in this thesis are important for older people being able to
continue living at home. In several countries, the building regulat ions aim to create an
accessible environment for everyone. In Sweden the standard contains different levels, where
the lowest only is acceptable if there is something exceptional: for example, apartments
specifically designed for students [54]. One area of ergonomics at home brought forward in
this thesis is the work environment for home care activities. The home care could be provided
by formal or informal care providers. In the first group, the prevalence of work related injuries
is high [43, 104, 105] but it is also known that informal care providers are injured, for example,
when they help their spouses to get up after falling [86]. The design of future homes for
lifelong living needs to consider both the persons living there but also the care provider. The
regulations for how to build homes have changed over time but in Sweden many houses still
struggle with accessibility difficulties. To be able to go outside is one important factor in the
quality of life for older people [106, 107].
The situations described in the study of accessibility for older people with the four-wheeled
walker are commonly known as barriers in the environment close to home [108-110]. To be
able to walk through a door was described as difficult by the participants, and their stories
indicated that this was really frustrating. During the interviews the participants described
situations where automatic door openers did not work, and they were not able to get inside the
building. Or they got stuck in the space between two heavy doors. Their stories clearly
indicated that being able to get through a door was something they expected to manage by
themselves, if necessary with some kind of assistive technology such as a door opener. Imrie
describes the need of not only accessible homes for the persons with disabilities but also
accessibility in the surroundings and in their friends’ and relatives’ homes [50]. In Sweden it is
possible to receive economic support for housing adaptation in one’s own home, and one
common adaptation made is the installing of an automatic door opener [68]. This of course is
desirable, but our results indicate that this is such a common difficulty so that in an accessible
environment most heavy doors should be provided with door openers, not only entrance
doors to homes where people with disabilities live. Independence is important among older
people and the possibility to go outside the apartment affects the feeling of quality of life [92,
106].
Level differences and stairs could be another reason for why older people get stuck in their
own home, not able to get out. Older people who need the four-wheeled walker think that just
one step such as a curb is difficult to pass, but they have to deal with it and most of them
manage it. This is necessary; otherwise they cannot go for a walk outside. Stairs are difficult to
pass and in many situations impossible for older people with walking or balance difficulties.
But the results also show that the four-wheeled walker itself could be the final limitation to
46
pass the stairs. It is impossible to walk on the stairs as well as carry the walker, but if the
participants got help from someone to carry it, they could use the stairs: still difficult but not
impossible. One way to create accessibility is to make changes in the environment . According
to our results, the participants need something to hold on to when they walk on stairs, and this
means that an improved walker should be able to climb the stairs and still be stable enough for
the older person to hold on to. During data collection, we noticed that the condition of the
walkers was insufficient; brakes were often broken, for example. Most of the participants used
their walker daily, but they had never had any service on their walker. There are difficulties in
getting it repaired, since people don’t know where to go for service [111].
The walker with a lifting device was developed according to the difficulties found in the
analyses of how older people get up from floor. Most people prefer to stand in a kneeling
position before getting up. And the part after kneeling was the most difficult part of the task.
There have been studies before analysing getting up from the floor, and the conclusion has
been that young people prefer getting up from a supine position without kneeling [112]. Many
of the assistive technical aids for support in getting up are developed to lift the care recipient
from a supine position. Most of the lifts are designed to take the whole burden with a passive
care recipient. This is motivated when the person who has fallen is injured, but most of the
falls are non-fatal [69, 113]. Tinetti [113] reports that many people don’t manage to get up after
a fall; among people falling regularly 47% indicated that they at least once needed help to get
up. An injury caused by a falling incidence does not always come from the actual fall but from
the inability to get up afterwards [82]. The aim for the walker with a lifting device is to be used
with help from someone else; it could be a formal or informal caregiver who should be able to
assist in getting up without a big effort. It is a known fact that if a person with Parkinson’s
disease falls frequently, it worries their spouses, they are frightened of new falls, and they
require instructions on how to be able to assist [114]. Davey also reports that the informal
caregivers have injured themselves when they help their spouses getting up; they should ask for
more support in this specific task [86]. The results from Study V show that the older
participants think the walker is good, but only two participants need it. Study VI was made in a
nursing home with patients with Parkinson’s disease as its speciality. The number of times the
walker was used were few and the results are not strong, but the response after using the
walker was positive. The idea of the walker with a lifting device started during the data
collection in Studies I and II. The home care workers who participated talked regularly about
their experiences of their daily workload. We realised that one common difficulty was to help
people who had fallen to get up. Most of the time they were two colleagues; sometimes they
could bring a lift but not always. They asked for better equipment both to place in the care
receiver’s home and equipment which they could easily carry with them.
Older people prefer to do things by themselves if possible: to prepare one’s own food and do
one’s own laundry could be things which contribute to the feeling of independence. Extreme
postures occur when the participants reach for things in low cabinets, i.e., the refrigerator and a
front-loaded washing machine. The posture analyses were based on the ISO Standard, which
ignores the fact that the participants in this study were older and most likely to have age-related
changes in the physiology of their muscles and intervertebral discs. For example, the holding
47
time for back inclination was established based on endurance data, but muscle endurance
generally decreases with age [115]. With an increasing group of older people, researchers and
designers would gain from more knowledge about recommendations of endurance time and
postures for people over 65 years.
Participants used critical postures when they operated the front- but not the top-loaded
washing machine because the placements of the loading door and control panel reduced the
need for bending and close vision. During cooking, participants assumed a back inclination of
<20o most of the time. If the older people are provided with a sitting position while they are
preparing meals, this could have the potential to reduce the difficulties because of extreme
postures while cooking. But more important is design solutions that reduce the need to bend
down; this would have a greater impact on the population as a whole [26]. Kitchen tools and
materials most frequently used by older people should be stored in locations where they can be
easily accessed.
The kitchen in Sweden is often described as the heart of the home, but the bathroom area is
equally important among the very old people (>80). The bathroom is the area where the most
technical aids are used [116]. Fänge et al. evaluated the results of housing adaptation, and they
realised that people with disabilities became less dependent after changes were made in the
bathroom environment [2]. The ability to participate in daily life activities is essential for very
old people [117], and when designing a bathroom environment it is necessary to consider
possible future needs from the home care workers.
Formal home care is provided for many older people in Sweden. In Studies I and II, the focus
has been on the home care workers’ posture and work environment when they helped a care
recipient to and from the toilet. Earlier studies indicate that work in the bathroom is one of the
problem areas when describing the care workers’ environment [34, 47]. In all cases performed,
the posture included both back inclination and rotation of the back, sometimes in
combination. With an ambulatory care recipient the time with extreme back postures was
short, but injury causations are complex. In observations it was easy to understand that there
are risks for ‘unpredictable movements’. The care recipient could easily fall, and if the home
care worker reaches forward and tries to hinder a fall he or she could get injured.
Unpredictable movements are described in assisting tasks and could explain a proportion of
the overexertion injuries among care workers [47, 102, 118, 119]. The bathroom should be
designed with places for the care recipient to hold on to and keep one’s balance.
When the care recipient used a wheelchair and needed help from the home care worker, the
care worker was exposed to several risk postures. The first time is when the leg rests are taken
off the wheelchair. The knee is bent in extreme flexion with the load of the care worker’s own
body weight. Knee injuries are one of the most common problems among care workers [46],
and it is important to decrease the knees’ exposure to overexertion injuries. To find difficulties
in all work tasks in a home takes time, the care worker’s schedule is complex, but this area
needs to be further researched and the work situations need to be developed. The amount of
variables is massive as well as the stake owners; they are the persons who live at home, who if
48
they need care will see changes in their environment and the private territory changes to a
place where people come and go [57]. It is also the employer of care workers, who needs
knowledge to be able to make contributions with education, and equipment to the work
environment. This thesis points out areas in the part of the tasks which could gain from
development in products or environmental design to decrease the risk of injuries. This means
we also need to work with the home owner, real estate companies, and product developers in
this area. To make changes there is a need for deeper knowledge but also creativity to make the
solutions which are cost efficient. In the industry this is an approach which has been used for
many years, and there are several evaluation systems to work with. VIDAR is one example
[101]; simulation combined with participation from workers and designers is another [120]. In
many sections of industry, all parts of the processes have been gone through, and solutions to
decrease the load and the straining postures have been developed. This is much more difficult
to do when the working task is performed in a variety of environments with many different
situations to work with, but it needs to be done. There is a need to find both small and large
difficulties in the home care work to lower the risk for overexertion injuries.
In these tasks the home care worker is exposed to risks for overexertion injuries. Among the
home care workers, 25% think their knowledge about how to decrease the risk for injuries is
limited [30]. Bos et al. presented the difficulties of gaining a good result with an educational
intervention; the results vary [121]. There are difficulties to educate the care workers about
risks, but if they are to be efficient [104], the risks need to be described in order to be able to
be used in an ergonomics education.
Interventions combining education with the lifting aid are described as efficient according to
decreasing symptoms from musculoskeletal disorders [47, 122]. In general, we need to learn
more about the home care workers’ work tasks and work environment in order to provide
better solutions and to make it possible to provide more and better care in peoples’ homes.
Kromark [31] concludes that the intensity is less in home care compared to work in nursing
homes because of a lower number of caring tasks; this is also mentioned by Hasson [30]. This
would be one of many reasons to provide more home care in the future. But we should
remember that the prevalence of symptoms, from the neck, shoulder and lower back in this
group, is a reality for 40-44% of the home care workers [45]. We need to make concerted
efforts to learn more about this work group and their work environment.
5.1 Methodological consideration The research has had a descriptive approach. The number of participants has varied between
15-34 persons in the different studies. The main method has been video observation combined
with different measurement methods: CUELA and VIDAR and sometimes complemented or
substituted with interview or an questionnaire.
The research was made in a laboratory, which makes it possible to repeat and to compare the
postures in an exact way. If the tests had been done in real life, in older peoples’ homes,
differences in variables related to different housing designs would have made the data more
complex to analyse and make conclusions. In the laboratory variables related to the design of
49
the bathroom environment were always the same, which made it possible to compare the
participants’ performance. To be able to study the relationship between activities and postures,
there is a need for combining the video recording with a measurement system. For a system to
be practical, it should be easy to learn and use. It should be reliable and interfaced with a
computer for data analyses [123]. There are several systems available but they are complex
[124]; they only record single body angles [125] or limit the ability to move freely [126].
Learning and using the CUELA system required an intensive training session. Besides ,
mounting and aligning it was sometimes difficult. Apart from this, the CUELA turned out to
be a practical measurement system for investigating the body postures assumed by home care
workers and older people. We received feedback from the participants, which indicated that
they became accustomed to the system quickly and hardly felt wearing it. The CUELA system
has been demonstrated to have good validity and reliability in field studies [98]. There are other
methods used earlier to analyse postures in care work; one is OWAS [104] which is an
instrument used when a trained professional observes the person in action. OWAS could have
been used in the studies, but the CUELA system was easier to work with and this system was
chosen.
An actor was used as a care recipient in Studies I and II. The reason for such a solution was to
limit the variables to analyse. We assumed that the care recipient’s ability would affect the
performance, and by using an actor the level of abilities were the same in each trial and the
possibilities to compare the participants increased. This has been done before, e.g., Daynard
[127], who used volunteers in his study. In Study II, the laboratory analysis was made with one
home care worker who performed the lifting part of the task. The task should in reality have
been done by two home care workers, but the task was described as if the home care worker
had help from a co-worker who assisted her with the undressing part and the intimate hygiene
of the care recipient when our participant held the care recipient in an upright position. Our
participants confirmed that this was how they usually perform this task. Czuba describes the
lack of assistance for many home care workers as a problem, which causes injuries [128]. This
knowledge is underlined according to the results; the load and exposure to risk when the home
care worker moves the care recipient between the wheelchair and toilet is high. It should not
be recommended to anyone to complete this task without support from a colleague.
The alternative to do the laboratory tests with an actor performing the task would have been to
do the tests in peoples’ homes. The reasons not to do tests in real life were more than
standardising the variables. To bring video equipment into peoples’ homes needs ethical
consideration, the task which was analysed is one of the most private, and this was another
reason not to do the tests in real life.
In the methodological consideration there is need for questioning the effect of using
‘standardised’ variables and how they could affect the result. First, the actor: it is impossible to
perform each task in exactly the same way every time. Most difficult is how heavy the
transfer/seating/getting up is supposed to be for the participant. Because of this, no
calculations were made on the load on the participants. Second, the environment, bathroom
designs: it was a relatively big bathroom which made it possible to move freely in the room.
50
But the design of the room did affect the performance of the task; for example, the result
shows that all participants placed the wheelchair on the right side of the toilet seat, probably
because that side has the most space. When using the four-wheeled walker in the bathroom,
most participants stayed on the left side of the participant. It was narrow in front of the toilet
when the walker was used which made it difficult to pass. Several participants used the bench
to put the arm- and leg rests on when it was time to prepare the wheelchair. About the
position according to which side of the toilet the participants chose to work, it is just reported
in the result and not further analysed. The bench is brought forward in the results because of
its positive effect and commonly used possibility in the bathroom design. But when designing a
place for putting things above floor level, there could be other solutions.
The estimation of the work strain in Studies IV and V was done in VIDAR. The program was
used by the participants, but they needed help to enter the data which could affect their
estimation. The estimation in VIDAR was compared to what was visual in the v ideo recording.
It was not possible to observe how much effort or pain a person experienced, but in
observations visual symptoms of effort or discomfort were compared with estimations made in
VIDAR and the conclusion made was that visual situations were reported. Balance difficulties
were noticed in the observation protocol more than they were reported in VIDAR. This could
have been because balance is not a specific target in VIDAR; those who mentioned balance
difficulties added it as an extra comment.
Study VI has more characteristics of a pilot study and has to be complemented with many
more trials before conclusions could be made; the test design is difficult and needs to be
reconsidered. To be able to evaluate the walker with a lifting device, there is a need for two
groups of participants: users who really need the help and also care workers which could be
both formal and informal.
In the last Study VII, an interview method was used. This made it possible to meet several
people during a short time. The estimation of the difficulties of an activity which might have
been performed a long time ago could lead to both over- and underestimation of one’s
functional capability. But it was clear the participants tried their best to make correct
estimations. There were times when they turned to friends and asked for advice; for example,
“You know I can go to ICA and back; how far is it?” We chose not to use a questionnaire in
this study because we believed that an interview gave us the possibility to confirm that the
participant understood all the questions.
5.2 Conclusions and Implications When developing and building new bathrooms, there is a need to apply the research found in
the knowledge of risks. Efforts need to be made to prevent falls when the care workers are
helping a care recipient to and from the toilet. The support provided in the bathroom
environment should be designed to give support and prevent care recipients from falling when
they move in the bathroom and use the toilet alone or with help from someone else. The parts
of the bathroom task in which home care workers are exposed to the highest overexertion
risks are when they help the care recipient to transfer between the wheelchair and the toilet.
51
The maximum back inclination is on average more than 40 degrees, combined with the
rotation of the back and the weight of the care recipient, is well over recommended limits.
Lifting aid solutions should be developed and used. The aim of the equipment should be to
increase the possibilities for the care recipient to participate and bear much of the load, instead
of the care worker doing so. The knees are exposed to a particularly heavy load in the part of
the task when the preparation of the wheelchair is done, taking off the leg rests. Efforts should
be made to develop the arm- and leg rests to be easier to manoeuver for both the user and
his/her assistant. When someone designs for older people, fall prevention should always be in
focus, but also to prevent injuries if or when older people fall. Most elderly persons experience
difficulties in getting up from the floor. The difficulties are mainly described in the legs, related
to discomfort, weakness, and balance issues. Older people are afraid of falling and to be able to
get up afterwards is security. The results show that most of the participants performed getting
up with a position including kneeling. And most of them described experiences of difficulties
at the last part of getting up after the kneeling. An assistive device designed to give support to
spouses or home care workers should be easy to use. Because most of the falls are non-fatal, it
could be designed to support the older person’s body which is heavy. The four-wheeled walker
with a lifting device is one example. Another important area is accessibility. This thesis includes
some conclusions: An environment accessible for all should include automatic door openers
on every heavy door. Efforts should be made to develop the technology so this product is
reliable without being too expensive. Stairs are barriers for users of a walker. Stairs should be
built only when absolutely necessary and always supplemented with an alternative route, which
is accessible for persons using wheelchairs or walkers. When designing the kitchen for older
people, efforts should be made to put tools for food preparation in reachable areas to increase
the endurance in muscles and decrease the time in strenuous postures. In many homes the
washing machine is placed in the bathroom; to use a top-loaded washing machine means less
exposure to straining postures if you work in a standing position.
There is a need for more knowledge among people who can design and build future homes for
older people. It is a fact that there are many description of how to build accessible homes, but
the knowledge is not disseminated widely enough [129]. We agree with Ahsan’s conclusion that
there is a need to learn more of the older people’s needs in the home and use that knowledge
in the design of new houses.
“Often builders do not know all the factors to be considered that can
maintain a safe, hygienic and healthy environment. It is believed that
when housing is ergonomically furnished, then a maximum benefit will
be achieved. To meet with an individual’s specific needs, an analysis of
user’s requirements is the most important factor to be considered in the
design of special houses”. [19]
The aims of this thesis were to describe the need for solutions to decrease the exposure to
risks of musculoskeletal injuries among home care workers, the strain in older peoples’ bodies,
and the risk of older people not being able to get up after a fall in the living and work
environments. The results point to many things that need to be done in designing new
52
bathrooms, homes, equipment, and surroundings. The knowledge needs to increase in the
small things, the details affecting the whole. And maybe the most important thing is that the
knowledge should not stay within research; it needs to be spread to building designers, real
estate owners, and politicians.
53
6 References
1. Mack, R., et al., Perceived risks to independent living: The views of older, community-dwelling
adults. Gerontologist, 1997. 37(6): p. 729-736.
2. Fänge, A. and S.D. Ivanoff, The home is the hub of health in very old age: Findings from the
ENABLE-AGE Project. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 2009. 48(3): p. 340-345.
3. WHO, Global Health and Aging, in NIH Publication2011, National Institute on Aging and
National Institute of Health.
4. WHO, Global Age-friendly Cities: A guide, 2007: Geneva.
5. Lewinter, M., Developments in home help for elderly people in Denmark: The changing concept
of home and institution. International Journal of Social Welfare, 2004. 13(1): p. 89-96.
6. Genet, N., et al., Home care in Europe: A systematic literature review. BMC Health Services
Research, 2011. 11.
7. Roe, B., et al., Elders' needs and experiences of receiving formal and informal care for their
activities of daily living. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 2001. 10(3): p. 389-397.
8. Larsson, K., Care needs and home-help services for older people in Sweden: Does improved
functioning account for the reduction in public care? Ageing and Society, 2006. 26(3): p. 413-
429.
9. Criddle, R.A. and L. Flicker, Helping older people to remain in their own homes. Medical
Journal of Australia, 2001. 174(6): p. 266-267.
10. Arlinghaus, A., et al., The role of ergonomic and psychosocial workplace factors in the reporting
of back injuries among U.S. home health aides. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 2013.
56(10): p. 1239-1244.
11. SCB, Population, 2013, Statistics Sweden.
12. Larsson, K., The social situation of older people (Chapter 8). International Journal of Social
Welfare, 2007. 16(SUPPL. 1): p. S203-S218.
13. Dahlin-Ivanoff, S., et al., The multiple meaning of home as experienced by very old Swedish
people. Scandinavian journal of occupational therapy, 2007. 14(1): p. 25-32.
14. Haak, M., et al., Home as a signification of independence and autonomy: Experiences among old
Swedish people. Scandinavian journal of occupational therapy, 2007. 14(1): p. 16-24.
15. SCB, Housing Situation in Europe, in Living Conditions Report 1212011, Statistics Sweden:
Stockholm.
16. Larsson, K., Trappan mellan kvarboende och flytt, 2007, The National Board of Health and
Welfare.
17. Oswald, F., et al., Trouble in paradise? Reasons to relocate and objective environmental changes
among well-off older adults. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2002. 22(3): p. 273-288.
18. Linn, G., Badrum och städning. Hur skall badrum byggas för att underlätta städningen?, 1985,
Byggforskningsrådet: Stockholm.
19. Ahasan, R., et al., Ergonomics of living environment for the people with special needs. Journal
of Physiological Anthropology and Applied Human Science, 2001. 20(3): p. 175-185.
20. IEA. 2013 [cited 2013 16 nov]; Available from:
http://www.iea.cc/01_what/What%20is%20Ergonomics.html
21. University of Cambridge, E.D.C. Inclusive design toolkit. 2013 [cited 2013 13 dec]; Available
from: http://www.inclusivedesigntoolkit.com/betterdesign2/whatis/whatis.html#p30.
54
22. Clarkson, J., Coleman, R., Hoskin, I., Waller, S., Inclusive design toolkit2007, Cambridge:
Enginering Design Centre.
23. Waller, S., P. Langdon, and J. Clarkson, Designing a more inclusive world. Journal of Integrated
Care, 2010. 18(4): p. 19-25.
24. Kose, S., How can the exploding senior population be accommodated? Japanese struggle
towards inclusive design. Journal of Engineering Design, 2010. 21(2-3): p. 165-171.
25. Demirbilek, O. and H. Demirkan, Universal product design involving elderly users: A
participatory design model. Applied Ergonomics, 2004. 35(4): p. 361-370.
26. Seidel, D., et al., Design for independent living: activity demands and capabilities of older people.
Ageing & Society, 2010. 30: p. 1239-1255.
27. Iwarsson, S. and A. Ståhl, Accessibility, usability and universal design - Positioning and definition
of concepts describing person-environment relationships. Disability and Rehabilitation, 2003.
25(2): p. 57-66.
28. Fänge, A. and S. Iwarsson, Accessibility and usability in housing: Construct validity and
implications for research and practice. Disability and Rehabilitation, 2003. 25(22): p. 1316-1325.
29. Fänge, A. and S. Iwarsson, Changes in accessibility and usability in housing: An exploration of
the housing adaptation process. Occupational Therapy International, 2005. 12(1): p. 44-59.
30. Hasson, H. and J.E. Arnetz, Nursing staff competence, work strain, stress and satisfaction in
elderly care: a comparison of home-based care and nursing homes. Journal of Clinical Nursing,
2008. 17(4): p. 468-481.
31. Kromark, K., et al., Back disorders and lumbar load in nursing staff in geriatric care: A
comparison of home-based care and nursing homes. Journal of Occupational Medicine and
Toxicology, 2009. 4(1).
32. Kim, I.H., et al., Physically demanding workloads and the risks of musculoskeletal disorders in
homecare workers in the USA. Health & Social Care in the Community, 2010. 18(5): p. 445-455.
33. Torgen, M., C.H. Nygard, and A. Kilbom, Physical work load, physical capacity and strain among
elderly female aids in home-care service. European Journal of Applied Physiology and
Occupational Physiology, 1995. 71(5): p. 444-452.
34. Brulin, C., A. Winkvist, and S. Langendoen, Stress from working conditions among home care
personnel with musculoskeletal symptoms. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 2000. 31(1): p. 181-
189.
35. Socialstyrelsen, Behovsbarometern - Äldre, Socialstyrelsen, Editor 2001: Stockholm.
36. Socialstyrelsen, Elderly and persons with impairments- management form, 2012, in Official
Statistics of Sweden - Social welfare, Socialstyrelsen, Editor 2013: Stockholm.
37. Pezzin, L.E., P. Kemper, and J. Reschovsky, Does publicly provided home care substitute for
family care? Experimental evidence with endogenous living arrangements. Journal of Human
Resources, 1996. 31(3): p. 650-676.
38. Sundström, G. and L. Johansson, The changing balance of government and family in care for the
elderly in Sweden and other European countries. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 2005.
24(SUPPL.1): p. S5-S11.
39. Sundström, G., B. Malmberg, and L. Johansson, Balancing family and state care: Neither, either
or both? The case of Sweden. Ageing and Society, 2006. 26(5): p. 767-782.
40. Hellström, Y. and I.R. Hallberg, Perspectives of elderly people receiving home help on health,
care and quality of life. Health and Social Care in the Community, 2001. 9(2): p. 61-71.
41. Orbell, S., Informal care in social context: A social psychological analysis of participation, impact
and intervention in care of the elderly. Psychology and Health, 1996. 11(1): p. 155-178.
55
42. Repetto, L., C. Granetto, and A. Venturino, Home care in the older person. Clinics in Geriatric
Medicine, 1997. 13(2): p. 403-413.
43. Craib, K.J.P., et al., Injury rates, predictors of workplace injuries, and results of an intervention
program among community health workers. Public Health Nursing, 2007. 24(2): p. 121-131.
44. Dellve, L., M. Lagerstrom, and M. Hagberg, Rehabilitation of home care workers: Supportive
factors and obstacles prior to disability pension due to musculoskeletal disorders. Journal of
Occupational Rehabilitation, 2002. 12(2): p. 55-64.
45. Brulin, C., et al., Physical and psychosocial work-related risk factors associated with
musculoskeletal symptoms among home care personnel. Scandinavian Journal of Caring
Sciences, 1998. 12(2): p. 104-110.
46. Meyer, J.D. and C. Muntaner, Injuries in home health care workers: An analysis of occupational
morbidity from a state compensation database. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 1999.
35(3): p. 295-301.
47. Garg, A. and B. Owen, Reducing back stress to nursing personnel- an ergonomic intervention in
a nursing home. Ergonomics, 1992. 35(11): p. 1353-1375.
48. Baptiste, A., An evaluation of nursing tasks. Work, 2011. 40(2): p. 115-124.
49. Socialstyrelsen, Äldre som flyttar till service och vård, 2006: Stockholm.
50. Imrie, R., Disability, embodiment and the meaning of the home. Housing Studies, 2004. 19(5
SPEC. ISS.): p. 745-763.
51. Gitlin, L.N., et al., Factors associated with home environmental problems among community-
living older people. Disability and Rehabilitation, 2001. 23(17): p. 777-787.
52. Engels, J.A., et al., Physical work load and its assessment among the nursing staff in nursing-
homes. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 1994. 36(3): p. 338-345.
53. Hjalmarson, J., Bostadsutformning När förmågor ändras och anpassningar behövs2013, Lund:
Studentlitteratur.
54. BFS 2013:14, BBR 20, B.a.P.B. Swedish National Board of Housing, Editor 2013.
55. Blomberg, K.-A. and U.-L. Blom, Hygienrum Utrymme för personlig hygien vid avdelningar för
långtidssjukvård, in Spri rapport 211979.
56. Kroemer, K.H.E., Designing for older people. Ergonomics in Design, 2006. 14(4): p. 25-31.
57. Tamm, M., What does a home mean and when does it cease to be a home? Home as a setting for
rehabilitation and care. Disability and Rehabilitation, 1999. 21(2): p. 49-55.
58. Brigham, C.J., Safe handling of residents in home health care. Ergonomics in Design, 2010.
18(1): p. 26-28.
59. Oswald, F. and H.W. Wahl, Housing and health in later life. Reviews on Environmental Health,
2004. 19(3-4): p. 223-252.
60. Scharf, T., C. Phillipson, and A.E. Smith, Social exclusion of older people in deprived urban
communities of England. European Journal of Ageing, 2005. 2(2): p. 76-87.
61. Baltes, P., Mayer, K.U., ed. The Berlin Aging Study 1998. 384-402.
62. Imrie, R., Housing quality, disability and domesticity. Housing Studies, 2004. 19(5 SPEC. ISS.): p.
685-690.
63. Seidel, D., Understanding patterna of capability loss among elderly users, in ICED'09,
International Conference on Engineering design2009: Stanford.
64. Barnes, S., et al., Does the design of extra-care housing meet the needs of the residents? A focus
group study. Ageing and Society, 2012. 32(7): p. 1193-1214.
65. Fänge, A. and S. Iwarsson, Changes in ADL dependence and aspects of usability following
housing adaptation - A longitudinal perspective. American Journal of Occupational Therapy,
2005. 59(3): p. 296-304.
56
66. Wahl, H.W., et al., The Home Environment and Disability-Related Outcomes in Aging
Individuals: What Is the Empirical Evidence? Gerontologist, 2009. 49(3): p. 355-367.
67. Iwarsson, S., et al., Occupational therapy targeting physical environmental barriers in buildings
with public facilities. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 2004. 67(1): p. 29-38.
68. Götesson, L., Bostadsanpassningsbidragen 2011, 2012, Boverket: Karlskrona.
69. Masud, T. and R.O. Morris, Epidemiology of falls. Age and Ageing, 2001. 30: p. 3-7.
70. Blake, A.J., et al., Falls by elderly people at home - prevalence and associated factors. Age and
Ageing, 1988. 17(6): p. 365-372.
71. Anderson, K.E., Erratum: Falls in the elderly (Journal of the Royal College Physicians of
Edinburgh) (2008) vol. 38 (138-143)). Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh,
2008. 38(3): p. 286.
72. Schyllander, J., Rosenberg, T., Skador bland äldre i Sverige, M.M.f.s.o. beredskap, Editor 2009,
Kunskapscentrum för äldres säkerhet: Karlstad.
73. Larsson, T.J., et al., Falls prevention through community intervention - A Swedish example.
Safety Science, 2010. 48(2): p. 204-208.
74. Filiatrault, J., J. Desrosiers, and L. Trottier, An Exploratory Study of Individual and
Environmental Correlates of Fear of Falling Among Community-Dwelling Seniors. Journal of
Aging and Health, 2009. 21(6): p. 881-894.
75. Boyd, R. and J.A. Stevens, Falls and fear of falling: burden, beliefs and behaviours. Age and
Ageing, 2009. 38(4): p. 423-428.
76. Zijlstra, G.A.R., et al., Prevalence and correlates of fear of falling, and associated avoidance of
activity in the general population of community-living older people. Age and Ageing, 2007. 36(3):
p. 304-309.
77. Lee, F., L. Mackenzie, and C. James, Perceptions of older people living in the community about
their fear of falling. Disability and Rehabilitation, 2008. 30(23): p. 1803-1811.
78. Delbaere, K., et al., Fear-related avoidance of activities, falls and physical frailty. A prospective
community-based cohort study. Age and Ageing, 2004. 33(4): p. 368-373.
79. Friedman, S.M., et al., Falls and fear of falling: Which comes first? A longitudinal prediction
model suggests strategies for primary and secondary prevention. Journal of the American
Geriatrics Society, 2002. 50(8): p. 1329-1335.
80. Alexander, N.B., et al., Rising from the floor in older adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics
Society, 1997. 45(5): p. 564-569.
81. Bohl, A.A., et al., How Are the Costs of Care for Medical Falls Distributed? The Costs of
Medical Falls by Component of Cost, Timing, and Injury Severity. Gerontologist, 2012. 52(5): p.
664-675.
82. Bloch, F., Critical Falls: Why Remaining on the Ground After a Fall can be Dangerous,
Whatever the Fall. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2012. 60(7): p. 1375-1376.
83. Pettersson, I. and G. Fahlström, Roles of assistive devices for home care staff in Sweden: A
qualitative study. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 2010. 5(5): p. 295-304.
84. WorkSafeBC, High-Risk Manual Handling of Patients in Heealthcare, 2006, Workers'
Compensation Board of B.C.: www.worksafebc.com.
85. NHS, Essential care after an inpatient fall, in Rapid Response Report2011, National Patient
Safety Agency: www.nrls.npsa.nhs.uk.
86. Davey, C., et al., Falling in Parkinson's disease: The impact on informal caregivers. Disability and
Rehabilitation, 2004. 26(23): p. 1360-1366.
87. Hjälpmedelsinstitutet, Hjälpmedelsverksamheten i Sverige, 2010.
57
88. Waara-Conway, S., Four-wheeled Walkers Help You Live Longer. Physiotherapy, 2001. 87(12):
p. 677.
89. Hjälpmedelshandboken. 2009 2011-11-03 [cited 2013 02-04]; Available from:
www.hjalpmedelshandboken.vll.se/default.aspx?id=7282.
90. Löfqvist, C., et al., Use of mobility devices and changes over 12 months among very old people
in five European countries. Aging clinical and experimental research, 2007. 19(6): p. 497-505.
91. Wressle, E. and K. Samuelsson, User satisfaction with mobility assistive devices. Scandinavian
journal of occupational therapy, 2004. 11(3): p. 143-150.
92. Mollenkopf, H., A. Hieber, and H.W. Wahl, Continuity and change in older adults' perceptions
of out-of-home mobility over ten years: A qualitative-quantitative approach. Ageing and Society,
2011. 31(5): p. 782-802.
93. Pape, T.L.B., J. Kim, and B. Weiner, The shaping of individual meanings assigned to assistive
technology: A review of personal factors. Disability and Rehabilitation, 2002. 24(1-3): p. 5-20.
94. Clark, M.C., S.J. Czaja, and R.A. Weber, Older adults and daily living tasks profiles. Human
Factors, 1990. 32(5): p. 537-549.
95. Fisher, A.G., Assessment of motor and process skills: user manual., C. Fort Collins, Editor 2003,
Three Star Press.
96. Ellegast, R., I. Hermanns, and C. Schiefer, Workload Assessment in Field Using the Ambulatory
CUELA System, in Digital Human Modeling, Proceedings, V.G. Duffy, Editor 2009. p. 221-226.
97. Freitag, S., et al., Quantitative measurement of stressful trunk postures in nursing professions.
Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 2007. 51(4): p. 385-395.
98. Ellegast, R.P., Personengebundenes Messsystem zur automatisierten Erfassung von
Wirbelsäulenbelastungen bei beruflichen Tätigkeiten, in BIA-Report 5/981998, HVBG: Sankt
Augustin.
99. ISO, Ergonomics - Evaluation of static working postures, 2000, the International Organization
for Standardization: Switzerland.
100. Waters, T.R., When is it safe to manually lift a patient? American Journal of Nursing, 2007.
107(8): p. 53-58.
101. Kadefors, R. and M. Forsman, Ergonomic evaluation of complex work: a participative approach
employing video-computer interaction, exemplified in a study of order picking. International
Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 2000. 25(4): p. 435-445.
102. Engkvist, I.L., The accident process preceding back injuries among Australian nurses. Safety
Science, 2004. 42(3): p. 221-235.
103. Svensson, E., Bygg ikapp. 4 ed2008, Stockholm: AB Svensk Byggtjänst.
104. Pohjonen, T., A. Punakallio, and V. Louhevaara, Participatory ergonomics for reducing load and
strain in home care work. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 1998. 21(5): p. 345-
352.
105. Ono, Y., et al., Reports of work-related musculoskeletal injury among home care service workers
compared with nursery-school workers and the general- population of employed women in
Sweden. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 1995. 52(10): p. 686-693.
106. Banister, D. and A. Bowling, Quality of life for the elderly: the transport dimension. Transport
Policy, 2004. 11(2): p. 105-115.
107. Silverstein, M. and M.G. Parker, Leisure activities and quality of life among the oldest old in
Sweden. Research on Aging, 2002. 24(5): p. 528-547.
108. Hovbrandt, P., et al., Very old people's use of the pedestrian environment: Functional
limitations, frequency of activity and environmental demands. European Journal of Ageing,
2007. 4(4): p. 201-211.
58
109. Helle, T., et al., Lack of research-based standards for accessible housing: Problematization and
exemplification of consequences, G.J. Gelderblom, et al., Editors. 2011. p. 315-319.
110. Lavery, I., et al., The vital role of street design and management in reducing barriers to older
peoples' mobility. Landscape and Urban Planning, 1996. 35(2–3): p. 181-192.
111. Brandt, Å., S. Iwarsson, and A. Ståhl, Satisfaction with rollators among community-living users:
A follow-up study. Disability and Rehabilitation, 2003. 25(7): p. 343-353.
112. Vansant, A.F., Rising from a supine position to erect stance - Description of adult movement
and a developmental hypothesis. Physical Therapy, 1988. 68(2): p. 185-192.
113. Tinetti, M.E., et al., Fear of falling and fall-related efficacy in relationship to functioning among
community-living elders. Journals of Gerontology, 1994. 49(3): p. M140-M147.
114. Schrag, A., et al., Caregiver-burden in parkinson's disease is closely associated with psychiatric
symptoms, falls, and disability. Parkinsonism & Related Disorders, 2006. 12(1): p. 35-41.
115. Coggan, A.R., et al., Histochemical and enzymatic comparison of the gastrocnemius-muscle of
young and elderly men and women. Journals of Gerontology, 1992. 47(3): p. B71-B76.
116. Gosman-Hedström, G., A. Aniansson, and G.B. Persson, ADL-reduction and need for technical
aids among 70-year-olds. From the population study of 70-year-olds in Göteborg.
Comprehensive gerontology. Section B, Behavioural, social, and applied sciences, 1988. 2(1): p.
16-23.
117. Avlund, K., B.E. Holstein, and E. Lykke Mortensen, Active life in old age. Combining measures
of functional ability and social participation. Danish Medical Bulletin, 1999. 46(4): p. 345-349.
118. Engkvist, I.L., et al., The accident process preceding overexertion back injuries in nursing
personnel. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment & Health, 1998. 24(5): p. 367-375.
119. Garg, A., et al., A biomechanical and ergonomic evaluation of patient transferring tasks-
wheelchair to shower chair and shower chair to wheelchair. Ergonomics, 1991. 34(4): p. 407-419.
120. Sundin, A., M. Christmansson, and M. Larsson, A different perspective in participatory
ergonomics in product development improves assembly work in the automotive industry.
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 2004. 33(1): p. 1-14.
121. Bos, E.H., et al., The effects of occupational interventions on reduction of musculoskeletal
symptoms in the nursing profession. Ergonomics, 2006. 49(7): p. 706-723.
122. Lynch, R.M. and A. Freund, Short-term efficacy of back injury intervention project for patient
care providers at one hospital. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 2000. 61(2): p.
290-294.
123. Keyserling, W.M., Postural analysis of the trunk and shoulders in simulated real time.
Ergonomics, 1986. 29(4): p. 569-583.
124. Pearcy, M.J., et al., Measurement of human back movements in three dimensions by opto-
electronic devices. Clinical Biomechanics, 1987. 2(4): p. 199-204.
125. Jansen, J.P., A. Burdorf, and E. Steyerberg, A novel approach for evaluating level, frequency and
duration of lumbar posture simultaneously during work. Scandinavian Journal of Work
Environment & Health, 2001. 27(6): p. 373-380.
126. Morlock, M.M., et al., Determination of the in vivo loading of the lumbar spine with a new
approach directly at the workplace - first results for nurses. Clinical Biomechanics, 2000. 15(8): p.
549-558.
127. Daynard, D., et al., Biomechanical analysis of peak and cumulative spinal loads during simulated
patient-handling activities: a substudy of a randomized controlled trial to prevent lift and transfer
injury of health care workers. Applied Ergonomics, 2001. 32(3): p. 199-214.
59
128. Czuba, L.R., C.M. Sommerich, and S.A. Lavender, Ergonomic and safety risk factors in home
health care: Exploration and assessment of alternative interventions. Work, 2012. 42(3): p. 341-
353.
129. Imrie, R., The role of the building regulations in achieving housing quality. Environment and
Planning B: Planning and Design, 2004. 31(3): p. 419-437.
Appendix 1
Appendix 1. Analysis protocol Study II
The protocol has been used in a Swedish version.
Date Casenumber 3
Participant Length
Weight
Other
Convert the CUELA file
Convert the AVI file Synchronises Widaan and videofile
Workposition Left Right
Comment
Mark test phases in Widaan 1 2 3
Observe the walk in Time Walk backwards?
Observations
Back movements Inclin >40 Inclin>20 Lat flex Rotation
Observe positioning of wheelchair Time
Observations
Back movements Inclin >40 Inclin >20 Lat flex Rotation
Observe preparation of wheelchair Time
Where do they put arm- and leg rest? Other observations?
Back movements Inclin >40 Inclin >20 Lat flex Rotation
Max
Knee movements Left flex Right flex
Min
Max Min Max
Observe transfer to WC Time
Appendix 1
Observation
Elbow movement Comment
Shoulder movement
Comment
Back movement Inclin >40 Inclin >20 Lat flex Rotation
Max
Knee movement Left flex Right flex
Min Max Min Max
Observe transfer from WC Time
Observation
Elbow movement Comment
Shoulder movement
Comment
Back movement Inclin >40 Inclin >20 Lat flex Rotation
Max
Knee movement Left flex Right flex
Min Max Min Max
Observe preparation of wheelchair II Time
Comments
Back movements Inclin >40 Inclin >20 Lat flex Rotation
Max
Knee movementr Left flex Right flex
Min Max Min Max
Observe walk out Time
Walk backwards? Comments
Back movements Inclin >40 Inclin >20 Lat flex Rotation
Signature:_____________________________________________