Journal List > J Korean Acad Oral Health > v.41(2) > 1057728

Han and Chung: The relationship between musculoskeletal pain and social-psychological factors among dental practitioners

Abstract

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between musculoskeletal pain and social psychological factors among dental practitioners.

Methods

A total of 497 dental practitioners who worked in 20 dental clinics and hospitals between June 9 and June 30, 2011 were enrolled in this study. The participants’ stress level was measured using the PWI-SF (Psychosoical Well-Being Index-Short Form), a psychosocial health measurement tool, and their musculoskeletal pain was measured using a table that was revised and supplemented by the Korea Occupational Safety Health Agency. Statistical analysis was carried out through frequency analysis, chi-square test, and correlation analysis, using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software, version 18.0.

Results

Analyzing the relationship between musculoskeletal pain and social-psychological factors of dental practitioners revealed satisfaction has a significant effect on the level of musculoskeletal pain experienced (P<0.05). Notably, salary satisfaction showed a significant influence on the degree of leg musculoskeletal pain (r=―0.140) and lower back pain (r=―0.204; P<0.05) experienced. Satisfaction in their own welfare (r=―0.157) and amount of time spent working (r=―0.135) showed a significant influence on the degree of leg musculoskeletal pain experienced (P<0.05). The level of pain experienced was higher as the level of stress risk increased (P<0.05).

Conclusions

The level of musculoskeletal pain experienced by dental practitioners was highly related to social-psychological factors. In order to reduce the human and economic losses due to musculoskeletal diseases, continuous preventive care must be provided. Social psychological factors, such as details of job satisfaction and stress, should be taken into account along with physical management of musculoskeletal disorders.

References

1. Punnett L, Wegman DH. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders: the epidemiologic evidence and the debate. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2004; 14:13–23.
crossref
2. Webster BS, Snook SH. The cost of compensable upper extremity cumulative trauma disorders. J Occup Med. 1994; 36:713–717.
3. Kim JH, Kim HJ. A study on the musculoskeletal pain experience of dental hygienist’s treatment posture. J Dent Hyg Sci. 2009; 9:413–418.
4. Bae YH, Lee JH, Yoo HJ, Kim DE, Lee BR, Kim YH, et al. Associations between work-related musculoskeletal pain quality of life and presenteeism in physical therapists. J Korean Soc Occup Environ Hyg. 2012; 22:61–72.
5. Silverstein BA, Fine LJ, Armstrong TJ. Occupational factors and carpal tunnel syndrome. Am J Ind Med. 1987; 11:343–358.
crossref
6. Cannon LJ, Bernacki EJ, Walter SD. Personal and occupational factors associated with carpal tunnel syndrome. J Occup Med. 1981; 23:255–258.
7. Bongers PM, de Winter CR, Kompier MA, Hildebrandt VH. Psychosocial factors at work and musculoskeletal disease. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1993; 19:297–312.
crossref
8. Putz-Anderson V. Cumulative trauma disorders: A manual for musculoskeletal diseases of the upper limbs. Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis Inc;1988. p. 17.
9. Leggat PA, Kedjarune U, Smith DR. Occupational health problems in modern dentistry: a review. Ind Health. 2007; 45:611–621.
crossref
10. Anton D, Rosecrance J, Merlino L, Cook T. Prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms and carpal tunnel syndrome among dental hygienists. Am J Ind Med. 2002; 42:248–257.
crossref
11. Kimbom A, Persson J. Work technique and its consequences for musculoskeletal disorders. Ergonomics. 1987; 30:273–279.
crossref
12. Osborn JB, Newell KJ, Rudney JD, Stoltenberg JL. Carpal tunnel syndrome among Minnesota dental hygienists. J Dent Hyg. 1990; 64:79–85.
13. Han JH, Kim J, Nam SH, Kim CH. A correlation between the per-ceived symptom of musculoskeletal diseases and psychosocial factors of dental professionals in C region. J Dent Hyg Sci. 2010; 10:279–286.
14. Lee SY, Ko HJ, Yu BC. Relationship between occupational stress and musculoskeletal symptoms of upper extremities among dental hygienists. J Korean Soc Dent Hyg. 2012; 12:897–908.
crossref
15. Ha SJ. Factors on prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders among dental hygienists [master’s thesis]. Cheonan: Dankook Univer-sity;2003. [Korean].
16. Kwag JS, Jang SH. A study on the relation between treatment posture and musculoskeletal disorders between dental hygienist and dental hygiene student some areas. J Korean Soc Dent Hyg. 2007; 7:381–393.
17. Cha JH, Ryu TB, Choi HS, Lee JB, Kim MK, Chung MK, et al. Survey of musculoskeletal disorders in korean dentists. JESK. 2007; 26:137–147.
18. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Stress at work (No. 99-101). Cincinnati: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health;1999. p. 1–25.
19. Himmelstein JS, Feuerstein M, Stanek EJ 3rd, Koyamatsu K, Pransky GS, Morgan W, et al. Work-related upper-extremity disorders and work disability: clinical and psychosocial presentation. J Occup Environ Med. 1995; 37:1278–1286.
crossref
20. Hales TR, Sauter SL, Peterson MR, Fine LJ, Putz-Anderson V, Schleifer LR, et al. Musculoskeletal disorders among visual display terminal users in a telecommunications company. Ergonomics. 1994; 37:1603–1621.
crossref
21. da Costa BR, Vieira ER. Risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders: A systematic review of recent longitudinal studies. Am J Ind Med. 2010; 53:285–323.
crossref
22. Toomingas A, Theorell T, Michélsen H, Nordemar R. Associations between self-rated psychological work conditions and musculoskeletal symptoms and sign. Scan J Work Environ Health. 1997; 23:130–139.
23. Mazzola JJ, Schonfeld IS, Spector PE. What qualitative research has taught us about occupational stress. Stress Health. 2011; 27:93–110.
crossref
24. Ahn HM. Factors of health related quality of life of korea male and female adults according to life cycle: by using 4th national health and nutrition examination survey [master’s thesis]. Seoul: Yonsei University;2010. [Korean].

Table 1.
Characteristics of the study subjects
Variable Category N %
Gender Male 22 4.4
Female 475 95.6
Age <25 182 36.6
25-29 193 38.8
≥30 122 24.5
Occupation Dentist 35 7.0
Dental hygienist 397 79.9
Dental coordinator 65 13.1
Employment period (year) <1 88 17.7
1-3 122 24.5
3-5 80 16.1
5-7 69 13.9
≥7 138 27.8
Education College or more 369 74.2
Bachelor's degree 76 15.3
Master's degree 52 10.5
Marital status Not married 373 75.1
Married 124 24.9
Religion Yes 217 43.7
No 280 56.3
Total 497 100
Table 2.
Musculoskeletal symptoms
Sites of pain N (%)
Hand/Wrist 263 (52.9)
Shoulder/Neck 418 (84.1)
Chest/Upper back 141 (28.4)
Lower back 300 (60.4)
Leg/Foot 265 (53.3)

All of the results are from the multiple responses.

Table 3.
Pain frequency N (%)
Duration Hand/Wrist Shoulder/Neck Chest/Upper back Lower back Leg/Foot
Pain frequency
Always 35 (13.3) 133 (31.8) 25 (17.7) 77 (25.7) 86 (32.5)
Once every 1-2 weeks 102 (38.8) 178 (42.7) 54 (38.4) 122 (40.7) 104 (39.2)
Once every 3-5 weeks 73 (27.7) 66 (15.8) 33 (23.3) 55 (18.3) 41 (15.4)
Once every 6-9 weeks 51 (19.4) 37 (8.7) 27 (19.2) 42 (14.0) 32 (12.1)
Once in 10 weeks or more 2 (0.7) 4 (1.0) 2 (1.4) 4 (1.3) 2 (0.8)
Total 263 418 141 300 265

All of the results are from the multiple responses.

Table 4.
Pain duration N (%)
Duration In 1 hour Within 1-24 hours Within 1-7 days Within 7-30 days Within 30-90 days More than 90 days Total
Hand/Wrist 113 (43.0) 76 (28.9) 53 (20.1) 6 (2.3) 5 (1.9) 10 (3.8) 263
Shoulder/Neck 120 (28.7) 133 (31.8) 110 (26.3) 12 (2.9) 10 (2.4) 33 (7.9) 418
Chest/Upper back 58 (41.1) 46 (32.6) 20 (14.2) 5 (3.5) 6 (4.3) 6 (4.3) 141
Lower back 90 (30.0) 112 (37.3) 67 (22.3) 12 (4.0) 5 (1.7) 14 (4.7) 300
Leg/Foot 86 (32.5) 96 (36.2) 51 (19.2) 8 (3.0) 9 (3.4) 15 (5.7) 265

All of the results are from the multiple responses.

Table 5.
Significant relationship between satisfaction and musculoskeletal pain experience N (%)
Satisfaction N Hand/Wrist Shoulder/Neck Chest/Upper back Lower back Leg/Foot
Workload
Very satisfied 8 5 (62.5) 7 (87.5) 2 (25.0) 4 (50.0)** 4 (50.0)*
Satisfied 137 69 (50.4) 113 (82.5) 34 (24.8) 75 (54.7) 62 (45.3)
Neutral 239 123 (51.5) 194 (81.2) 72 (30.1) 134 (56.1) 131 (54.8)
Dissatisfied 96 56 (58.3) 88 (91.7) 27 (28.1) 72 (75.0) 54 (56.3)
Very dissatisfied 17 10 (58.8) 16 (94.1) 6 (35.3) 15 (88.2) 14 (82.4)
Welfare
Very satisfied 11 7 (63.6) 8 (72.7)** 4 (36.4) 6 (54.5) 6 (54.5)
Satisfied 105 50 (47.6) 80 (76.2) 26 (24.8) 53 (50.5) 56 (53.3)
Neutral 225 120 (53.3) 186 (82.7) 67 (29.8) 137 (60.9) 111 (49.3)
Dissatisfied 118 60 (50.8) 111 (94.1) 30 (25.4) 79 (66.9) 70 (59.3)
Very dissatisfied 38 26 (68.4) 33 (86.8) 14 (36.8) 25 (65.8) 22 (57.9)
Salary
Very satisfied 1 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)* 0 (0)
Satisfied 58 27 (46.6) 45 (77.6) 14 (24.1) 28 (48.3) 27 (46.6)
Neutral 230 125 (54.3) 190 (82.6) 69 (30.0) 139 (60.4) 123 (53.5)
Dissatisfied 166 89 (53.6) 144 (86.7) 48 (28.9) 102 (61.4) 88 (53.0)
Very dissatisfied 42 22 (52.4) 39 (92.9) 10 (23.8) 31 (73.8) 27 (64.3)
Working environment
Very satisfied 8 3 (37.5) 5 (62.5) 0 (0) 1 (12.5)* 4 (50.0)
Satisfied 220 102 (46.4) 176 (80.0) 56 (25.5) 125 (56.9) 106 (48.2)
Neutral 205 120 (58.5) 180 (87.8) 62 (30.2) 129 (62.9) 117 (57.1)
Dissatisfied 59 34 (57.6) 52 (88.1) 21 (35.6) 41 (69.5) 35 (59.3)
Very dissatisfied 5 4 (80.0) 5 (100.0) 2 (40.0) 4 (80.0) 3 (60.0)
Relationships
Very satisfied 27 12 (44.4) 21 (77.8) 7 (25.9) 14 (51.9) 11 (40.7)
Satisfied 250 126 (50.4) 212 (84.8) 67 (26.8) 145 (58.0) 130 (52.0)
Neutral 180 100 (55.6) 151 (83.9) 51 (28.3) 116 (64.4) 100 (55.6)
Dissatisfied 36 22 (61.1) 30 (83.3) 15 (41.7) 22 (61.1) 22 (61.1)
Very dissatisfied 4 3 (75.0) 4 (100.0) 1 (25.0) 3 (75.0) 2 (50.0)
Working time
Very satisfied 8 4 (50.0) 7 (87.5) 3 (37.5) 7 (87.5) 4 (50.0)
Satisfied 127 64 (50.4) 108 (85.0) 42 (33.1) 72 (56.7) 64 (50.4)
Neutral 226 124 (54.9) 190 (84.1) 59 (26.1) 134 (59.3) 117 (51.8)
Dissatisfied 117 60 (51.3) 98 (83.8) 34 (29.1) 74 (63.2) 69 (59.0)
Very dissatisfied 19 11 (57.9) 15 (78.9) 3 (15.8) 13 (68.4) 11 (57.9)
Total 497 263 (52.9) 418 (84.1) 141 (28.4) 300 (60.4) 265 (53.3)

*P<0.05, **P<0.01 by chi-squared test. All of the results are from the multiple responses.

Table 6.
Correlation between satisfaction and musculoskeletal pain
Satisfaction
Degree of musculoskeletal pain
Workload Welfare Salary Working environment Relationships Working time Hand/ Wrist Shoulder/ Neck Chest/ Upper back Lower back Leg/ Foot
Workload 1
Welfare .450** 1
Salary .329** .462** 1
Working environment .349** .460** .385** 1
Relationships .242** .236** .203** .363** 1
Working time .394** .430** .316** .296** .220** 1
Hand/Wrist .046 ―.093 .002 .016 ―.067 ―.116 1
Shoulder/Neck .004 ―.073 ―.076 ―.023 ―.020 ―.007 .345** 1
Chest/Upper back .043 ―.079 ―.044 .138 .031 ―.044 .426** .291** 1
Lower back ―.040 ―.101 ―.204 ** ―.006 ―.082 ―.039 .266** .380** .399** 1
Leg/Foot ―.100 ―.157 * ―.140 * ―.041 ―.055 ―.135 * .322** .420** .549** .448** 1

*P<0.05, **P<0.01 by correlation analysis.

Table 7.
Relationship between stress level and musculoskeletal pain N (%)
Stress level N Hand/Wrist Shoulder/Neck Chest/Upper back Lower back Leg/Foot
Healthy group (8 points or less) 9 5 (55.6)* 6 (66.7) 4 (44.4)*** 2 (22.2)*** 4 (44.4)**
Potential stress group (9-26 points) 317 153 (48.3) 266 (83.9) 65 (20.5) 176 (55.5) 150 (47.3)
High risk group (More than 27 points) 171 105 (61.4) 146 (85.4) 72 (42.1) 122 (71.3) 111 (64.9)
Total 497 263 (52.9) 418 (84.1) 141 (28.4) 300 (60.4) 265 (53.3)

*P<0.05, **P<0.01, ***P<0.001 by chi-squared test. All of the results are from the multiple responses.

TOOLS
Similar articles