Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Purpose: To assess musculoskeletal risk factors (repetitions, posture, forces) of the upper limb during domestic floor mopping tasks.
Methods: Two hundred women were surveyed to determine the most common mopping system, mopping patterns and type of flooring used in their homes. The biomechanical demands of the three most common mopping systems were then evaluated in the laboratory. Participants were also asked to rate their perceived levels of exertion and cleanliness of each mopping system.
Results: The use of wet wipes had the highest repetition count and exertion rates during mopping and scrubbing tasks. Higher peak scrubbing forces were noted for the plunge mop. All participants found the cotton fibre mop to be the cleanest. All 3 mops had medium postural risk.
Conclusion: The advantages and disadvantages of each mopping system were outlined and may be used by occupational therapists when providing ergonomic advice to patients with upper limb musculoskeletal conditions.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103669 | DOI Listing |