Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Iranian Journal of Public Health logoLink to Iranian Journal of Public Health
. 2021 Apr;50(4):676–688. doi: 10.18502/ijph.v50i4.5992

The Prevalence of Musculoskeletal Disorders among Miners around the World: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Hadiseh Rabiei 1, Mahdi Malakoutikhah 2, Mohammad Hossein Vaziri 3, Ali Salehi Sahlabadi 4,*
PMCID: PMC8219631  PMID: 34183917

Abstract

Background:

Musculoskeletal disorders are responsible for significant problem for workers’ health. The present study aimed to investigate the prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders among mining workers.

Methods:

This systematic review and meta-analysis study were designed in 2020 (from Jan to Mar). The researchers searched five international databases Medline/PubMed, ProQuest, Scopus, Embase and Web of Science. All analyzes were performed using STATA statistical software.

Results:

The search results were 447 articles and after screening stage finally 50 studies were included in review. The highest number of studies (26 studies) reported the prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders of upper back and 4 studies reported the prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders of the arms and ankles & feet. The results of meta-analysis based on prevalence in different organs showed that the highest prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders was in the upper back and the lowest in the knees with a prevalence of 50.39% (CI 95%: 31.23–54.73%) and 16.03% (CI 95%: 11.78–20.28%), respectively.

Conclusion:

The prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders among miners is relatively high. Therefore, supervisors and mine managers should pay more attention to reducing musculoskeletal disorders and increasing the ergonomic level of mines in order to increase workers’ health.

Keywords: Musculoskeletal disorders, Miners, Systematic review, Meta-analysis

Introduction

Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are commonly described as soft tissue disorders and surrounding structures that are not just related to an acute or immediate event (such as a slip or fall) and are more likely to occur in the neck, shoulders, elbows, wrists, and lower back (1). According to the International Labor Organization (ILO), among the approximately 160 million work-related illnesses that occur worldwide each year, work related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) are known to be the second most common occupational disease (2). If the cause of this type of disorder is in the work environment and leads to disorder of body structures such as muscles, joints, tendons, ligaments, nerves or local circulatory system, it is defined as WMSDs (3). WMSDs are associated with a number of occupational hazards, including physical workloads such as awkward posture, manual material handling (MMH), vibration, psychosocial factors, and individual factor (4).

According to statistics, MSDs are responsible for significant costs in various industries and have detrimental effects on workers’ health, quality of life, job satisfaction, and loss of working days (5). In the United States, MSDs account for 56% to 65% of all occupational injuries (6). In Europe, about 40 million workers (more than 30% of workers) suffer from these disorders, accounting for 0.2% of the EU’s gross domestic product (GDP) (7). In general, the prevalence of MSDs is reported to be 75% in men and 74%–77% in women. However, MSDs alone are the largest group of occupational-related diseases, accounting for one-third or more of all occupational diseases registered in the United States, Nordic countries, and Japan (8).

MSDs risk factors can be classified into two categories: personal and occupational. Repetitive tasks, awkward postures, and psychological factors are known as occupational risk factors, and age, gender, body mass index are as personal risk factors (9, 10). These and other factors affecting MSDs are seen in a variety of occupations, including mining. These include recurrent kneeling, associated with an increased risk of knee disorders, including inflammation of the knee joints, bursitis, and osteoarthritis (11, 12). Awkward posture is similarly associated with an increased risk of low back pain (13) and has also been associated with degenerative changes in the lumbar spine of underground miners (14). A study among workers in South African in steel industry showed reports of work-related pain or discomfort that reported the most damage to the lumbar region, with respondents also consistently twisting. And bending the trunk is considered to be the main cause of pain or discomfort (15, 16).

Due to the importance and difficulty of miners’ work, various studies have been conducted to investigate the prevalence of MSDs in miners around the world, but the results of these studies have been reported scattered. Due to the criteria for entering the study and the goals of each study, the results are still controversial and sometimes vague. In order to integrate the results of previous studies, systematic reviews are performed on the prevalence of MSDs and the factors affecting it (17). Since, according to our knowledge, no comprehensive study has been conducted on the prevalence of MSDs among miners. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the prevalence of MSDs among mining workers by a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis study were designed in 2020 (from Jan to Mar). Based on the PRISMA checklist (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis), the researchers searched five international databases Medline/PubMed, ProQuest, Scopus, Embase and Web of Science, as well as Google Scholar for grey literature. There was no time limit for searching studies.

Keywords include three categories a) related to mine workers (such as Mine Workers, Mineworker, Miners, Miner, Mine, Mining), b) related to MSDs (such as Musculoskeletal disorders, Musculoskeletal Pain, Musculoskeletal problems, Musculoskeletal symptoms, Musculoskeletal disease), and c) related to prevalence (such as prevalence, frequency, incidence, epidemiology). After searching the databases, EndNote X8 software was used to manage the studies, and duplicate articles were deleted. It is worth noting that two researchers examined the articles separately.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Different studies use different methods to investigate the prevalence of MSDs, in which only questionnaires and medical diagnoses were included. Studies have also been included that report disorders in general or at least one organ. Otherwise, the study is excluded. In addition, studies that only assessed the risk of MSDs, based on risk assessment methods such as REBA or OWAS, or reported occupational accidents, were excluded. Due to linguistic limitations, just English-language studies were examined.

Evaluating the quality of articles

The Joanna Briggs Institute checklist was used to check and control the quality of articles. This checklist consists of 9 questions with Yes, No, Uncertain and Unused answers. The number of positive responses shows that the articles were categorized into three categories, which is low, average, and high quality. The purpose of this tool is to evaluate the methodological quality of the studies, and ways to access and understand the errors in the studies, design, implementation and analysis of data.

Screening studies

Two researchers (H.R and M.M) conducted an initial search, and other stages of the study, such as screening studies and extracting the results separately, were performed by two researchers (M.V and H.R). Finally, the team leader (A.S) reviewed the studies and gave a final opinion on the results.

Statistics analysis

The discrepancy between the studies was investigated by Cochran’s test (with a significance level of less than 0.1) and its combination using the I2 statistic (with a significance level greater than 50%). In case of heterogeneity, random effects model was used with reverse variance method and in case of non-heterogeneity, fixed effects model was used. Meta-regression was used to investigate the relationship between quantitative variables and the prevalence of MSDs. All analyzes were performed using STATA statistical software ver. 12.

Results

Description of the search for studies

Fig. 1 shows the steps from the initial search of the studies to the number of studies included to the final analysis. The search results of all international databases were 447 articles, and after removing duplicate articles, 334 articles included the stage of title and abstract review. After this step, the full text of the articles was reviewed and 46 articles included the final analysis. Moreover, the reference checking added 4 more studies to the final analysis and finally 50 studies were reviewed.

Fig. 1:

Fig. 1:

Open in a new tab

Flowchart of the included studies in systematic review

Description of the included studies

Table S1, S2, and Figs. S1–9 are supplementary files (Not published but in case of requesting will be presented). The number of studies conducted in different countries showed in Table 1. The lowest number of participants in the study was 14 and the highest was 15,987. The study tools showed that 24 studies used a Nordic questionnaire, 15 studies used a researcher-made questionnaire, 4 studies used a body map questionnaire, and one study used an x-ray medical test, and five studies did not mention the used tool. The mean age (SD) of age, work experience and body mass index of the results of 34, 30 and 38 studies, respectively, were 37.33 yr (5.75), 11.41 yr (6.01), and 24.91 (4.11), respectively. Eleven studies were performed on men only, one study was conducted on women and 20 studies were conducted on both genders, and 18 studies did not mention the gender. Twenty studies conducted in coal mines, 10 studies in gold mines, 4 studies in underground mines, 2 studies in open pit mines and lead mines, platinum, sandstone, each with 11 studies and 11 studies did not mention the mine. In addition, most studies (45 studies) were cross-sectional. Included studies were from 2002 to 2018 (Table S1).

Table 1:

Frequency of the included studies by country and number of studies

Country Number of studies References
India 11 (22–32)
Indonesia 6 (20, 33–36)
South African 4 (16, 37–39)
United States 4 (40–43)
Australia 3 (43–45)
China 3 (19, 46, 47)
Ghana 3 (8, 48, 49)
Philippines 3 (50–52)
Iran 2 (13, 53)
Pakistan 2 (54, 55)
Brazil 1 (56)
Cameroon 1 (57)
Nigeria 1 (58)
Poland 1 (59)
Russia 1 (60)
Turkey 1 (61)
United Kingdom 1 (62)
Zambia 1 (63)
Scandinavian region 1 (64)
Open in a new tab

Results of heterogeneity

Due to the high heterogeneity observed in the study results, the P-value, df, Q, and I2 indices for MSDs of all organs are expressed separately and generally in Table 2. The highest number of studies (26 studies) reported the prevalence of MSDs of upper back and the lowest number of studies (4 studies) reported the prevalence of MSDs of the arms and ankles & feet.

Table 2:

Description of heterogeneous for included studies in systematic review and meta-analysis

Variables Number of studies I2 Df Q P value
Neck 24 99.6 23 5142.33 < 0.001
Shoulders 26 95.3 25 528.51 < 0.001
Arms 4 94.7 3 56.23 < 0.001
Elbows 16 90.2 15 152.42 < 0.001
Wrists & hands 22 94.8 21 402.51 < 0.001
Fingers 21 97.5 20 814.49 < 0.001
Upper back 38 99.6 37 9320.98 < 0.001
Lower back 18 98.5 17 1144.36 < 0.001
Hip 20 92.4 19 249.36 < 0.001
Knees 17 95.9 16 394.79 < 0.001
Ankles & feet 4 88.7 3 26.47 < 0.001
Total 20 99.7 19 6362.24 < 0.001
Open in a new tab

Results of meta-analysis

Due to the high heterogeneity in the results, the random effects model was used. The results of meta-analysis based on prevalence in different organs are as follows. The highest prevalence of MSDs was in the upper back and the lowest in the knees with a prevalence of 50.39% and 16.03%, respectively.

Total prevalence of MSDs

Fig. 2 shows that of the 20 studies that reported the total prevalence of MSDs, the prevalence of MSDs was 55.81% (confidence interval (CI) 95%: 41.01%–70.61%). The classification of studies based on the Human Development Index (HDI) shows that the highest and lowest prevalence of these disorders are related to countries with medium HDI with a prevalence of 59.30% (CI 95%: 41.16%–77.44%) and countries with very high HDI with a prevalence of 49.69% (CI 95%: 23.56%–75.82%), respectively.

Fig. 2:

Fig. 2:

Open in a new tab

Prevalence of total musculoskeletal disorders in amongst studies included

Neck

Figure 3 shows that of the 24 studies that reported the prevalence of MSDs of the neck, and the prevalence of this organ 29.75% (CI 95%: 20.36%–39.14%). The classification of studies based on the HDI showed that the highest and lowest prevalence was for high HDI with prevalence of 41.60% (CI 95%: 21.52%–61.67%), and very high HDI with prevalence of 22.38% (CI 95%: 7.42%–37.35%), respectively.

Fig. 3:

Fig. 3:

Open in a new tab

Prevalence of neck musculoskeletal disorders in amongst studies included

Shoulders

Of the 26 studies that reported the prevalence of shoulder MSDs, the prevalence was 29.72% (CI 95%: 25.88%–33.56%). The classification of studies based on the HDI shows that the prevalence of this disorder has the highest prevalence among countries with high HDI with 34.75% (CI 95%: 25.77%–43.73%) and the lowest prevalence among countries with very high HDI with 26.84% (CI 95%: 20.19–33.49%) (Fig. S1).

Arms

Of 4 studies that reported the prevalence of MSDs in the arms, the prevalence was 18.31% (CI 95%: 7.60%–29.02%). The classification of studies based on the HDI shows that the prevalence of this disorder has the highest prevalence among countries with high HDI with 29.34% prevalence (CI 95%: 11.81%–46.88%) and the lowest prevalence among countries with medium HDI with prevalence 8.16% (CI 95%: 5.09%–11.24%) (Fig. S2).

Elbows

Of the 16 studies that reported the prevalence of MSDs in the elbows, the prevalence was 17.65% (CI 95%: 13.18%–22.13%). The classification of studies based on the HDI shows that the prevalence of this disorder has the highest prevalence among countries with medium HDI with 21.92% prevalence (CI 95%: 11.70%–32.14%) and the lowest prevalence among countries with very high HDI with 14.42% (CI 95%: 8.37% to 20.47%) (Fig. S3).

Wrists & Hands

Twenty-two studies that reported the prevalence of MSDs of the wrists & hands are shown in Fig. S4. The prevalence of this disorder was 23.52% (CI 95%: 18.84%–28.21%). The classification of studies based on the HDI shows that the prevalence of this disorder is highest among countries with low HDI with only one study with a prevalence of 59.60% (CI 95%: 50.59%–68.61%) and the lowest prevalence among countries with a very high HDI with a prevalence of 19.51% (CI 95%: 14.64%–24.38%).

Fingers

Of the 21 studies that reported the prevalence of MSDs in the fingers, the prevalence was 24.43% (CI 95%: 17.23%–31.62%). The classification of studies based on the HDI shows that the prevalence of this disorder has the highest prevalence among countries with high HDI with prevalence of 36.38% (CI 95%: 30.44%–42.31%) and the lowest prevalence among countries with low HDI and very high HDI with a prevalence of 8.80% (CI 95%: 3.60%–14.00%) and 18.84% (CI 95%: 2.85%–34.82%), respectively (Fig. S5).

Upper back

The 38 studies that reported the prevalence of MSDs above the upper back are shown in Fig. 4. The prevalence of this disorder was 50.39% (CI 95%: 42.05%–58.73%). The classification of studies based on the HDI shows that the prevalence of this disorder is highest among countries with low HDI with only one study with a prevalence of 78.90% (CI 95%: 71.41%–86.39%) and the lowest prevalence among countries with very high HDI with a prevalence of 42.98% (CI 95%: 31.23%–54.73%).

Fig. 4:

Fig. 4:

Open in a new tab

Prevalence of upper back musculoskeletal disorders amongst studies included

Lower back

The 18 studies that reported the prevalence of MSDs in the lower back were shown in Fig. S6. The prevalence of this disorder was 24.25% (CI 95%: 16.21–32.29%). The classification of studies based on the HDI shows that the prevalence of this disorder has the highest prevalence among countries with high HDI with a prevalence of 32.08% (CI 95%: 25.92%–38.23%) and the lowest prevalence among countries with low HDI and very high HDI with a prevalence of 8.80% (CI 95%: 3.60%–14.00%) and 18.59% (CI 95%: 5.81%–31.37%), respectively.

Hip

Of the 20 studies that reported the prevalence of hip MSDs, the prevalence was 26.03% (CI 95%: 22.30%–29.76%). The classification of studies based on the HDI shows that the prevalence of this disorder has the highest prevalence among countries with high HDI with a prevalence of 34.66% (CI 95%: 26.97%–42.34%) and the lowest prevalence among countries with very high HDI with the prevalence of 23.33% (CI 95%: 19.13%–27.54%) (Fig. S7).

Knees

Of the 17 studies that reported the prevalence of MSDs in the knees, the prevalence was 16.03% (CI 95%: 11.78%–20.28%). The classification of studies based on the HDI shows that the prevalence of this disorder has the highest prevalence among countries with high HDI with a prevalence of 22.21% (CI 95%: 14.45%–29.97%) and the lowest prevalence among countries with medium HDI with a prevalence of 12.19% (CI 95%: 5.47%–18.92%) (Fig. S8).

Ankles & Feet

Of the 4 studies that reported the prevalence of MSDs in the ankles & feet, the prevalence was 18.25% (CI 95%: 8.19%–28.30%). The classification of studies based on the HDI shows that the prevalence of this disorder among countries with high HDI with only one study with a prevalence of 26.61% (CI 95%: 18.83%–34.39%) has the highest prevalence and the lowest prevalence among countries with medium HDI with a prevalence of 14.99% (CI 95%: 5.44%–24.54%) (Fig. S9).

Results of meta-regression

In order to investigate the various factors on the prevalence of MSDs in all organs, the meta-regression test was used. The results of the study of the relationship between year of study, mean of age, mean of work experience, and body mass index and prevalence of MSDs showed that neck disorders with mean of age and mean of work experience had a significant and reverse relationship, finger disorders and year of study had a significant and direct relationship, knee and mean of age disorders had a significant and inverse relationship and total prevalence had a significant and direct relationship with the year of study (Table S2). Of course, in the meta-regression calculations of some variables, because of insufficient data, calculations were not performed and no results were reported.

Discussion

The present study investigated the prevalence of MSDs among miners with a systematic review and meta-analysis. After searching the international databases, 447 studies were extracted, and finally, after screening the studies, 50 studies were included that reported the prevalence of MSDs among these workers. Overall, 26 studies were reported the upper back MSDs and 4 studies were reported the arms and legs MSDs. The results of meta-analysis also showed that the highest prevalence of MSDs was in the upper back and the lowest in the knees with a prevalence of 50.39% and 16.03%, respectively.

The most common MSDs among miners is about the upper back. This can be due to issues such as MMH, bending and turning of the waist, awkward postures and prolonged standing at work, which is common in almost all mines, especially coal mines (13). Moreover, the specific nature of mining and low safety, lack of compliance with guidelines, limited ergonomic training, lack of proper health and safety management systems, and lack of appropriate control strategies may be responsible for this high rate. The prevalence of this type of disorder was higher among countries with low, medium and high HDI such as China, Iran, Philippines, Ghana and Nigeria than the United States, Australia and the Scandinavian region. The reason for this result may be a difference in the working conditions of the mines in different countries. Coal mines in countries with a very high HDI use more automatic machines and advanced technologies than other countries, so miners do less MMH. The results of meta-regression also show that with increasing age of workers, the prevalence of high back disorder increases, although this relationship was not significant. However, this can be attributed to the heavy workload and age, affected the physiological health of the miners and led to their MSD. Other studies also show that the physiological performance of older miners has decreased (18). For example, the physiological condition of coal miners, especially those of older age, was poor and that with age, the psychological distress of coal miners intensified (19). The prevalence of low back pain was also higher than other organs (24.25%). Doing all three awkward postures (bending, squatting, and kneeling) increases the load on the spine, and low back pain, usually results in decreased muscle strength, disability. Studies conducted in miners showed that the hip angle is much larger than other joints angles. The worker must work forward while bending. Prolonged static standing may also have a negative effect on intervertebral disc (19).

Other parts of the body that had high MSDs include the neck, shoulders, hands, and fingers. Workers exposed to both psychosocial and physical risk factors were more likely to have neck disorders compared to the control group (20). A cohort study in UK workers also found that exposure to various factors increased the risk of neck disorders (21). The high prevalence of these disorders may be due to the lack of safety of the mines, the lack of attention of the miners to the instructions, and the lack of effective national programs for prevention. The results of meta-regression showed that the prevalence of neck MSDs was significantly related to the mean of workers experience, and the occurrence of symptoms is function of time of exposure to risk factors for MSDs during work. Other causes of neck disorders include bending of the head and neck. Studies included in the analysis of the present study showed that the major parts of the upper limbs, such as the shoulders, wrists & hand, and elbows are affected. Miners kept their hands above shoulder height for a long time that resulting in a static load on the shoulder. Moreover, raising the tool while working is associated with a large deviation of the shoulder angle, the time that miners are in this posture, according to a study, about 85% of the working time was about 11 hours (22). In addition, a significant number of studies reported wrists & hands disorders (22 studies). Heavy hand tools, along with vibration, repetitive activities, and awkward posture, have also been a risk factor for MSDs of the wrists & hands.

In the total prevalence and some body parts such as neck, shoulders, elbows, wrists, fingers, lower back, the lowest prevalence among countries with a high HDI. These include factors such as identifying ergonomic risk factors and preventing them from being encountered, using advanced tools and methods, and having national prevention guidelines and programs in these countries. Such cases are very rare in countries with low or medium HDI, and this has led to workers facing more inappropriate working conditions and risk factors for MSDs during their working hours.

Conclusion

The prevalence of MSDs among miners is relatively high. Among the most common disorders are upper back, lower back and neck disorders, the most important causes of which are poor working conditions, poor posters, old tools and equipment, and lack of ergonomic training. Therefore, supervisors and mine managers should pay more attention to reducing MSDs and increasing the ergonomic level of mines in order to increase workers’ health.

The most common disorders are upper back and lower back disorders, also the most important causes of which are poor working conditions, poor posters and old tools and equipment. Therefore, future researches can make several interventions on these causes to reduce prevalence of upper of lower back disorders in miners.

Limitations

Our work clearly has some limitations. The most important one lies in the fact that the risk factors of MSDs are more than what is stated in this study such as psychosocial and physical risk factors. The present study initially intended to investigate and integrate the prevalence of MSDs and it is recommended that future studies examine the risk factors for these disorders.

Ethical considerations

Ethical issues (Including plagiarism, informed consent, misconduct, data fabrication and/or falsification, double publication and/or submission, redundancy, etc.) have been completely observed by the authors.

Acknowledgements

This study was financially supported by Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences (project No. IR.SBMU.PHNS.REC.1399.050). The authors would like to thank the Research Improvement Center of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences for improving the use of English in the manuscript.

Footnotes

Conflict of interest

Authors declare that there is no competing of interest.

References

  • 1.Punnett L, Wegman DH. (2004). Work-related musculoskeletal disorders: the epidemiologic evidence and the debate. J Electromyogr Kinesiol, 14 (1): 13–23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Niu S. (2010). Ergonomics and occupational safety and health: An ILO perspective. Appl Ergon, 41 (6): 744–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Pinder A, Yeomans L, Heuvel S, et al. (2007). Work-related musculoskeletal disorders: Back to work. 1st ed. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, pp.: 20–21. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Tavakkol R, Kavi E, Hassanipour S, et al. (2020). The global prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders among operating room personnel: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Epidemiol Glob Health, 8 (4): 1053–61. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Richardson A, McNoe B, Derrett S, et al. (2018). Interventions to prevent and reduce the impact of musculoskeletal injuries among nurses: A systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud, 82: 58–67. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Council NR. (2001). Musculoskeletal disorders the workplace: Low back upper extremities. 1st ed. Washington (DC), U.S., pp.: 25–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Soroush A, Shamsi M, Izadi N, et al. (2018). Musculoskeletal disorders as common problems among iranian nurses: a systematic review and meta-analysis study. Int J Prev Med, 9:27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Tawiah AK, Oppong-Yeboah B, Bello AI. (2015). Work-related musculoskeletal disorders among workers at gold mine industry in Ghana: prevalence and patterns of occurrence. J Adv Med Med Res, 9 (8): 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Falahati M, Dehghani F, Malakoutikhah M, et al. (2019). Using fuzzy logic approach to predict work-related musculoskeletal disorders among automotive assembly workers. Med J Islam Repub Iran, 33: 136. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Malakoutikhah M, Karimi A, Hoseini M, et al. (2017). Survey of the relationship between musculoskeletal disorders and work-family conflict in one of the country’s steel industry. J Occup Hyg Eng, 4 (1): 10–17. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Manninen P, Heliövaara M, Riihimäki H, et al. (2002). Physical workload and the risk of severe knee osteoarthritis. Scand J Work Environ Health, 28 (1): 25–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Sharrard W. (1963). Aetiology and pathology of beat knee. Br J Ind Med, 20(1):24–31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Aghillinejad M, Mokamelkhah EK, Nassiri-Kashani M, et al. (2016). Musculoskeletal Disorders among Iranian Coal Miners at 2014. Iran J Health Saf Environ, 3 (1S): 466–71. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Lawrencw J. (1955). Rheumatism in coal miners. III. Ocupational factor. Br J Ind Med, 12: 249–281. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Salehi sahl abadi A, Nasl Saraji G, Zeraati H, et al. (2009). Assessment of spine curvatures (cervical, thoracic, lumbar) prevalence and their associations with musculo-skeletal disorders in automobile industry workers. Sci J Sch Pub Health Inst Pub Health Res, 6 (3): 49–60. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Van Vuuren BJ, Becker PJ, Van Heerden HJ, et al. (2005). Lower back problems and occupational risk factors in a South African steel industry. Am J Ind Med, 47 (5): 451–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Lang J, Ochsmann E, Kraus T, et al. (2012). Psychosocial work stressors as antecedents of musculoskeletal problems: a systematic review and meta-analysis of stability-adjusted longitudinal studies. Soc Sci Med, 75 (7): 1163–74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kowalski-Trakofler KM, Steiner LJ, Schwerha DJ. (2005). Safety considerations for the aging workforce. Saf Sci, 43 (10): 779–93. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Deng M, Wu F, Wang J, Sun L. (2017). Musculoskeletal disorders, personality traits, psychological distress, and accident proneness of Chinese coal miners. Work, 57 (3): 441–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Widanarko B, Legg S, Stevenson M, et al. (2012). Interaction between physical, psychosocial, and organisational work factors for low back symptoms and its consequences amongst Indonesian coal mining workers. Appl Ergon, 46 Pt A:158–67. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Devereux J. (2004). The role of work stress and psychological factors in the development of musculoskeletal disorders: The stress and MSD study. 1st ed. HSE books, UK, pp.: 25. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Pal A, Dhara P. (2017). Evaluation of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders and Postural Stress of Female “Jari” Workers. Indian J Occup Environ Med, 21: 132–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Ahmad A. (2014). A study of miners, demographics and health status in Jodhpur district of Rajasthan, India. Int J Develop Stud Res, 3 (1): 113–21. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ahmad A. (2015). Socio-economic and health status of sandstone miners: a case study of Sorya village, Karauli, Rajasthan. Int J Res Med Sci, 3 (5): 1159–64. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Ahmad A. (2017). Prevalence and predictors of occupational stress among quarry workers in rural Rajasthan. Journal of Public Mental Health, 16 (4): 132–43. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ahmad A, Alvi R. (2017). Musculoskeletal disorders and risk factors of workers in Indian mining industry: a cross-sectional study. Int J Perc Pub Health, 1 (4): 241–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Bandyopadhyay A, Dev S, Gangopadhyay S. (2012). A study on the prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders among the coalminers of Eastern Coalfields of India. Int J Occup Saf Health, 2 (2): 34–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Bhattacherjee A, Bertrand J-P, Meyer J-P, et al. (2007). Relationships of physical job tasks and living conditions with occupational injuries in coal miners. Ind Health, 45 (2): 352–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Gianchandani SG, Ganvir SS. (2011). Prevalence and predisposing factors of low back pain among male underground miners. Indian J Physiother Occup Ther, 5 (2): 134–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Mandal BB, Manwar VD. (2017). Prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders among heavy earth moving machinery operators exposed to whole-body vibration in opencast mining. International Journal of Community Medicine and Public Health, 4 (5): 1566–72. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Mandal BB, Srivastava AK. (2010). Musculoskeletal disorders in dumper operators exposed to whole body vibration at indian mines. Int J Min Reclaim Env, 24 (3): 233–43. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Nandi S, Dhatrak S, Chaterjee D, et al. (2009). Health survey in gypsum mines in India. Indian J Community Med, 34 (4): 343–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Noor IH, Helmi ZN, Setyaningrum R. (2015). The correlation between age, tenure, and height with musculoskeletal disorders complaint (observational study among brick craftsman in lok buntar village sungai tabuk district). 1st ed. pp.: 20–25. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Octora M, Wilmayani N, Ekawanti A, et al. (2018). Association between Work Posture and Musculoskeletal Complaint among Traditional Gold Miners, West Lombok, West Nusa Tenggara. Mid-International Conference on Public Health. Sebelas Maret University. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Widanarko B, Legg S, Devereux J, et al. (2015). Interaction between physical and psychosocial risk factors on the presence of neck/shoulder symptoms and its consequences. Ergonomics, 58 (9): 1507–18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Widanarko B, Legg S, Stevenson M, et al. (2013). Prevalence of low back symptoms and its consequences in relation to occupational group. Am J Ind Med, 56 (5): 576–89. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Busi N, Barber CM, Ross M, et al. (2007). Hand-arm vibration syndrome in South African gold miners. Occup Med (Lond), 57 (1): 25–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Schutte P, Dias B, Smith A, et al. (2003). Prospective study to assess the prevalence and work-related risk factors in the development of musculoskeletal disorders in the South African mining industry. South African. Available from: https://researchspace.csir.co.za/dspace/bitstream/handle/10204/1308/Health702.pdf?sequence=1
  • 39.Schutte PC. (2005). Ergonomics in the South African mining industry. J South Afr Inst Min Metall, 105 (6): 369–72. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Torma-Krajewski J, Hipes C, Steiner L. (2007). Ergonomic interventions at Vulcan Materials Company. Min Eng, 59 (11): 54–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Torma-Krajewski J, Steiner L, Lewis P. (2007). Implementation of an ergonomics process at a US surface coal mine. Int J Ind Ergon, 37 (2): 157–67. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Weston E, Nasarwanji MF, Pollard JP. (2016). Identification of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders in Mining. J Saf Health Environ Res, 12 (1): 274–83. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Aickin C, Lusted M, Mitchell R, et al. (2010). Musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) in NSW mines: Overview of a mail survey. 1st ed. pp.: 21. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Carlisle KN, Parker AW. (2014). Psychological distress and pain reporting in Australian coal miners. Saf Health Work, 5 (4): 203–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Jones OF, James CL. (2018). Task rotation in an underground coal mine: A pilot study. Work, 59 (2): 285–94. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Xu G, Pang D, Liu F. (2012). Prevalence of low back pain and associated occupational factors among Chinese coal miners. BMC Public Health, 12 : 149. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Yue P, Xu G, Li L, et al. (2014). Prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms in relation to psychosocial factors. Occup Med (Lond), 64 (3): 211–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Bio F, Sadhra S, Jackson C. (2007). Low back pain in underground gold miners in Ghana. Ghana Med J, 41 (1): 21–5. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Moses MO. (2014). Effects of Progressive Resistance Exercise Training on Low Back Pain Conditions of Miners in Ghana. Int J Appl Exerc Physiol, 3 (1): 21–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Custodio B, Matias A, Soriano V. (2018). Association of Individual Risk Factors and Workplace Factors to Self-Reported Body Discomfort of Filipino Small-Scale Gold Miners. Philippine Eng J, 39 (1): 50–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Custodio B.P., Matias A.C., Soriano V.J., Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing . Volume 491. Springer Science and Business Media LLC; Berlin, Germany: 2016. Work-Related Musculoskeletal Symptoms Among Small Scale Gold Miners and Extraction Workers in the Philippines; pp. 495–501. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Leung AMR, Lu JLDP. (2016). Environmental Health and Safety Hazards of Indigenous Small-Scale Gold Mining Using Cyanidation in the Philippines. Environ Health Insights, 10: 125–31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Jahangiri M, Najarkola SAM, Gholami T, et al. (2015). Ergonomics Intervention to Reduce Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders in a Lead Mine. Health Scope, 4(4): e29507. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Ishtiaq M, Jehan N, Rehman ZU. (2014). Frequency of musculoskeleton health problems and its relation with demographic variables among Cherat coal miners District Nowshera Khyber Pukhtunkhwa Pakistan. J Dow Univ Health Sci, 8(3): 117–20. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Jiskani IM, Wei Z, Chalgri SR, et al. (2018). Prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders and assessment of workplace factors: A case of coal mine in Pakistan. Thirty-Fifth Annual International Pittsburgh Coal Conference, Xuzhou, China. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.de Sousa MNA, de Oliveira Santos BM, Zaia JE, et al. (2015). Musculoskeletal disorders in informal mining workers. Int Arch Med, 8 (183): 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Ralph O, Gilles N, Fon N, et al. (2018). Impact of artisanal gold mining on human health and the environment in the Batouri Gold District, East Cameroon. Acad J Interdiscip Stud, 7 (1): 25–44. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Egwuonwu V, Abidemi T, Aiyejunsunle C, et al. (2013). A cross-sectional survey of work related musculoskeletal disorders prevalence and associated risk factors among quarry workers in a South Eastern Nigerian community. The Internet Journal of Epidemiology, 11(2): 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Zejda J, Stasiow B. (2003). Cervical spine degenerative changes (narrowed intervertebral disc spaces and osteophytes) in coal miners. Int J Occup Med Environ Health, 16 (1): 49–53. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Skandfer M, Talykova L, Brenn T, et al. (2014). Low back pain among mineworkers in relation to driving, cold environment and ergonomics. Ergonomics, 57 (10): 1541–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Sarikaya S, Özdolap Ş, Gümüştasş Ş, et al. (2007). Low back pain and lumbar angles in Turkish coal miners. Am J Ind Med, 50 (2): 92–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Cherry N, McDonald J. (2002). The incidence of work-related disease reported by occupational physicians, 1996–2001. Occup Med (Lond), 52 (7): 407–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Kunda R, Frantz J, Karachi F. (2013). Prevalence and ergonomic risk factors of work-related musculoskeletal injuries amongst underground mine workers in Zambia. J Occup Health, 55 (3): 211–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Burström L, Aminoff A, Björ B, et al. (2017). Musculoskeletal symptoms and exposure to whole-body vibration among open-pit mine workers in the Arctic. Int J Occup Med Environ Health, 30 (4): 553–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Iranian Journal of Public Health are provided here courtesy of Tehran University of Medical Sciences

RESOURCES