Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Dec 21;17(12):e0277548. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277548

Self-reported musculoskeletal disorders questionnaire for agriculturists: An online self-assessment tool development

Worawan Poochada 1, Sunisa Chailklieng 2,3,*
Editor: Mohammad Hayatun Nabi4
PMCID: PMC9770398  PMID: 36542617

Abstract

The musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) severity and frequency questionnaire (MSFQ) has been used with agriculturists. Although it frequently appears in the literature, it does not periodically reflect the levels of MSDs. This study aimed to develop a MSDs assessment tool for agriculturists via an online database. The four hospitals that were assigned to the development and tryout group received a random selection of participants from 33 health promoting hospitals. In the development phase, 55 agriculturists (from two hospitals) completed the structured interview questionnaire. The MSFQ document for the analysis of MSDs symptoms among agriculturists was concentrated on the frequency and severity of symptoms. The online MSFQ was checked by using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) in a one-way random-effects model. In the tryout phase, a group of 44 agriculturists (from another two hospitals) completed a similar online MSFQ. Cronbach’s alpha was used to test the reliability of the online self-reported MSDs questionnaires. A Likert rating scale, used to measure the satisfaction of users, was divided into three categories: information, program design, and benefits. The development phase showed an ICC = 0.99 with a 95% CI = 0.98–0.99. More than 65 percent of agriculturists were female, aged from 41–50 years old. A large number of them were engaged in self-cultivation. Their main crops were rice and cassava. In total, 50% reported that they had experienced mild MSDs levels. The shoulder, knee-calf, and hip-thigh areas were the top three parts of the body where agriculturists had experienced MSDs from cultivation. Excellent reliability of online MSFQ was found after the tryout. The agriculturists were very satisfied overall (information, program design, and benefits). Developments to the MSFQ and online administration did not diminish its reliability for obtaining information about the level of MSDs of agriculturists’ musculoskeletal symptoms. This self-reported MSDs questionnaire was appropriate to be used among agriculturists.

Introduction

Thai agriculturists have been found to make up the majority of informal workers and almost all of them have been engaged in plant cultivation [1]. Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), which had been reported as occupational diseases in the Health Data Center (HDC) database of Thailand, had the highest ranking of all diseases among agriculturists who visited healthcare service providers [2]. The prevalence of MSDs among agricultural workers was as follows: 87.9% of people reported experience of MSDs in the previous 7 days [3], 70.30% of people reported experience of MSDs in the previous month [4], and 88.9% of people reported experience of MSDs in the previous 12 months [3]. A systematic review showed MSDs had the highest prevalence rates of work-related diseases (67.80%, 95%CI 66.30–69.30) among agriculturists in Thailand [5]. The duration of disability caused by MSDs ranged from 1 to 190 days [6]. Lower extremities, lower back, and shoulders were the three body parts with the highest prevalence rates of MSDs [3, 4]. Cultivating agriculturists working on cassava, fruit, vegetable, and corn plantations had a significantly higher risk of knee/calf pain (OR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.35–2.89) and lower limb pain (OR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.37–2.84) than those working on rice and tobacco plantations [4]. Working conditions such as using agricultural tools, prolonged static postures, and lifting >10 kg have been found to be related to agriculturists’ health [3]. MSDs are the key priority issue for occupational and environmental health problem surveillance among agriculturists.

The assessment of exposure to risk factors for work-related MSDs can be performed by using three methods: 1) observational methods, 2) self-reports, and 3) direct measurement by specific measurement, i.e., using a goniometer and electromyography (EMG) [7]. Self-reported assessment has quite commonly been used to measure symptoms, including pain and postural discomfort, and/or levels of subjective exertion. The Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire (NMQ) by Kuorinka et al. [8], which has mostly been used in epidemiological research and several occupations, asks the participants to report the bodily complaints that they have experienced in the past 7 days and the past 12 months. However, the NMQ does not assess the severity or frequency of the bodily discomfort or pain. In Thailand, a self-reported MSDs questionnaire named “the MSDs Severity and Frequency Questionnaire" (MSFQ) was developed by Chaiklieng [9] for use in Thai industrial labor, i.e., potato-chip workers [9], electronics workers [10], pulp and paper production workers [11], and rolled steel roofers [12]. The MSFQ has been used with the interview method in the agricultural sector with workers engaging in various cultivation activities (rice, tobacco, sugarcane, cassava, fruit, vegetable, corn, and rubber [4, 13]). The MSFQ contains four main questions about pain which had occurred in bodily areas during work or had been caused by work in the past month: (1) severity of pain, (2) frequency of pain, (3) work-related pain in the last 7 days, and (4) confirmation of the work-related pain. The MSFQ’s five MSDs levels were determined by multiplying the severity level by the frequency of pain level. However, the MSFQ had limitations in regard to immediately reporting the MSDs level to workers.

At present, the self-reported survey study is generally used to collect primary data, categorized into manual (paper-based), and electronic (online-based) data [14]. The National Clinical Research Center (nCRC) provides an online research tool for researchers. It is a modern online survey tools creator which includes questionnaire design, distribution, analysis, and reporting. It can also be used to manage any type of research, ranging from a very simple type, such as a quick survey, to very complex multinational random sampling. The advantages of online surveys include increased geographical spread of respondents, faster responses can be started immediately [14], low cost, and paper reduction. Therefore, this study aimed to develop the MSFQ for agriculturists via an online database.

Materials and methods

Study design

This study utilized a research and development design of an MSDs assessment tool for agriculturists via an online database (nCRC). Thailand’s Khon Kaen University Ethics Committee in Human Research examined and approved the study procedure (HE632162). All participants gave written informed consent before being enrolled in the study.

Population and sample

The population consisted of cultivating agriculturists who had access to 33 health-promoting hospitals in the upper northeastern Thai provinces of Khon Kaen, Roi Et, Udon Thani, and Nong Bua Lamphu. The stratified sampling technique was used in the following three steps: First, a health-promoting hospital was randomly selected. Then, the selected health-promoting hospital was assigned to either the development or tryout group. Finally, the participants were chosen by simple random sampling of workers who met the inclusion criteria and had given their consent to their participation in the study.

The inclusion criteria were being a cultivating agriculturist aged 18 years or older, having received service from a health-promoting hospital, and having consented to being part of the sample. Cultivating agriculturists who had a historical diagnosis of MSDs, or a history of past surgery were excluded. There were 99 agriculturists chosen from four hospitals, which consisted of 55 people in the development phase (two hospitals) and 44 people in the tryout phase (two hospitals) who met the inclusion criteria for participation in this study.

Research tools

A structured questionnaire was used in this study. The first part asked about the characteristics and health status of the agriculturist. The second part was the self-reported MSDs questionnaire, which the MSFQ was applied from Chaiklieng [9]. The MSFQ consists of four main questions: (1) severity of pain, (2) frequency of pain, (3) work-related pain in the last 7 days, and (4) confirmation of the work-related pain in the past month. The MSDs level was multiplied by four levels of frequency and four levels of the severity of pain. The MSDs levels by MSFQ was classified into five perception levels: no MSDs (score: 0 points), mild MSDs (score: 1–2 points), moderate MSDs (score: 3–4 points), severe MSDs (score: 5–8 points), and very severe MSDs (score: 9–16 points). The MSFQ measurement process is shown in Fig 1. A structured online MSFQ was developed by transforming the MSFQ document via the nCRC tool [9]. It was designed to be user-friendly and allow users to report the MSDs level automatically and quickly.

Fig 1. The MSFQ measurement process (applied from Chaiklieng [9]).

Fig 1

After the trial with participants, the user satisfaction with the online MSFQ was estimated. Three subcategories of user satisfaction were identified: benefits, program design, and information.

Methods

This study was divided into two phases: the development and tryout phase, as shown in Fig 2. In the development phase, participants were interviewed by researcher. All variables from the four main parts of the MSFQ document were used to generate, calculate, and report the MSDs levels via the nCRC tool. The interview data was input into the MSFQ online and the agreement between the document and online MSFQ was measured. The tryout phase was carried out when all variables of the document and online MSFQ were in overall agreement. The online MSFQ was tested by each agriculturist through their smartphone. Finally, user satisfaction with the online MSFQ created via the nCRC tool was estimated along with performance of the reliability test.

Fig 2. Flow of the research methodology.

Fig 2

Statistical analysis

All data analyses were performed using STATA Version 14.0. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize personal characteristics, health status, and MSDs levels. Categorical variables were presented using frequency distribution and percentages and continuous variables were presented using mean (SD) and median (min-max).

The final score of MSDs, or continuous data, was used to analyze agreement by using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). ICC values less than 0.50 are indicative of poor agreement, values between 0.50 and 0.75 indicate moderate agreement, values between 0.75 and 0.90 indicate good agreement, and values greater than 0.90 indicate excellent agreement [15].

Cronbach’s alpha (α) was used to test the reliability of the online MSFQ after the tryout. George and Mallery [16], who are often cited, provide the following rules of thumb: α > 0.90 (Excellent), > 0.80 (Good), > 0.70 (Acceptable), > 0.60 (Questionable), > 0.50 (Poor), and < 0.50 (Unacceptable).

A Likert rating scale (1–5 points) was used to measure user satisfaction with an online MSFQ via nCRC: very satisfied (5 points), satisfied (4 points), neutral (3 points), unsatisfied (2 points), and very unsatisfied (1 point). The ranges of the average satisfaction score were determined as follows: 0.01–1.00 was very unsatisfied, 1.01–2.00 was unsatisfied, 2.01–3.00 was neutral, 3.01–4.00 was satisfied, and 4.01–5.00 was very satisfied.

Results

Development phase

A total of 55 agriculturists from two hospitals were included in the development phase. Most of them (80.00%) were female. Almost 70 percent were aged between 41 and 50 years old. They mostly worked as cultivating agriculturists (89.09%) who cultivated the following crops: cassava (45.45%), rice (40.00%), and sugarcane (14.55%), respectively.

From the document MSFQ, it was found that almost all of the agriculturists (78.18%) reported that they had experienced MSDs in at least one part of the body. The parts of the body where agriculturists had most experienced MSDs were the lower back (30.91%) and knee and calf (30.91%), followed by the lower shoulder (20.00%) and lower arm (18.18%), respectively. Regardless of the part of body, the most experienced level of severity was found to be mild (41.82%) followed by moderate (25.45%) and no MSDs (21.82%), respectively.

The final scores of online MSFQ had excellent agreement. A one-way random-effects model showed an ICC = 0.98 with a 95% confident interval = 0.98–0.94.

Tryout phase

A total of 44 agriculturists from another two hospitals were included into the tryout phase. Of all the agriculturists, 68.18% were female. Most of them were found to be in the following age ranges: 41–50 years old (40.91%), followed by 51–60 years old (36.36%). A large proportion of them (70.45%) engaged in self-cultivation. They planted rice (70.45%) and cassava (29.55%).

One half of them self-reported that they had experienced MSDs in at least one part of body at a mild MSDs level, while 38.64% had experienced no MSDs. The shoulder, knee-calf, and hip-thigh were the top three parts of the body where agriculturists had experienced MSDs in cultivation; the proportions of agriculturists who had experienced MSDs in these areas were 27.27%, 22.73%, and 20.45%, respectively.

The online MSFQ had excellent reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficient at 0.97. User satisfaction with the online MSFQ via an online database was rated at 72.73% (n = 32). Agriculturists were very satisfied overall with the online MSFQ according to the following categories: information, program design, and benefits (see more detail in Table 1). User feedback about the online MSFQ via electronic devices (smartphones) included the following comments: 1) it was difficult to get access via QR code or long URL, and 2) an internet network was necessary to complete this questionnaire.

Table 1. Number (%) of users based on level of satisfaction with the online MSFQ.

Topic of satisfaction Level of satisfaction with the self-reported MSDs questionnaire
VS S N US VUS Mean ± S.D.
1. Information
1.1. Easily understood language for usage 22 (68.8) 8 (25.0) 2 (6.3) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 4.63 ± 0.61
1.2. The questions are continuous 23 (71.9) 9 (28.1) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 4.72 ± 0.46
Average 4.67 ± 0.54
2. Program design
2.1. Easy access to appraisals via mobile 20 (62.5) 10 (31.3) 2 (6.3) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 4.56 ± 0.62
2.2. The font size is suitable 21 (65.6) 8 (25.0) 3 (9.4) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 4.56 ± 0.67
2.3. Easy to use 21 (65.6) 9 (28.1) 2 (6.3) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 4.59 ± 0.61
2.4. It has a sequence of steps 23 (71.9) 9 (28.1) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 4.72 ± 0.46
Average 4.61 ± 0.59
3. Benefits
3.1. Able to self-report MSDs 24 (75.0) 8 (25.0) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 4.75 ± 0.44
3.2. Able to know the MSDs results immediately 25 (78.1) 7 (21.9) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 4.78 ± 0.42
3.3. Stretching muscles was advised 26 (81.3) 6 (18.8) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 4.81 ± 0.40
Average 4.73 ± 0.46
4. Overall 20 (62.5) 11 (34.4) 1 (3.1) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 4.59 ± 0.56

VS = Very satisfied, S = Satisfied, N = Neutral, US = Unsatisfied, VUS = Very unsatisfied

Discussions

Characteristics and MSDs

This study found a higher percentage of women than men in the agricultural sector. It was possible that male agricultural workers were working on farms while we were collecting data. In both the development phase and tryout phase, the highest proportion of agriculturists were aged 41–50 years. Teenage agriculturists may have been hired in the manufacturing sector in urban areas. The crop types of the two phases of the study were similar: cassava and rice. The MSDs reported by MSFQ were in the areas of the lower back, shoulder, knee-calf, hip-thigh, and arm. A previous study found that bodily pain was generally found in the lower back, shoulder, and lower limb areas among cultivating agriculturists in northeastern Thailand [4]. Moreover, MSDs of the knees among Thai agriculturists significantly differed according to farm type (rice, flower, and vegetable) [17].

Development phase

The MSFQ applied from Chaiklieng [9] was verified. The intra-rater reliability, based on the ICC of the final scores of an online MSFQ, was excellent, with an ICC = 0.98 with a 95% confident interval = 0.98–0.99. Meanwhile, an online MSFQ developed platform was 100 percent accurate with regard to content and MSDs levels calculation when compared to the document MSFQ. The researchers rechecked and improved the online MSFQ to be perfectly accurate because they wanted to develop valid questionnaires for the online platform.

Tryout phase

This study was conducted to assess the reliability of the online MSFQ developed for evaluating various MSDs at agricultural sites through online MSFQ. This online MSFQ showed excellent reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficient as 0.97. Although the participants in this study cultivated cassava, rice, and sugarcane, this online MSFQ can be implemented with those who cultivate other crops. More than 90.00% of Thai agriculturists have completed their primary school education [18], hence communication was understood by them. Agriculturists were very satisfied overall with the online self-reported MSDs questionnaire. The fact that they were very satisfied (4.67 ± 0.54) with the information provided correlated with a previous study; information should be accurate and improvements should always be up to date [19]. Also, they were very satisfied (4.61 ± 0.59) with the program design; a previous study showed that interesting designs used appropriate colors and text sizes, were uncomplicated, and could be followed step by step [19]. Agriculturists were very satisfied with the benefits of the online MSFQ (4.73 ± 0.46). The researchers considered the benefits to agriculturists as a priority.

The MSFQ is only one of three methods used to assess work-related MSDs. It has specifically been used to report pain or discomfort when personal pain descriptions have differed [20]. Loss of muscle strength has been found to affect pain perception. A previous study of rubber planters found that low handgrip strength was a factor which significantly correlated with a high level of MSDs [21]. This study filled the gap by following the study of self-reporting of MSDs by Chaiklieng [9], which expanded on the meaning of severity level, and included the immediate reporting of individual MSDs levels. However, a combination of work-related MSDs exposure assessments was found to be interesting with regard to surveillance of MSDs. Previous studies and self-reported and postural risk assessment using observational methods were combined [21]. Therefore, observational methods should be considered in parallel in terms of the health risk matrix.

Conclusions and suggestions

This study aimed to develop the MSFQ for agriculturists via an online database. It was reported that 78.18%, and 61.36% of agriculturists had experienced MSDs in at least one part of the body, according to the document and online MSFQ, respectively. It was found that the most experienced MSDs level was mild, followed by moderate, and no MSDs, respectively. The shoulder, knee-calf, and hip-thigh were the top three parts of the body where agriculturists had experienced MSDs in cultivation. The developed online MSFQ was in 100 percent agreement with the document MSFQ. Excellent reliability of online MSFQ was found after the tryout phase. Agriculturists who had estimated their user satisfaction with the online MSFQ reported that they were very satisfied overall (with regard to information, program design, and benefits).

The online MSFQ was appropriate for agricultural users to assess MSDs resulting from their work. In addition, the collection of information in a cross-sectional study in which the researcher will contact the participant only once, and longitudinal studies in which the researcher should contact the participant more than once, was suitable. The individual MSDs levels found by online MSFQ were immediately reported. However, the online MSFQ had some limitations: the online MSFQ was based on using self-reporting to confirm that the MSDs had been caused by work; this was based on the agriculturist’s opinion and there was no diagnosis by a physician. Observational techniques and direct methods are necessary to estimate the root causes that led to the MSDs, such as awkward posture, forceful exertion, repetitive motion, vibration, and work environmental factors. In the future, a mobile application will be developed to solve the problem of agriculturists being unable to access the questionnaire via the internet network. A cohort study should be provided for MSDs surveillance among cultivating agriculturists, along with design of an online-based dashboard to immediately report incidence of MSDs.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. The MSFQ measurement process (applied from Chaiklieng [9]).

(JPG)

S2 Fig. Flow of the research methodology.

(JPG)

S1 Table. Number (%) of users based on level of satisfaction with the online MSFQ.

(DOCX)

S1 Appendix. An online MSFQ

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all of the cultivating agriculturists and health care officers for their kind co-operation throughout this study.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This study received funding from The National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT 6200101) to SC.

References

  • 1.National Statistical Office (NSO). The informal employment survey 2020. http://www.nso.go.th/sites/2014/DocLib13/ด้านสังคม/สาขาแรงงาน/Informal_work_force/2563/fullreport_63.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Chaiklieng S, Chagkornburee C and Suggaravetsiri P. Situations of work-related diseases and injuries among agriculturists in the upper northeast regions of Thailand [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2022; 11:145 ( 10.12688/f1000research.73221.1) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kaewdok T, Sirisawasd S, Taptagaporn S. Agricultural risk factors related musculoskeletal disorders among older farmers in pathum thani province, Thailand. J Agromedicine. 2021. Apr; 26(2):185–192. doi: 10.1080/1059924X.2020.1795029 Epub 2020 Jul 31. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Worawan P, Chaiklieng S, Andajani S. Musculoskeletal disorders among agricultural workers of various cultivation activities in upper northeastern Thailand. Safety 2022; 8(3); 61. 10.3390/safety8030061 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Chaiklieng S, Poochada W, and Suggaravetsiri P. Work-related diseases among agriculturists in Thailand: A systematic review. Songklanakarin J. Sci. Technol. 2021; 43 (3): 638–647. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Patil SA, Kadam YR, Mane AS, Gore AD, Dhumale GB. The Prevalence and Health Impact of Musculoskeletal Disorders among Farmers. Med J DY Patil Vidyapeeth 2018; 11: 485–491. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.David GC. Ergonomic methods for assessing exposure to risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Occup Med (Lond) 2005;55: 190–199. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqi082 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Kuorinka I, Jonsson B, Kilbom A, Vinterberg H, Biering-Sørensen F, Andersson G, et al. Standardised Nordic questionnaires for the analysis of musculoskeletal symptoms. Appl Ergon 1987; 18(3): 233–237. doi: 10.1016/0003-6870(87)90010-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Chaiklieng S. Health risk assessment on musculoskeletal disorders among potato-chip processing workers. PLoS ONE 2019; 14(12): e0224980. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224980 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Chaiklieng S, Pannak A, Duangprom M. The Assessment of Ergonomics Risk on Upper Limb Disorders among Electronic Workers. Srinagarind Med J 2016; 31(2): 202–209. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Kaewjunda J, Chaiklieng S. Health Risk Assessment of Musculoskeletal Disorders in Pulp and Paper Production Industry. KKU Journal for Public Health Research 2019; 12(1): 72–85. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Huaychan S, Chaiklieng S. Ergonomic risk assessment of work related musculoskeletal disorders among employee in steel roll roof forming industry, Thailand. KKU Journal for Public Health Research 2019; 12(2): 85–90. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Khanaphan K, Suggaravetsiri P, Chaiklieng S. Ergonomics risk and muscle fitness among rubber planters in Ubon Ratchatani Province. Journal of Public Health Research Ubon Ratchathani Rajabhat University 2019; 82(1): 21–31. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Mudavath SDPN & Narayan KA Strengths and Weakness of Online Surveys. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (IOSR-JHSS) 2019; 24(5): 31–38. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Portney LG, Watkins MP. Prentice Hall; New Jersey: 2000. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.George D, Mallery P. SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kongtip P, Nankongnab N, Mahaboonpeeti R, Bootsikeaw S, Batsungnoen K, Hanchenlaksh C, et al. Differences among Thai Agricultural Workers’ Health, Working Conditions, and Pesticide Use by Farm Type. Annals of Work Exposures and Health 2018; 62(2): 167–181. doi: 10.1093/annweh/wxx099 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Khamjantarat P, Suggaravetsiri P, Chaiklieng S. Prevalence of illnesses among cultivation farmers in Sakon Nakon province. Disease Prevention and Control Office 7 Khon Kaen 2020; 27(2): 55–66. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Khonjen J, Thaipakdee S, Jongpattanakorn S. Users’ satisfaction on a web—based information system for farmer registration. Kamphaengsean Acad. J. 2010; 8(2): 45–53. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ruangrit T, Sindhvananda W. Pain Perspectives in Thai Chronic Pain Patients. Thai J Anesthesiol 2018; 44(3): 127–135. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Chaiklieng S, Khanaphan K, Suggaravetsiri P. Factors correlated with risk levels of musculoskeletal disorders among rubber planters. J Med Tech Phy Ther 2020; 32(1): 82–94. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Johannes Stortz

22 Jul 2022

PONE-D-21-40986Self-reported musculoskeletal disorders questionnaire for agriculturists: An online self-assessment tool developmentPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chaiklieng,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. 

The manuscript has been evaluated by two reviewers, and their comments are available below.

The reviewers have raised a number of concerns that need attention. They request additional information on methodological aspects of the study and adjustments to the reporting of the study.  

Could you please revise the manuscript to carefully address the concerns raised?

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 03 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Johannes Stortz

Staff Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Comments to the Author:

-The manuscript is very good and valuable and the authors have done a lot of effort, but for me, the question is whether self-report and questionnaire without clinical examination accurately determine that the disease is caused by work?

-the following are suggested for improvement:

• Overall:

-There are some grammatical issues throughout the paper that would benefit from an additional review and in other words grammar needs to be corrected throughout the manuscript.

- Introduction needs to be rewritten.

-The Materials and methods is long and vague, it is better to be concise and clear.

• Abstract:

-The research method (Statistical population, Sampling method, etc.) should be written.

-What tests have been used?

• Instrodation:

-The introduction and problem statement is very brief and requires further explanation.

- The importance of the topic should be explained in such a way that the designed tool can determine whether the disease is caused by the work or not.

- It would be better to include a literature review.

- Research innovation to be written

• Resarch metod:

-The research method should be expressed in a more coherent and clear way

• Discussion

-the discussion should be written to reflect the results

• Conclusion

- The conclusion is very brief so it should be reinforced

- Research limitations, the strengths and weaknesses of the study, suggestions should be written

• References

-The reference should be given at the end of the manuscript according to the journal format.

- Match the references inside the text and at the end of the text.

Reviewer #2: The tool will help in self reporting of MSDs in agriculture and will help to cover workers all around the globe. It is always not possible to find musculoskeletal problems of farm workers experimentally.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr. Rekha Vyas, Professor and Zonal Director Research, MPUAT, Udaipur

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Dec 21;17(12):e0277548. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277548.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


9 Oct 2022

Response to Reviewer 1

1. Overall

1.1) The manuscript is very good and valuable, and the authors have done a lot of effort, but for me, the question is whether self-report and questionnaire without clinical examination accurately determine that the disease is caused by work?

Author to respond reviewer: Thank you very much for your kind understanding that this work was done a lot of effort, and we wish to contribute this valuable product to agricultural workers and related occupation around the world to be useful as soon as we can.

It was still limitation of self-report assessment on work-related MSDs. We identified the limitation at discussion section. However, the 4th question of MSFQ was confirmation of the work-related pain in the past month, from the previous study of the MSDs Severity and Frequency Questionnaire (MSFQ) (Chaiklieng 2019, PlosONE….[9] and was used by the previous screening of MSDs (available at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/safety8030061/s1, [14]. The previous studies used also this tool for self-report that could determine the occupational MSDs, and this study provide the available online tool that could be accessed easier and report result in such a real time.

1.2) the following are suggested for improvement:

(1) There are some grammatical issues throughout the paper that would benefit from an additional review and in other words grammar needs to be corrected throughout the manuscript.

Author to respond reviewer: We are already proofreading before resubmission by native speaker.

(2) Introduction needs to be rewritten.

Author to respond reviewer: we revised with yellow highlight.

(3) The Materials and methods is long and vague, it is better to be concise and clear.

Author to respond reviewer: we revised with yellow highlight.

2. Abstract

2.1) The research method (Statistical population, Sampling method, etc.) should be written.

Author to respond reviewer: We already add with yellow highlight. However, abstract not exceed 300 words.

2.2) What tests have been used?

Author to respond reviewer: We already add with yellow highlight. However, abstract not exceed 300 words.

3. Introduction

3.1) The introduction and problem statement is very brief and requires further explanation.

Author to respond reviewer: we revised with yellow highlight in the first paragraph to be more explanation.

3.2) The importance of the topic should be explained in such a way that the designed tool can determine whether the disease is caused by the work or not.

Author to respond reviewer: we revised with yellow highlight which explain the MSFQ could determine the disease caused by work from the previous study and the screening phase in the second paragraph.

3.3) It would be better to include a literature review.

Author to respond reviewer: we revised with yellow highlight in the second paragraph to include the literature review.

3.4) Research innovation to be written

Author to respond reviewer: we revised with yellow highlight in the last paragraph of research innovation..

4. Materials and methods

4.1) The research method should be expressed in a more coherent and clear way.

Author to respond reviewer: we revised with yellow highlight for more coherent method and clear way.

5. Discussions

5.1) The discussion should be written to be reflect the results

Author to respond reviewer: we revised with yellow highlight in the part of discussion to be reflect the results.

6. Conclusions and suggestions

6.1) The conclusion is very brief so it should be reinforced

Author to respond reviewer: we revised with yellow highlight more important points from the study

6.2) Research limitations, the strengths and weaknesses of the study, suggestions should be written

Author to respond reviewer: we revised with yellow highlight in the second paragraph for the limitation and the strength of the study.

7. Conclusions and suggestions

7.1) The reference should be given at the end of the manuscript according to the journal format.

Author to respond reviewer: we followed by manuscript body formatting guidelines, modified April 2021.

7.2) Match the references inside the text and at the end of the text.

Author to respond reviewer: we rechecked all reference and format.

The Review Report (Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The tool will help in self reporting of MSDs in agriculture and will help to cover workers all around the globe. It is always not possible to find musculoskeletal problems of farm workers experimentally.

Author to respond reviewer: Thank you for your kind comments and suggestions, this work was very hard working and needed a lot of effort and budget, and we hope that the fast publication will be very useful to move on the next step for contribution work to other agriculturist around around the globe

Attachment

Submitted filename: 2. Responsed to reviewer sc- 09102022.docx

Decision Letter 1

Mohammad Hayatun Nabi

31 Oct 2022

Self-reported musculoskeletal disorders questionnaire for agriculturists: An online self-assessment tool development

PONE-D-21-40986R1

Dear Dr. Sunisa Chaiklieng,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Mohammad Hayatun Nabi, MBBS, MHSM, MPH, PHD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Work is quite extensive and good and can be considered for further needful publication. This self reported questionnaire will be helpful to know MSDs without the use of any sophisticated equipment.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr. Rekha Vyas, Professor

**********

Acceptance letter

Mohammad Hayatun Nabi

12 Dec 2022

PONE-D-21-40986R1

Self-reported musculoskeletal disorders questionnaire for agriculturists: An online self-assessment tool development

Dear Dr. Chaiklieng:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Mohammad Hayatun Nabi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. The MSFQ measurement process (applied from Chaiklieng [9]).

    (JPG)

    S2 Fig. Flow of the research methodology.

    (JPG)

    S1 Table. Number (%) of users based on level of satisfaction with the online MSFQ.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Appendix. An online MSFQ

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 2. Responsed to reviewer sc- 09102022.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES