跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.201.97.0) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/04/14 04:40
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:楊玉姿
研究生(外文):Yu-Zi Yang
論文名稱:事業單位推動職場人因性危害防止計畫現況調查與輔導改善
論文名稱(外文):Measurement of implementation and counselling status of ergonomic preventation program on work-related musculoskeletal disorders
指導教授:林彥輝林彥輝引用關係
指導教授(外文):Yen-Hui Lin
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:中山醫學大學
系所名稱:職業安全衛生學系碩士班
學門:醫藥衛生學門
學類:公共衛生學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2018
畢業學年度:106
語文別:中文
論文頁數:150
中文關鍵詞:重複性肌肉骨骼傷害問卷調查宏觀人因工程
外文關鍵詞:musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs)surveymacroergonomics
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:2
  • 點閱點閱:167
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
  肌肉骨骼傷害在許多工業化國家都已被確認是最主要的職業傷害之一。我國職業安全衛生法於2013年7月修正通過職場肌肉骨骼危害之防治,然而,因工作而引起的肌肉骨骼疾病卻仍居高不下,其原因值得加以探討。
  本研究共分為兩階段,第一階段以網路問卷調查國內201間事業單位執行人因性危害預防計畫現況及遭遇之困境;第二階段由人因工程專家現場訪視及輔導事業單位書面計畫撰寫,以宏觀人因工程概念介入組織運作模式找出問題點,以提升事業單位之職場肌肉骨骼危害預防成效。
  問卷結果顯示,事業單位「尚未擬定」人因性危害預防計畫佔21.4%,主要原因如:不知該如何擬訂、正在評估需要程度;「已擬定尚未執行」佔22.9%,原因如:已列入未來計畫,等待執行中、缺乏專業人士協助執行、人手不足等;「已執行」人因性危害預防計畫則佔55.7%,其中又以「進階改善」比例最低。
  變項相關性分析結果中,事業單位「計畫擬定及執行現況」與「接受輔導經驗」、「獲取資訊之管道」、「推動計畫所遭遇問題」、「執行的計畫或推動之管理系統」及「接受教育訓練種類」變項具有顯著相關,其p-value皆小於0.01。而「高層主管支持度」與「職安法規知情度」、「計畫擬定及執行現況」、「執行計畫之時間」、「推動計畫所遭遇問題」及「執行的計畫或推動之管理系統」變項具有顯著相關,其p-value亦皆小於0.01;與「公司規模」、「接受輔導經驗」、「尋求專家協助意願」則不具有顯著相關。
  本研究於第二階段中,徵求了3間事業單位進行現場訪視及書面計畫輔導,統整事業單位撰寫人因性危害預防計畫主要問題為:計畫項目缺漏、目標設定不明確、對於「簡易改善」及「進階改善」內容不夠理解等。現場介入輔導滿意度調查顯示,目前宏觀人因介入較難為事業單位接受,與過去研究結果一致,建議未來可會同政府機關、人因工程專業人士共同參與,進行宏觀人因工程介入時輔以微觀人因工程改善,增進事業單位推動人因性危害預防計畫之意願,有效達到職場肌肉骨骼危害防治。
  Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) have been identified as one of the main occupational diseases in many industrialized countries.In Taiwan, Occupational Safety and Health Law amended the prevention and treatment of musculoskeletal injuries in the workplace in July 2013. However, the musculoskeletal diseases caused by work are still high. The reasons for the ineffectiveness of the prevention and treatment of musculoskeletal injuries in enterprises are needed to concerned.
  This study is divided into two stages. The first stage investigate the current situation and the dilemma of the implementation of ergonomic preventation plan in 201 enterprises via online questionnaire.In the second stage, the ergonomists visited and coached the enterprises to write the plan, using the macroergonomic concept intervene the organizational operation mode to find out the problems, and promoting the preventive effect of musculoskeletal hazards in the workplace.
  The observational result show that 21.4% of enterprises is “No for MSDs prevention plan”, The main reasons include: no idea to perform the program, assessing the needs, and waiting for implementation; 22.9% subjects is “Have MSDs prevention plan but not to execute”, for the following reasons: has been included in future plans, waiting for implementation, lack of professional assistance, and shortage of staff; 55.7% of enterprises is“Had executed MSDs prevention plan”, and the proportion of "advanced improvement" is the lowest.
  In results of the variables correlation analysis, the enterprises“planning and implementation status” and “accepted counseling experience”, “the pipeline for information acquisition”, “problems encountered when promoting the project”, “executive plan or promotion management system” and “received educational training types” were significantly related, and their p-values were less than 0.01. In addition, “supervisor support” and “Occupational Safety Regulations awareness”, “planning and implementation status”, “project execution time”, “promoting problems in projects”, and“executive plan or promotion management system” were significantly related, and their p-values were also less than 0.01; they were not significantly related to “scale of enterprise”, “accepted counseling experience”, and “seeking expert assistance willingness”.
  In the second stage of the study, three enterprises were consulted for on-site visits and written project guidance by ergonomists. The main problems in the ergonomic preventation plan for enterprises were: lack of planning projects, unclear target setting, and insufficient understanding of the contents of “simple improvement” and “advanced improvement” .The on-site intervention counseling satisfaction survey shows that it is difficult for the macroergonomic intervention to be accepted by the enterprises. It is consistent with the past research results. It is suggested that in the future, government and ergonomists will participate in the macroergonomics intervention, supplemented by microergonomics intervention, to enhance the willingness of institutions to promote planning, and effectively achieve prevention and treatment of musculoskeletal hazards in the workplace.
誌謝 i
摘要 ii
Abstract iv
目錄 vi
圖目錄 viii
表目錄 ix
第一章 緒論 1
1.1 前言 1
1.2 研究動機 2
1.3 研究目的 3
第二章 文獻探討 4
2.1 肌肉骨骼疾病介紹與流行病學數據 4
2.2 宏觀人因工程 5
2.3 職業安全衛生相關法規 10
2.4我國肌肉骨骼疾病防治方法 13
第三章 研究方法及步驟 18
3.1 研究對象 18
3.2 研究步驟 18
3.3 研究方法 20
3.4 統計分析 25
第四章 研究結果 26
4.1 受測者基本資料 26
4.2 事業單位基本資料 28
4.3 事業單位執行人因性危害預防計畫現況 31
4.4 變項相關性分析 43
4.5 人因性危害預防計畫現場輔導 48
第五章 討論 70
5.1 事業單位現況調查討論 70
5.2 事業單位書面、現場輔導討論 73
第六章 結論及建議 76
6.1 結論 76
6.2 建議 78
參考文獻 79
附錄一 83
附錄二 92
附錄三 102
附錄四 104
附錄五 105
附錄六 139
附錄七 144
附錄八 148
1.勞動部,勞動統計查詢網,勞工保險-職業病給付人次-按成因別分
2.Musculoskeletal Disorders in Europe-Definitions and Statistics, Eurogip, 2007.
3.Working Conditions: A Quarter of EU Citizens Suffer from Musculoskeletal Disorders, European Social Policy, 2008.
4.Nonfatal Occupational Injuries And Illnesses Requiring Days Away From Work, U.S. Bureau Of Labor Statistics, 2002~2006.
5.Machi Suka, Katsumi Yoshida, Musculoskeletal Pain In Japan:Prevalence and Interference with Daily Activities, Japan College of Rheumatology and Springer-Verlag Tokyo, 2005.
6.日本中央勞動災害防止協會,取自:http://www.jisha.or.jp/
7.Health and Safety Statistics Highlights, Health and Safety Executive, April, 2003.
8.Health and Safety Statistics, Health and Safety Executive, July, 2006.
9.英國安全衛生委員會,取自:http://www.hse.gov.uk/Msd/Hsemsd.Htm
10.Guo H R, C hang Y C, Y eh W Y, C hen C W, G uo Y L. P revalence o f Musculoskeletal Disorder Among Workers In Taiwan: A Nationwide Study. J Occup Health 2004;46:26-36.
11.Musculoskeletal Disorders In Europe-Definitions And Statistics〞, Eurogip, 2007.
12.WORKING CONDITIONS: A QUARTER OF EU CITIZENS SUFFER FROM MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, European Social Policy
13.林彥輝、宋鵬程、葉文裕、游志雲、潘儀聰、陳志勇,2010年12月,先進國家肌肉骨骼傷害防制推動計畫探討,勞工安全衛生研究季刊,18,483-501.
14.OSHA, Ergonomics: The Study of Work, U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2000.
15.Easy Ergonomics:A Practical Approach for Improving the Workplace, Cal/OSHA Consultation Service, California Department of Industrial Relations, 1999.
16.Council Of Labor Affairs Executive Yuan Taiwan, Human Factor Guide Book, Taipei, 1995.
17.Clays E, De Bacquer D, Delanghe J, et al.Associations between dimensions of job stress and biomarkers of inXammation and infection. J. Occup. Environ. Med.2005; 47,878-83.
18.Gold JE, Punnett L, Katz JN. Pressure pain thresholds and musculoskeletal morbidity in automobile manufacturing workers. Int.Arch. Occup. Environ. Health. 5006; 79,128-134.
19.Shaw WS, Feuerstein M, Lincoln AE, et al. Ergonomic and psychosocial factors affect daily function in workers compensation claimants with persistent upper extremity disorders. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2002; 44,606-15.
20.Yassi A. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Curr Opin Rheumatol.2000;12:124-30.
21.Imada, A.S. and Nagamachi, M.(1992)A macroergonimic approach for improving safety and work design. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting, 859-861
22.李再長,以組織人因工程導向改善聽力防護具之配戴,2002,國立成功大學工業與資訊管理學系.
23.Hendrick, H.W.(1995)Humanizing re-engineering for true organizational effectiveness:a macro-ergonomics approach. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39th Annual Meeting, 761-765.
24.Hendrick, H.W.and Kleiner, B.M.(2002). Macroergonomics; Theory,Method,and Applications. New Jersey; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
25.Kleiner, B.M.(2008). Macroergonomics: Work system analysis and design. Human Factors,50,461-457
26.Hendrick, H.W.and Kleiner, B.M.(2001) Macroergonomics-An Introduction to Work System Design. Santa Monica ,California: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
27.Bammer,G.(1990)VDTs and musculoskeletal problems at the Australian National University-A case study. In B. Knave and P.G. Wideback(eds), Work With Display Units 86, 279-287. Amsterdam:North-Holland.
28.Loisel, P., Gosselin, L., Durand, J., Poitras, S., and Abenhaim, L. (2001) Implementation of a participatory ergonomics program in the rehabilitation of workers suffering from subacute back pain. Applied Ergonomics, 32,53-60.
29.Imada, A.S. and Nagamachi, M.(1992)A macroergonimic approach for improving safety and work design. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting, 859-861.
30.L.B. de M. Guimarães , J.L.D. Ribeiro , J.S. Renner , P.A.B. de Oliveira (2014) Worker evaluation of a macroergonomic intervention in a Brazilian footwear company. Applied Ergonomics, 45,923-935.
31.勞動部勞動法令查詢系統,http://laws.mol.gov.tw/FLAW/index-1.aspx
32.勞動部,104年度研究計畫,建立作業場所人因工程簡易檢核技術
33.勞動部,103年度研究計畫,營造業勞工肌肉骨骼傷病及體力負荷調查分析研究
34.勞動部,104年度研究計畫 ,人因性危害與肌肉骨骼傷病關係研究
35.W. Patrick Neumann , Marianne Ekman , Jorgen Winkel , 2009. Integrating ergonomics into production system development – The Volvo Powertrain case. Applied Ergonomics 40, 527–537.
36.李再長,黃雪玲,李永輝,王明揚,2011,人因工程二版,華泰文化(p.379)
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top