Work place design recommendations for the pregnant worker

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-8141(96)00079-0Get rights and content

Abstract

In many workplaces and nations, changing economic conditions and social perceptions have resulted in more pregnant women staying in the work force, often to full term. The failure to recognize the special ergonomic needs of the pregnant worker results in less than efficient work performance and possibly, a health threat to the baby. A number of ergonomic risk factors in the workplace need to be addressed to ensure the health of the pregnant worker and to ensure her greatest productivity. This paper describes the most commonly identified ergonomic risk factors for pregnancy and where possible makes design recommendations for these factors that should allow the normal, healthy pregnant worker to continue to work with a minimum of risk and greatest work efficiency.


Relevance to industry

The pregnant worker is increasingly common in today's workplaces. This paper presents general design recommendations to help ensure that the pregnant worker can still perform her job safely and efficiently.

Introduction

As the percentage of females in the workforce increases, a realistic recognition of the unique needs of the pregnant worker is finally beginning to emerge. Recognition of the physical and physiological changes that occur with pregnancy and how they influence work efficiency is particularly important, for in many industries females comprise the majority of the moderate to high-skill positions, and thus represent a significant economic aspect of production which cannot always be easily or rapidly replaced. Despite legally mandated pregnancy and family leave legislation in most developed countries, there is an increasing number of women who are staying on the job well into pregnancy. There is a clear need to understand and recognize ergonomic limits present during pregnancy that may interfere with the health, safety and productivity of the pregnant worker, and design or adjust the work environment and tasks accordingly.

How industry responds to this changing workforce determines in great measure, the type of economic impact that pregnancy has on the company. Historical responses to the pregnant worker have ranged from laying her off to trying to accommodate her by transfer after the pregnancy becomes advanced. The more cost-effective response to the pregnant worker is to develop workstations and tasks beforehand that consider the physiological and anatomical changes that occur during pregnancy, and as the worker's pregnancy advances, move her into these modified workstations and job assignments as necessary.

As with most proactive design activities, the initial costs are greater. However, over the long run, this approach is more cost effective than waiting to respond until a pregnancy occurs, the worker wishes to stay with her job, the task or job has to be redesigned or the worker transferred and possibly, retrained. This paper discusses some of the primary ergonomic design issues for both proactive design and planning and in reactive re-design. No attempt is made to provide exact design criteria beyond extreme limits as there is too little accurate data. Instead, the most critical ergonomic risk factors are identified, and where possible, recommendations for each of these risk factors is described.

Section snippets

Ergonomic factors affecting the pregnant worker

The pregnant woman may be more sensitive to various ergonomic and environmental (e.g., thermal, psychological, chemical, radiological) challenges than her male and non-pregnant female counterparts. However, this is a highly controversial area. Defining what occupational factors can adversely affect a pregnant worker, and what are undesirable pregnancy outcomes as a result of exposure to these factors is difficult. Further, how simultaneous, non-occupational exposures to these stressors affect

Chemical agents-electromagnetic radiation

The role of simultaneous chemical and electromagnetic radiation exposures and undesirable outcomes in pregnancy is outside of the scope of this paper, and the interaction of these agents with any of the ergonomic stressors identified in Table 1 is far from clear (Ahlborg et al., 1990; Delpizzo, 1994; Hunt, 1978; Mamelle et al., 1984; and McDonald et al., 1988). The other environmental stressors, noise, vibration, heat, cold and wet/humid environments are suggested to have the most adverse

Human responses to hot, cold and humid environments

Hot, cold and very humid or wet environments all act on the human by modifying the ability of the body to exchange heat generated by metabolic processes with the environment by radiative, evaporative, and conductive/convective processes (Minard, 1973). In general, humans try to keep the deep body core temperature at some stable value, usually about 37°C, by modifying the blood flows to the extremities, which in turn modify heat exchange properties at the skin surface. This peripheral blood flow

Mental stress

Mental stress is a complex grouping of physical and psychological reactions that result from low variety, highly routine, highly monotonous work of either a physical or non-physical nature, or from highly intense and psychologically or emotionally demanding tasks of any type. The “frustration” and “fatigue” capacity and adverse physiological and psychological effects of such tasks on workers have long been recognized (Sharit and Salvendy, 1982), but their impact on the pregnant worker has not

Posture

Posture, as an ergonomic risk factor, refers to the body positions adopted during work. Static postures, or those positions held for extended periods of time without movement, whether sitting or standing, are particularly fatiguing for all workers, and tasks, tools and workplaces must be designed to minimize their occurrence. Standing for several hours without a significant break or chance to sit down or change posture, is a common work practice and is regularly identified as a significant risk

Work load

The amount of work that is performed, the physical work load, is consistently identified as a significant ergonomic risk factor for the pregnant worker. Aspects of the physical work load that are regularly identified as problematical are carrying heavy loads (more than 10 kg), exerting heavy forces (pushing, pulling, gripping, holding), static work loads (i.e, holding a posture or objects without motion), lifting more than 10–15 kg at rates of more than 12 to 15 lifts a day, and general “physical

Summary and final recommendations

The pregnant worker can be a valuable asset in nearly all work environments if the special changes that occur during pregnancy are recognized and her work and work environment are adjusted to accommodate her. The ability of the worker and employer to modify the work place and work environment can provide significant improvements in worker attitudes, health and productivity. It has been observed that when pregnant workers can modify their workplaces, they have lower numbers of sick days taken.

References (37)

  • I. Holmer

    Cold stress: Part I – Guidelines for the practitioner

    International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics

    (1994)
  • J.A. Paul et al.

    Pregnant women and working surface height and working surface areas for standing manual work

    Applied Ergonomics

    (1995)
  • J.D. Ramsey et al.

    Evaluation and control of hot working environments: Part I – Guidelines for the practitioner

    International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics

    (1994)
  • G. Ahlborg et al.

    Heavy lifting during pregnancy – a hazard to the fetus? A prospective study

    International Journal of Epidemiology

    (1990)
  • American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Inc. (ACGIH), 1996. Documentation of the Threshold Limit...
  • B.V. Chamberlain

    Work in pregnancy

    American Journal of Industrial Medicine

    (1993)
  • W. Chavkin

    Work and pregnancy. Review of the literature and policy discussion

    Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey

    (1986)
  • C.C. Culver et al.

    Anthropometry of seated women during pregnancy: defining a fetal region for crash protection research

    Human Factors

    (1990)
  • B. Das et al.

    The normal working area in the horizontal plane. A comparative analysis between Farley's and Squires concepts

    Ergonomics

    (1983)
  • V. Delpizzo

    Epidemiological studies of work with video display terminals and adverse pregnancy outcomes (1984–1992)

    American Journal of Industrial Medicine

    (1994)
  • L. Goulet et al.

    Association between spontaneous abortion and ergonomic factors

    Scandavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health

    (1987)
  • A.L. Hartikainen et al.

    Effect of occupational noise on the course and outcome of pregnancy

    Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health

    (1994)
  • N. Hirao et al.

    Seating for pregnant workers based on subjective symptoms and motion analysis

  • V.R. Hunt

    Work and the Health of Women

    (1978)
  • International Standards Organization (ISO), 1985. International Standard ISO2631/1: Evaluation of human exposure to...
  • International Standards Organization(ISO), 1986. International Standard ISO5349: Guidelines for the measurement and the...
  • A.P. Koemeester et al.

    Physical work load and gestation

    Occupational and Environmental Medicine

    (1995)
  • Kuhlemeier, K.V., Miller, J.M., 1977. Assessment of Deep Body Temperatures of Women in Hot Jobs. National Institute for...
  • Cited by (14)

    • Enhancing Ergonomics in Pediatric Endoscopy Training and Practice

      2023, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America
    • Special situations: Performance of endoscopy while pregnant

      2019, Techniques in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
      Citation Excerpt :

      The forces absorbed across all joints in the lower extremities can increase up to 100% during pregnancy, which can cause cartilage breakdown and pain [43,44]. Increased fluid retention in soft tissue structures is widespread throughout the body during pregnancy and is likely the result of changes in circulating hormones and increased fluid levels [45]. This fluid retention increases the risk for developing a cumulative trauma disorder such as tendinitis, tenosynovitis, or CTS when the pregnant woman engages in highly repetitive tasks involving the upper extremities [46,47].

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text