Volume 22, Issue 3 (Aug - Sep 2018)                   J Qazvin Univ Med Sci 2018, 22(3): 68-76 | Back to browse issues page


XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Jafarvand M, Varmazyar S, Hematgar M A, Rezapour M. Evaluation the fitness of anthropometric dimensions of students the best-selling laptop desks . J Qazvin Univ Med Sci. 2018; 22 (3) :68-76
URL: http://journal.qums.ac.ir/article-1-2467-en.html
School of Health, Qazvin University of Medical Sciences, Qazvin, Iran , Svarmazyar@qums.ac.ir
Abstract:   (235 Views)

Background: The fitness of laptop desks (sitting cross-legged) with physical dimensions of users have important role in using with correct posture and reduce the prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders.
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the fitness of anthropometric dimensions of students with best-selling laptop desks.
Methods: In this study, 207 students (girls and boys) from Qazvin University of Medical Sciences were investigated. In addition to height and weight, anthropometric dimensions including; elbow height (sitting), elbow-elbow breadth, two knee length and height (sitting position cross-legged) and elbow-fingertips length were measured. Then percent of the fitness between the laptop desks with anthropometric dimensions obtained.
Findings: The results showed that the two types of laptops desks fit only in the length of the desk. Two knee length and height (sitting position cross-legged), elbow - fingertips length and elbow height (sitting) fit in the desk number one 32.4, 98.5, 0, and 93.7% and in the desk number two 61.8, 0.96, 0.5, and 78.3% respectively.
Conclusion: It had a 100% fitness only in length of the table with anthropometric dimensions of students between two types of laptop desks. However in terms of fitness, the desk number one with the highest percentage in three anthropometric dimensions was better than the desk number two.

Full-Text [PDF 162 kb]   (75 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Occupational Health Engineering

References
1. Shokoohi H, Khoshroo M. Fitness measurement of the combat troops to prevent the skeleton and muscular disorders due to inappropriate design of the military equipments. Annals Miltary Health Sci Res 2011; 9(3): 172-7. [In Persian]
2. Hough R, Nel M. Time and space dimensions of computer laptop use amongst third year students of the University of the Free State. S Afr J Occup Ther 2016; 46(1): 27-32. [DOI]
3. Sauer J, Wiese BS, Rüttinger B. Improving ecological performance of electrical consumer products: the role of design-based measures and user variables. Appl Ergon 2002; 33(4): 297-307. [DOI] [PubMed]
4. Motamedzadeh M, Hassan Beigi MR, Choobineh AR, Mahjoob H. Design and development of an ergonomic chair for Iranian office workers. J Zanjan Univ Med Sci 2009; 17(68): 45-52. [In Persian]
5. Dianat I, Haslegrave CM, Stedmon AW. Design options for improving protective gloves for industrial assembly work. Appl Ergon 2014; 45(4): 1208-17. [DOI] [PubMed]
6. Ghaderi E, Maleki A, Dianat I. Design of combine harvester seat based on anthropometric data of Iranian operators. Int J Ind Ergonom 2014; 44(6): 810-6. [DOI]
7. Heidarimoghadam R, Motamedzade M, Roshanaei G, Ahmadi R. Match between school furniture dimensions and children's anthropometric dimensions in male elementary schools. J Ergon 2014; 2(1): 9-18. [In Persian]
8. Mahoney JM, Kurczewski NA, Froede EW. Design method for multi-user workstations utilizing anthropometry and preference data. Appl Ergon 2015; 46 Pt A: 60-6. [DOI] [PubMed]
9. Soares MM. Translating user needs into product design for the disabled: an ergonomic approach. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 2012; 13(1): 92-120. [DOI]
10. Daneshmandi H, Isanezhad A. The proportion of the equipments used by students and ergonomic standards and their anthropometrical characteristics. Research on Sport Science 2005; 3(7): 73-90.
11. Choobineh AR, Rahimi Fard H, Jahangiri M, Mahmood Khani S. Musculoskeletal injuries and their associated risk factors in office work. Iran Occup Health 2012; 8(4): 70-81. [In Persian]
12. Jamjumrus N, Nanthavanij S. Ergonomic intervention for improving work postures during notebook computer operation. J Hum Ergol (Tokyo) 2008; 37(1): 23-33. [DOI] [PubMed]
13. Moras R, Gamarra T. A survey of ergonomic issues associated with a university laptop program. J Edu Human Dev 2007; 1(2): 1-15.
14. Shokri S, Qhalenoy M, Taban E, Ahmadi O, Kouhnavard B. Evaluation of prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders among students using portable computer in faculty of health, Qazvin University of Medical Sciences. J Health Res Community 2015; 1(3): 9-15. [In Persian]
15. Jafarvand M, Marandi N, Varmazyar S, Mohammadi E. Investigation of student's satisfaction from the laptop desks using satisfaction questionnaire. J Qazvin Univ Med Sci 2018; 22(1) :52-60. [In Persian]
16. Bowman PJ, Braswell KD, Cohen JR, Funke JL, Landon HL, Martinez PI, et al. Benefits of laptop computer ergonomics education to graduate students. Open J Therapy and Rehabilitation 2014; 2(1): 25-32. [DOI]
17. Jalil S, Nanthavanij S. Analytical algorithms for ergonomic seated posture when working with notebook computers. Industrial Engineering and Management Systems 2007; 6(2): 146-57.
18. Berkhout AL, Hendriksson-Larsen K, Bongers P. The effect of using a laptopstation compared to using a standard laptop PC on the cervical spine torque, perceived strain and productivity. Appl Ergon 2004; 35(2): 147-52. [DOI] [PubMed]
19. Straker L, Jones KJ, Miller J. A comparison of the postures assumed when using laptop computers and desktop computers. Appl Ergon 1997; 28(4): 263-8. [DOI] [PubMed]
20. Sommerich CM, Starr H, Smith CA, Shivers C. Effects of notebook computer configuration and task on user biomechanics, productivity, and comfort. Int J Ind Ergon 2002; 30(1): 7-31. [DOI]
21. Moffet H, Hagberg M, Hansson-Risberg E, Karlqvist L. Influence of laptop computer design and working position on physical exposure variables. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2002; 17(5): 368-75. [DOI]
22. Straker L, Pollock C, Burgess-Limerick R, Skoss R, Coleman J. The impact of computer display height and desk design on muscle activity during information technology work by young adults. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2008; 18(4): 606-17. [DOI] [PubMed]
23. Sohrabi MS, Aliari S, Keshavarz Z, Alijani S, Torkzadeh F, Aghaee R. Design and Development of an Ergonomic Kharak by using students' anthropometric characteristics of Isfahan University of Art. J Health Syst Res 2014; 9(12): 1301-10. [In Persian]
24. Zarei F, Rajaei B, Nikpey A, Varmazyar S, Safari-Variani A. Review the proportion of university seats with body dimensions of students at the School of Public Health of Qazvin University of Medical Sciences in 1388. Iran Occup Health 2011; 8(3): 39-47. [In Persian]
25. Ghofrani M, Noori H, Roshan bakhsh Yazdi A. Assessing the appropriateness of educational furniture with body size of students in Yazd. J Ergon 2014; 2(3): 77-87. [In Persian]
26. Sharifi Z, Osqueizadeh R, Tabatabai Ghomshe F. Ergonomic redesign of industrial chair. J Ergon 2015; 3(1): 1-9. [In Persian]
27. Tirgar A, Aghalari Z, Salari F. Musculoskeletal disorders and awareness of ergonomic considerations in computer use among medical sciences students. J Ergon 2014; 1(3): 55-64. [In Persian]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA code

Send email to the article author


© 2018 All Rights Reserved | The Journal of Qazvin University of Medical Sciences

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb