Talk:Musculoskeletal disorder

Lack of connection between I/O psychology and MSDs

I deleted the see also link to the industrial and organizational psychology page because there is little to no connection between the two topics. For example, the two volume Handbook of Industrial, Work, and Organizational Psychology doesn't even mention it in the index. The Encyclopedia of I and O Psychology has no entry on the topic. I cannot find it in the indexes of I/O textbooks by Schultz & Schultz, Riggio, Levy, Lowenberg & Conrad, Landy & Conte, or Aamodt. It is not at all clear why an MSD article reader would be directed to the I & O article.

Because work psychology and work psychologists are directly concerned with occupational stress (which is one cause of muscoskeletal disorders) as well as human factors and ergonomics.

This is your opinion. Where is your reference linking MSDs to I/O psychology?

Much research has been conducted by the institute of work psychology (IWP) for instance in the UK, and a growing interest internationally by work psychologists in the physical health outcomes, of occupational stress. This source is very specific. The minor inclusion of work psychology in the 'see also' section of this article seems relevant and justified for all of these reasons.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand your point. So one I/O psychologist wrote a paper about MSDs. How does that make the I/O article relevant? Psyc12 (talk) 02:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:SEEALSO is the policy. "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics. I have also shown the relevancy clearly above. You then asked, directly above, for a "reference linking MSDs to I/O psychology". I provided one. There are other reliable sources specific to MSDs too. That one just happened to already be in the article. Let's move on.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I also think it is okay to have both work psychology and occupational health psychology in the 'see also' section. Seems both are relevant and would enable readers to explore both tangentially related topics? But to exclude one area over the other seems very wrong to me?Mrm7171 (talk) 04:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:SEEALSO, an internal link should be relevant. As much as I appreciate i/o psychology as a discipline, it is not relevant to the problem of MSDs. The article by Sprigg et al. does not make i/o relevant to MSDs. Iss246 (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Biomechanical factors

Although psychosocial workplace factors have been found to contribute to MSDs, I think the article should put greater emphasis on biomechanical factors such as repetitive motion, heavy lifting, etc. Iss246 (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

@Atama:. This is consistent with Atama's feedback about this article. It should focus more on the disorder itself, with workplace being a source, but not only source of MSDs. Thus repetitive motion can occur in many domains of life, not only work. The carpal tunnel syndrome article is a possible model. Psyc12 (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I add this. The causes section weighs psychosocial factors more heavily than biomechanical factors. I think that it is not worthwhile to include low job satisfaction and high psychological distress as causes of MSDs. The claim that those two factors cause MDSs is speculative at best. The two factors could just be correlates of MSDs or, even, the result of MSDs. I think that among the causes biomechanical factors should be more prominently featured. Iss246 (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate it that Psyc12 deleted occupational stress from the list of causes. The term "occupational stress" too nonspecific. High job strain, which is already present in the article is more specific (low decision latitude combined with high workload).

I would like to delete psychological distress and low job satisfaction as per what I wrote above. Iss246 (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Treatments

It would be helpful to readers if the article included some evidence-based treatments. Iss246 (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Psychosocial work hazards?

I would like to delete these extended and unnecessary references and dialogue to work related psychosocial hazards. If we were to include these work related hazards we would really need to expand it much more. That would definitely not do the article any justice. We would then need to give equal weight to other causes too and expand those sections. It detracts from what a MSD actually is. It also focuses way too much on the occupational aspects and not the health. Yes, stress is one cause of MSD. Al;ready mentioned psychocial stressors/hazards above. Why over do it? Mrm7171 (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

These are the main psychosocial hazards from the workplace. There is no need to expand them. It would be good to also list some nonworkplace hazards if there are references on them. I did a search on MSD in the medical literature, and most studies talk about the workplace because that's a major source of these injuries. The article no longer focuses on occupational issues, but one cannot do the topic justice and take them out entirely. Atama did not suggest removing all the occupational content, just to refocus the article and provide more information on the nature of the disorders. Psyc12 (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This section below is what I'm talking about. It is just not needed. If included we need to balance and give due weight to other work related hazards that recent research has also identified. Why be expanding the focus on the workplace and occupational injuries? Yes, occupational stress is one cause. But adding all this extra detail, and even listing these individual psych hazards in the workplace like you have, while then omitting so many other psych hazards that should be also included psyc12, is baffling to me? Why not just delete this section? I don't get it? Reference has already been made to psychosocial factors in the article, so why overdo it with the superfluous detail?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

"High job demands.[14] Low social support[14] Low job control[14] High job strain (combination of high psychological demands and little decision latitude)[14]"