A Comprehensive Evaluation of Job Rotation: Biomechanical Risk, Body Discomfort, and Psychosocial Demands

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of a large set of specific job rotation schemes in reducing the risk of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) to workers.BackgroundJob rotation is one of the administrative controls promoted to reduce MSD risk, yet its effectiveness remains uncertain.MethodsThis study evaluated 82 job rotation schemes using ergonomic assessment tools: the Distal Upper Extremity Tool (DUET), the Lifting Fatigue Failure Tool (LiFFT), and The Shoulder Tool (TST), along with surveys assessing body discomfort and psychosocial demands. Outcomes were compared across individual jobs and the entire rotation scheme.ResultsMSD risk was similar across rotation schemes, regardless of the number of jobs in the rotation scheme and the position of the job within the rotation scheme. The risk associated with the overall job rotation scheme was found to exceed the sum of the individual jobs. Significant correlations were found between risk outcomes and body discomfort (DUET: hands and elbows, LiFFT: hips and back, and TST: shoulders). Psychosocial demands, particularly perceived effort, physical demand, and mental workload, increased with the number of jobs in the rotation scheme and were correlated with discomfort.ConclusionThis study revealed several important and unanticipated insights regarding job rotation practices, including: (1) most sites did not implement standardized rotation schemes, (2) MSD risk was not the only consideration in designing these rotation schemes, even though several companies had conducted ergonomic assessments, and (3) caution should be exercised when considering the broad adoption of job rotation as an administrative control.ApplicationJob rotation effectiveness hinges on balancing the risk across multiple body regions and minimizing the number of medium to high-risk jobs. This likely requires a trained ergonomist to identify jobs that provide adequate rest for different muscle groups, rather than merely meeting productivity demands.