Enter your email address
Submit
Write your message
Volume 10, Issue 2 (Iranian Journal of Ergonomics 2022)
Iran J Ergon 2022, 10(2): 74-80 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Mahdavi M, Sammak Amani A, Mououdi M A, Asghari H. Evaluation of Usability and Discomfort of Safety Footwear in Different Industries of Mazandaran Province. Iran J Ergon 2022; 10 (2) :74-80
URL: http://journal.iehfs.ir/article-1-894-en.html
URL: http://journal.iehfs.ir/article-1-894-en.html
1- Department of Occupational health and Safety Engineering, School of Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2- Department of Occupational Health and Safety Engineering, School of Health, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Mazandaran, Iran ,arezoo.sam76@yahoo.com
3- Department of Occupational Health and Safety Engineering, School of Health, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Mazandaran, Iran
4- Department of HSE, Occupational Health Unit of Babolsar Health Center, Mazandaran, Iran
2- Department of Occupational Health and Safety Engineering, School of Health, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Mazandaran, Iran ,
3- Department of Occupational Health and Safety Engineering, School of Health, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Mazandaran, Iran
4- Department of HSE, Occupational Health Unit of Babolsar Health Center, Mazandaran, Iran
Abstract: (4357 Views)
Objectives: Providing safety for human resources in the industry is very important. Safety shoes are one of the most common PPEs that protect the foot against potential hazards. This study aimed to evaluate the discomfort and usability of safety shoes in different industries of Mazandaran province to find gaps in the quality of design and improve the design of safety shoes.
Methods: This was a cross-sectional study and was conducted in 2021.This study included employees of 11 different industrial companies that used seven safety shoe brands. They answered two researcher-made questionnaires, LPD (discomfort and general satisfaction) and SFUQ (usability). Data analysis was performed with Spearman rank correlation coefficient while Pearson correlation coefficient, and ANOVA test were also performed.
Results: In total, 226 men with a mean age of 36.33 ± 7.4 years were included in this study. The participants reported the lowest usability for the brand G (3.3 and 3.99), and the least discomfort and the most usability index with the brand A (1.2 and 5.35). Overall, the highest satisfaction was reported for brand A and the lowest satisfaction to brand G.
Conclusion: The findings of this study showed that the main problem in comfort and usability is probably related to shoe molds because the manufacturers of safety shoes import molds from abroad that do not fit the anthropometric characteristics of Iranian users’ feet.
Methods: This was a cross-sectional study and was conducted in 2021.This study included employees of 11 different industrial companies that used seven safety shoe brands. They answered two researcher-made questionnaires, LPD (discomfort and general satisfaction) and SFUQ (usability). Data analysis was performed with Spearman rank correlation coefficient while Pearson correlation coefficient, and ANOVA test were also performed.
Results: In total, 226 men with a mean age of 36.33 ± 7.4 years were included in this study. The participants reported the lowest usability for the brand G (3.3 and 3.99), and the least discomfort and the most usability index with the brand A (1.2 and 5.35). Overall, the highest satisfaction was reported for brand A and the lowest satisfaction to brand G.
Conclusion: The findings of this study showed that the main problem in comfort and usability is probably related to shoe molds because the manufacturers of safety shoes import molds from abroad that do not fit the anthropometric characteristics of Iranian users’ feet.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Ergonomics in Design
Received: 2022/06/13 | Accepted: 2022/09/23 | ePublished: 2022/09/23
Received: 2022/06/13 | Accepted: 2022/09/23 | ePublished: 2022/09/23
References
1. International Labour Office. Introductory report: The prevention occupational diseases. Geneva, Switzerland: ILO; 2013.
2. Li WY, Goonetilleke RS. Maximum plantar pressures, their locations and their use in footwear design. Text Bioeng Informatics Symp Proceedings. 2009;1-2:264-6.
3. Khanmohammad F, Ghasemi MS, Jafari H, Hajiaghaie B, Sanjari MA. The effect of poron layered insole on ground reaction force in comparison with common insole on subjects with flexible flat foot [in Persian]. MRJ. 2012;5(4):55-63.
4. Safaei-Pour Z, Ebrahimi E, Saeedi H, Kamali M. Invesigation of dynamic plantar pressure distribution in healthy adults during standing and walking [in Persian]. Arch Rehabil. 2009;10(2):8-15.
5. Marr SJ, Quine S. Shoe concerns and foot problems of wearers of safety footwear. Occup Med (Chic Ill). 1993;43(2):73-7. [DOI] [PubMed]
6. Pinzur MS, Shields NN, Goelitz B, Slovenkai M, Kaye R, Ross SD, et al. American orthopaedic foot and ankle society shoe survey of diabetic patients. Foot Ankle Int. 1999;20(11):703-7. [DOI] [PubMed]
7. Baker CD, Walker RL. 2015 survey of occupational injuries and illnesses annual report. Boston, MA: EOLWD; 2015;p. 19.
8. Goontilleke RS. The science of footwear. 1st ed. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC press; 2017. p.65-72.
9. Herbaut A, Simoneau-Buessinger E, Barbier F, Cannard F, Guéguen N. A reliable measure of footwear upper comfort enabled by an innovative sock equipped with textile pressure sensors. Ergonomics. 2016;59(10):1327-34. [DOI] [PubMed]
10. Janson D, Newman ST, Dhokia V. Safety footwear: A survey of end-users. Appl Ergon 2021;92:103333. [DOI] [PubMed]
11. Hessert MJ, Vyas M, Leach J, Hu K, Lipsitz LA, Novak V. Foot pressure distribution during walking in young and old adults. BMC Geriatr. 2005;5:8. [DOI] [PubMed]
12. SGS. Safety footwear explained. [Online]. Available at: https://www.sgs.co.uk/en-gb/news/ 2020/02/safety-footwear; 2020.
13. Luximon A, Goonetilleke RS, Tsui KL. A fit metric for footwear customization. Proceeding of the 2001 World Congress Mass Cust Pers; 2001 Jan 1-2.
14. Karwowski W, Soares MM, Stanton NA. Human factors and ergonomics in consumer product design methods and techniques. 1st ed. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC press; 2011.
15. Lineonline. Lightweight safety shoes. [Online]. [cited 2022]. [Article]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Copyright Policy
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
