The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A biomechanical and ergonomic evaluation of patient transferring tasks: bed to wheelchair and wheelchair to bed
Abstract
A laboratory study was conducted in an effort to reduce back stress for nursing personnel while performing the patient handling tasks of transferring the patient from bed to wheelchair and wheelchair to bed. These patient handling tasks were studied using five manual techniques and three hoist-assisted techniques. The manual techniques involved one-person and two-person transfers. One manual technique involved a two-person lift of the patient under the arms; the others used a rocking and pulling action and included the use of assistive devices (a gait belt using a two-person transfer, a walking belt with handles using a one-person and a two-person transfer, and a patient handling sling with cutout areas to allow for a hand grip (Medesign) for a one-person transfer). The three mechanical hoists were Hoyer, Trans-Aid and Ambulift. Six female nursing students with prior patient transfer experience served both as nurses and as passive patients. Static biomechanical evaluation showed that pulling techniques, as compared to lifting the patient, required significantly lower hand forces and produced significantly lower erector spinae and compressive forces at the L5/S1 disc (P greater than or equal to 0.01). Shear force, trunk moments and the percentage of females who were capable of performing the transfers (based on static strength simulation) also favoured pulling methods. Perceived stress ratings for the shoulder, upper back, lower back and whole body were lower for pulling methods than those for lifting the patient (P less than or equal to 0.01). Patients found the pulling techniques, with the exception of when using the gait belt, felt more comfortable and more secure than the lifting method (P less than or equal to 0.01). However, a number of subjects believed that the patient handling sling (Medesign) and the walking belt with one person making the transfer would not work for those patients who could not bear weight and those who were heavy, contracted or combative. A walking belt with two persons was the preferred manual method. Two out of three hoists (Hoyer lift and Trans-Aid) were perceived by the nurses to be as physically stressful as manual methods. Patients found these two hoists to be more uncomfortable and felt less secure than with three of the five manual methods (one- and two-person walking belts and Medesign). Ambulift was found to be the least stressful, the most comfortable, and the most secure among all eight methods. Pulling techniques and hoists took significantly longer amounts of time to make the transfer than manually lifting the patient (P less than or equal to 0.01). The two-person walking belt using a pulling technique and Ambulift are recommended for transferring patients from bed to wheelchair and wheelchair to bed. A large-scale field study is needed to verify these recommendations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Reducing back stress to nursing personnel: an ergonomic intervention in a nursing home
GARG, A., & OWEN, B. (1992) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139208967398 · Cited by 259
Self-citationWork‐related back pain in nurses
Hignett, S. (1996) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.1996.13423.x · Cited by 256
Triolo, R. J., Bieri, C., Uhlir, J., Kobetic, R., Scheiner, A., & Marsolais, E. B. (1996) · Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1016/s0003-9993(96)90133-1 · Cited by 102
Metadata
- Authors
- GARG, A., OWEN, B., BELLER, D., & BANAAG, J.
- Venue
- Ergonomics
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1991-03
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 289-312
- ISSN
- 0014-0139 (ISSN-L)
- 1366-5847
- OpenAlex
- W1987235066
- Cited by
- 215
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A biomechanical and ergonomic evaluation of patient transferring tasks: bed to wheelchair and wheelchair to bed. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/00140139108967314
- The paper
- GARG, A., OWEN, B., BELLER, D., & BANAAG, J. (1991). A biomechanical and ergonomic evaluation of patient transferring tasks: bed to wheelchair and wheelchair to bed. Ergonomics. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139108967314
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.