You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
Sensors
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

Published: 27 October 2022

Analysis of IoT-Related Ergonomics-Based Healthcare Issues Using Analytic Hierarchy Process Methodology

,
,
,
and
1
BM Institute of Engineering and Technology, Sonepat 131001, India
2
KIET Group of Institutions, Delhi NCR, Ghaziabad 201206, India
3
Department of Computer Engineering, College of Computer and Information Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh 11543, Saudi Arabia
4
Department of Information and Communication Engineering, Yeungnam University, Gyeongsan 38541, Korea
Sensors2022, 22(21), 8232;https://doi.org/10.3390/s22218232
This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Technologies in Sensor Networks and Internet of Things
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

The objective of the present work is for assessing ergonomics-based IoT (Internet of Things) related healthcare issues with the use of a popular multi-criteria decision-making technique named the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) is a technique that combines alternative performance across numerous contradicting, qualitative, and/or quantitative criteria, resulting in a solution requiring a consensus. The AHP is a flexible strategy for organizing and simplifying complex MCDM concerns by disassembling a compound decision problem into an ordered array of relational decision components (evaluation criteria, sub-criteria, and substitutions). A total of twelve IoT-related ergonomics-based healthcare issues have been recognized as Lumbago (lower backache), Cervicalgia (neck ache), shoulder pain; digital eye strain, hearing impairment, carpal tunnel syndrome; distress, exhaustion, depression; obesity, high blood pressure, hyperglycemia. “Distress” has proven itself the most critical IoT-related ergonomics-based healthcare issue, followed by obesity, depression, and exhaustion. These IoT-related ergonomics-based healthcare issues in four categories (excruciating issues, eye-ear-nerve issues, psychosocial issues, and persistent issues) have been compared and ranked. Based on calculated mathematical values, “psychosocial issues” have been ranked in the first position followed by “persistent issues” and “eye-ear-nerve issues”. In several industrial systems, the results may be of vital importance for increasing the efficiency of human force, particularly a human–computer interface for prolonged hours.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

Future healthcare could be more effective because to IoT. Interoperability, machine-to-machine connectivity, and data transfer enabled by IoT have increased productivity in the healthcare sector. Ergonomics is an applied science that focuses on creating and organizing the objects that people use in order to maximize the effectiveness and security of their interactions. Ergonomics can lessen the likelihood of workplace illnesses like hearing loss brought on by noise exposure at work, aches, pains, and injury to the wrists, shoulders, and back. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach is a reliable and adaptable multi criteria decision making (MCDM) tool. The AHP compares various possibilities and picks the best one using a combination of arithmetic and psychology. One such method that can combine quantitative and qualitative features while also structuring problems is the AHP. The AHP uses pairwise comparison questions to elicit judgments about the relative importance of each pair of qualities, as well as preferences for each pair of alternatives with regard to each attribute.

1.2. Problem

Ergonomic IoT-related healthcare issues are required to be identified and relatively compared. Ergonomic IoT-related healthcare issues are required to be categorized into different categories. MCDM techniques may be utilized for ranking ergonomic IoT-related healthcare issues.

1.3. Proposed Solution

It is pertinent to cause the youthful ages to achieve the skill of getting data through a few assets and usage of the got data. The trademark of Internet for everyone has been embraced by every one of the social orders meaning to turn into a data society. Instructors should give a superior chance to understudies, cause understudies to accomplish better encounters, advantage from the chances in the time of the web in learning exercises and increment their expertise in their particular discipline. Data and communication technologies are responsible for a tutor and managing in preparation of all educators and understudies’ in scholastic institutions [1]. A detailed study is needed to be focused on technical industrial growth along with human factors and ergonomics considerations in the production context, as well as computer use [2]. IoT emerged in the past decade and now we are talking about lots and lots of gadgets, machines, buildings, and more, that connect to the web for connectivity and real-time data extraction [3]. It is observed that while using IoT, individuals are neglecting physical health by ignoring some rules of ergonomics or mental health, working chaotically without a program, neglecting time management, thereby overlooking the use of proper ergonomics, increasing the risk of injury and health problems.
The presented work suggests the assessment of ergonomics based IoT related healthcare issues in four major classes: excruciating issues, eye-ear-nerve issues, psychosocial messes, and persistent problems and shows the utilization of the application of multi-criteria decision-making technique AHP for the choice and prioritization of these standards. As far as dynamic utilization of data innovation in schooling internet learning assets are quickly creating. This interaction additionally included prestigious higher instructive foundations (for example, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) [4]. Internet learning over the most recent twenty years has added to another time of instruction [5]. Internet learning application offers a wide arrangement of uses that oversee assorted kinds of media to convey professional preparation [6]. These frequently supplement conventional strategies empowering understudies to draw in from any spot with their learning through different materials rather vis-à-vis educating delivery [7].

1.4. Organization of the Paper

Section 2 outlines a review of relevant literature and recent past work has been discussed. Section 3 shows the methodology used, i.e., AHP, a popular MCDM technique, and its steps with formulae. Section 4 is devoted to a brief introduction to the work related to ergonomics-based IoT-related healthcare issues and the concerned work has been revisited. Section 5 reports the results and interpretation of the findings. Pair-wise comparison matrix and normalized pair-wise comparison matrix have been formed as per the data collected. Further criteria weights and consistency has been calculated to rank all twelve ergonomic-related issues in categories and subcategories. Finally, Section 6 provides concluding remarks on the paper and offers prospects for future work in this research.

3. Methodology

Operations research’s MCDM assesses numerous, contradictory criteria in decision-making (in daily life, business, government, medicine). A solution requiring agreement is produced by the MCDM technique, which integrates an alternative’s performance across several, conflicting, qualitative and/or quantitative criteria. The use of computational methods that combine many criteria and order of preference in evaluating and choosing the best option among many possibilities based on the desired outcome is known as the application of MCDM theory. Fuzzy decision-making strategies can successfully handle the imprecision and ambiguity that are frequently present in decision-making. The theoretical and applied facets of MCDM have been the subject of extensive research in recent years.
The AHP, a dependable MCDM tool, is a decomposition of a complicated issue into simpler parts, based upon experts’ opinions, on the premise of a pairwise matrix of comparison. For developing different priority values for all criteria, the comparison of two possible options is required to show and establish the preference [22].
The AHP method uses a consistency index to calculate consistency. The AHP allows users to examine the relative weighting of many alternatives concerning specified parameters. The AHP has found applications in a variety of sectors where prioritization or foresight is necessary. Analytic hierarchy process allows for the spontaneous evaluation of comparative bias of various criteria against particular criteria. The power of the AHP to ponder criteria and alternatives makes it an effective method for industry-based applications [23].

Analytic Hierarchy Process

The AHP is used in various aspects of life, including government policymaking, research and development, academic activities, corporate decisions, defense, and many other areas where decisions are made based on choice, preference, or prediction [24]. The AHP i.e., analytic hierarchy process is a multi-criteria decision-making technique, originally proposed by Saaty (1980) facilitating the decision-maker to solve a complicated problem [25]. The AHP approach is useful in a variety of decision-making situations because it uses a reciprocal decision matrix created from paired comparisons [26].
The AHP, having both qualitative and quantitative techniques, is instrumental in numerous applications in science and engineering [27]. The valuations are based on modest pair-wise assessments of the components, and AHP rank scales them and blends them into a cumulative hierarchy structure [28]. Determining the sample size is very crucial in the AHP method [29]. The priority vectors against measures from specified scales should be normalized by dividing their total; if two vectors become nearly the same, the AHP model’s findings indicate the model’s validation [30].
The AHP is a flexible strategy for organizing and simplifying complex MCDM concerns by disassembling a compound decision problem into an ordered array of relational decision components (evaluation criteria, sub-criteria, and substitutions). Following the identification of AHP’s hierarchy structure, the AHP can be called using the procedures below [31]. In the AHP, pair-wise comparison approaches are frequently utilized to deal with criteria decisions [32].
The AHP evaluates different criteria pairwise while preserving a measure of one parameter’s predominance over the other. The Saaty scale (1980) quantitatively grades between one and nine, with one representing equal importance and nine representing crucial importance [33]. An improved version of analytic hierarchy process has also been introduced, which can greatly minimize the number of desired comparisons, making it suitable for company benchmarking in competitive environments such as the real estate industry [21]. The AHP is an effective multi-criteria decision-making technique with multi-level structure modeling of a set of factors [34]. AHP methodology has got applications in complex problems of various disciplines like engineering, sciences, and management [35]. Multi-sensor data fusion (MDF) is one of the most often utilized techniques for extending network lifetime [36].
The AHP method is to convert the decision-based problems into a set of hierarchies, to compute criterion and sub-criterion, where all components in the hierarchy of criteria are required not to be dependent on any other component [37]. The AHP has proven to be a powerful systematic, scientific, and dependable MCDM technique that can handle a wide range of input data. It is a dissection of a complex problem into a few components and the application of experts’ perspectives to the premise of a pairwise matrix of comparison [38].
The AHP number scale, famous as the Saaty scale, is a 1 to 9 scale that represents 1 for “equal importance” and 9 for “extreme importance”. Analytic hierarchy process is the set of following steps, i.e., it is a step-by-step procedure [31]. All the steps have been mentioned below:
Step 1: Generalized pairwise comparison matrix (size n × n) (while n will be the number of components of the particular level) [n(n − 1) number of judgments will be prerequisite to complete the PWCM].
Step 2: Development of a pairwise comparison matrix (having all diagonal elements unity).
Step 3: Development of a pair-wise comparison matrix (considering the priorities of decision elements as shown in Table 1 (reciprocals are assigned automatically in each pair-wise comparison).
Table 1. Comparison scale in AHP.
Step 4: Construction of normalized pair wise comparison matrix.
Step 5: Hierarchy synthesis to determine the weights of the criteria.
Step 6: Construction of consistency calculation matrix.
Step 7: Computation of weighted sum values.
Step 8: Eigen values λ = weighted sum value/criteria weight.
Step 9: Principal Eigenvalue is the mean of all Eigenvalues λ max   = ∑   λ n .
Step 10: Consistency index is the value CI = (λmax − n)/(n − 1).
Step 11: The dominant quantum values of the random index (RI) are given in Table 2.
Table 2. Random index (RI) values for N criteria.
Step 12: CR may be calculated to ensure the consistency of pair-wise comparisons; consistency ratio CR = ; A consistent CR has a value of 0.1 or less and is acceptable; else inconsistent [36].
Table 1 shows the numeral value representation of the relative importance of issues to develop a pair-wise comparison matrix with consideration of the priorities of decision elements. Further, the reciprocals are assigned automatically in each pair-wise comparison.
Table 2 represents the numeral values of random index for a different number of issues/criteria in AHP methodology.
Table 3 shows the suggested Hierarchy for all the criteria.
Table 3. The suggested hierarchy.

4. Proposed Model

The ergonomics-based IoT-related healthcare issues have been categorized as excruciating issues, eye-ear-nerve issues, psychosocial issues, and persistent issues proposing the model in the hierarchy order. A total of twelve IoT-related ergonomics-based healthcare issues have been abbreviated from ISS1 to ISS12. To obtain the prime purpose of our developed hierarchy, which is the evaluation of IoT-related ergonomics-based healthcare issues, 12 issues are hierarchal settled in 2 levels as mentioned in Table 3.
New technical advancements have unanticipated impacts on workers and computer users from an ergonomics point of view. The literature surveyed indicated the insufficiency from the perspective of ergonomics issues [2].

4.1. Excruciating Issues

Excruciating Issues are a set of conditions influencing the muscles and joints [39,40]. These can affect back. This is typically a direct result of a helpless working stance and is related to neck pain and shoulders too [41].

4.1.1. Lumbago (Lower Backache)

Utilization of PC and stationary sitting might foster an effect on the lower backache of users, because of inappropriate postures [42]. Lower backache is experienced by PC user who needs to operate on the keyboard but in a passive form [43]. Lower backache at the same time makes impacts different muscles developing the pain [44].

4.1.2. Cervicalgia (Neck Ache)

A very solid connection between passive sitting and pain in the neck exists noticing an affirmative relationship between neck flexion with pain in the neck [45]. There is a bigger descending slant for connection along with the minor risk of issues of the neck [46].

4.1.3. Shoulder Pain

Lozano et al. [47] concluded that interactions with touch-screen tablets affect the whole shoulder system. Offensive poses (i.e., flexion and abduction) in the shoulder part are based on ergonomic issues [48]. Marcus et al. [46] observed that the inner elbow angle is the posture variable which proved an enhanced danger for Issue.

4.2. Eye-Ear-Nerve Issues

4.2.1. Digital Eye Strain

Hayes et al. [49] investigated that environmental variable is generally based on eye strain that dominantly affects personal convenience [50].

4.2.2. Hearing Impairment

Ongoing research has seen that more than globally one billion young people might be at risk for hearing impairment due to insecure listening practices [51]. There is a considerable likelihood of the development of reflexes in the internal ear [52,53].

4.2.3. Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

CTS usually comes in the scenario with a nerve compression problem [54] with feelings like numbness and pain within that concerned part of the body [55,56,57]. Thomsen et al. [54] explored that biological and mechanical considerations like repetitive odd postures enhance the danger of carpal tunnel syndrome with the enhancement of carpal tunnel stress. The pressure associated with the keyboard is a risk issue for carpal tunnel syndrome [58]. Keyboard users display a range of convenient postures [59] being movement less while typing [60]. Odd typing postures are recognized as a danger factor for the creation of CTS symptoms [61,62]. Several papers have shown that an enhanced case of carpal tunnel syndrome may be based on the greater use of the mouse of the computer [63].

4.3. Psychosocial Issues

Managing various psychosocial considerations are different from psychosocial ones. Sometimes it could be extremely difficult to address psychosocial circumstances straightforwardly [64].

4.3.1. Distress

The meaning of the word stress might be a non-particular reactive response to the stress-causing thing or person, comprising of a few physiological responses [65]. A few of the structures show that non-favorable psychosocial circumstances become a reason for the distress that is supposed to improve the danger of musculoskeletal side effects [66]. A few investigations point out the dominance of distress [67].

4.3.2. Exhaustion

To detect the sign of ergonomic issues, a survey [68] was performed to acknowledge the part of the body where computer user experiences indications of weakness [69]. Passive sitting is related to internal abdominal muscle exhaustion that may impair spinal stability [70].

4.3.3. Depression

Sedentary sitting ahead of a computer screen for several hours daily may drastically enhance the danger of depression and insomnia [71]. Depression is among the initial occupational health symptoms [72]. Studies about the dangers of computers in ergonomics-based IoT-related healthcare issues have concluded that they can also affect wellness and health.

4.4. Persistent Issues

4.4.1. Obesity

The condition is outlined by any person’s BMI. BMI, i.e., body mass index, is the ratio between mass in kilograms and square of height in meters. Continuous several hours sitting in front of screens is a component of daily life and is connected with obesity [73].

4.4.2. High Blood Pressure

Several investigations have exhibited relationships between critical web use and medical problems like high blood pressure [74]. Screen time has a clear connection with high blood pressure irrespective of the physique of any human. Hindering passive sitting with computer use (light walking or basic exercises) may effectively lessen blood pressure [75,76].

4.4.3. Hyperglycemia

American Hyperglycemia Association issued a statement in 2016 suggesting the reduction in the passive sitting of computer users [77]. The continuous number of hours of everyday computer sitting might be connected with unwell being results in hyperglycemia patients [78,79,80]. The authors in [6] showed a connection between hyperglycemia and passive sitting with the computer.

5. Results and Discussion

For validating the suggested model, a web-based Google-form questionnaire was circulated to get raw data input from a variety of respondents belonging to several spheres of life like academicians, students, computer users, medical practitioners, biotechnologists, technocrats for creating a pairwise comparison matrix for analytic hierarchy process methodology for assessment and computation of relative importance of ergonomics-based issues in online learning. A total of more than one hundred fifty responses from several parts of India have been collected through an online web-based form from experts of different age groups and professional positions. We present the development of the pairwise comparison of the IoT-related ergonomics-based healthcare issues in Table 4.
Table 4. The pair-wise comparative matrix of the IoT-related ergonomics-based healthcare issues.
Normalization of the pair-wise comparison matrix of the IoT-related ergonomics-based healthcare issues has been presented in Table 5.
Table 5. The normalized pair-wise comparison of the IoT-related ergonomics-based healthcare issues.
Criteria weights for IoT-related ergonomics-based healthcare issues have been computed and expressed in Table 6.
Table 6. The criteria weights of the IoT-related ergonomics-based healthcare issues.
Calculated values for consistency of IoT-related ergonomics-based healthcare issues have been represented in Table 7.
Table 7. The consistency calculation matrix for IoT-related ergonomics-based healthcare issues.
The computation of principal Eigenvalues for IoT-related ergonomics-based healthcare issues has been shown in Table 8.
Table 8. The calculation of the principal Eigenvalue.
The calculation of principal Eigenvalue and consistency index (AHP calculation) is:
λmax = (λ1 + λ2 + λ3 + λ4 + λ5 + λ6 + λ7 + λ8 + λ9 + λ10 + λ11 + λ12)/12 = 12.830
Consistency Index = [λmax − n]/[n − 1]
C. Index = (12.830 − 12)/(12 − 1) = 0.830/11 = 0.0755
The calculation of the consistency ratio (AHP calculation) is as below:
Consistency Ratio = Consistency Index/Random Index = 0.0755/1.535 = 0.0492 < 0.1
The consistency ratio must be a maximum of 0.1 for ensuring judgment consistency.
Table 9 depicts the priority computed using the AHP methodology and the rank of the several sub-criteria. It can be noticed that “distress” is the most dominant IoT-related ergonomics-based healthcare issue as shown in Table 9.
Table 9. Sub-criteria priority results.
Figure 1 shows the relative weight ages of all twelve issues. Lumbago is the least influential IoT-related ergonomics-based healthcare issue among the chosen set.
Figure 1. Priority (%) values of different IoT-related ergonomics-based healthcare issues.
Based upon the numerical values indicated in Table 10, psychosocial issues got the first rank, and the second rank was achieved by persistent issues.
Table 10. Criteria priorities results.
As shown in Figure 2, excruciating issues are the least influencing category followed by the eye-ear-nerve issues category.
Figure 2. Category wise influence in IoT-related ergonomics-based healthcare issues.
The outcome of the work by some of the similar efforts has been summarized in Table 11 below.
Table 11. Comparison of our work with some recent contributions.

6. Conclusions

6.1. Concluding Remarks

The presented research work has developed an MCDM system for assessing IoT-related ergonomics-based healthcare issues by applying AHP technology. A total of twelve IoT-related ergonomics-based healthcare issues have been recognized and distress has proven itself the most critical IoT-related ergonomics-based healthcare issue, followed by obesity, depression, and exhaustion. These IoT-related ergonomics-based healthcare issues are in four categories, out of those, “psychosocial issues” has been ranked first, followed by “persistent issues” and “eye-ear-nerve issues”.

6.2. Limitations

The future scope of work can be the development of a similar structure with the application of other MCDM techniques available like TOPSIS (a technique for order performance by similarity to ideal solution), decision making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL), etc. Further work may be for developing a similar model with the application of other multiple-criteria decision-making methods. Modern MCDM techniques can be utilized to deal with complicated issues related to ergonomics.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.K.U. and A.N.; methodology, H.K.U. and A.N.; software, S.J. and G.M.; validation, A.N. and N.A.A.; formal analysis, H.K.U., S.J., G.M. and A.N.; investigation, H.K.U., A.N. and N.A.A.; resources, S.J. and G.M.; data curation, A.N. and N.A.A.; writing—original draft preparation, H.K.U., S.J. and A.N.; writing—review and editing, G.M. and N.A.A.; supervision, S.J. and G.M.; project administration, G.M.; funding acquisition, G.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The work is funded by Researchers Supporting Project number (RSP-2021/34), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors extend their appreciation to Researchers Supporting Project number (RSP-2021/34), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abachi, H.; Muhammad, G. The impact of m-learning technology on students and educators. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 30, 491–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Reiman, A.; Kaivo-Oja, J.; Parviainen, E.; Takala, E.-P.; Lauraeus, T. Human factors and ergonomics in manufacturing in the industry 4.0 context-A scoping review. Technol. Soc. 2021, 65, 101572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Negulescu, O.; Doval, E. Ergonomics and time management in remote working from home. Acta Tech. Napoc. Ser. Appl. Math. Mech. Eng. 2021, 64, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  4. Lavrov, E.; Kupenko, O.; Lavryk, T.; Barchenko, N. Organizational Approach to the Ergonomic Examination of E-Learning Modules. Informatics Educ. 2013, 12, 105–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Shorfuzzaman, M.; Hossain, M.S.; Nazir, A.; Muhammad, G.; Alamri, A. Harnessing the power of big data analytics in the cloud to support learning analytics in mobile learning environment. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2018, 92, 578–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Aladwani, A.; Palvia, P. Developing and validating an instrument for measuring user-perceived web quality. Inf. Manag. 2002, 39, 467–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Guri-Rosenblit, S. Eight paradoxes in the implementation process of e-learning in higher education. Distances Savoirs 2006, 4, 155–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Muhammad, G.; Alshehri, F.; Karray, F.; El Saddik, A.; Alsulaiman, M.; Falk, T. A comprehensive survey on multimodal medical signals fusion for smart healthcare systems. Inf. Fusion 2021, 76, 355–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Rad, D.; Demeter, E. Youth Sustainable Healthcare. Postmod. Open. Deschid. 2019, 10, 104–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Islam, M.; Nooruddin, S.; Karray, F.; Muhammad, G. Human activity recognition using tools of convolutional neural networks: A state of the art review, data sets, challenges, and future prospects. Comput. Biol. Med. 2022, 149, 03274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Widdicks, K. When the Good Turns Ugly: Speculating Next Steps for Digital Wellbeing Tools. In Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society, Tallinn, Estonia, 25–29 October 2020; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  12. MongeRoffarello, A.; De Russis, L. The Race towards Healthcare: Issues and Opportunities. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Glasgow Scotland, UK, 4–9 May 2019; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  13. Giraldo-Luque, S.; Afanador, P.A.; Fernández-Rovira, C. The Struggle for Human Attention: Between the Abuse of Social Media and Digital Wellbeing. Healthcare 2020, 8, 497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Oyebode, O.; Ndulue, C.; Mulchandani, D.; Adib, A.A.Z.; Alhasani, M.; Orji, R. Tailoring Persuasive and Behaviour Change Systems Based on Stages of Change and Motivation. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Yokohama, Japan, 8–13 May 2021; pp. 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Monge Roffarello, A.; De Russis, L. Towards Multi-Device Digital Self-Control Tools. In Proceedings of the IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Bari, Italy, 30 August–3 September 2021; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 122–131. [Google Scholar]
  16. Lyngs, U.; Lukoff, K.; Slovak, P.; Binns, R.; Slack, A.; Inzlicht, M.; Van Kleek, M.; Shadbolt, N. Self-Control in Cyberspace: Applying Dual Systems Theory to a Review of Digital Self-Control Tools. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Glasgow Scotland, UK, 4–9 May 2019; pp. 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  17. Benmoussa, K.; Laaziri, M.; Khoulji, S.; Kerkeb, M.L.; El Yamami, A. AHP-based Approach for Evaluating Ergonomic Criteria. Procedia Manuf. 2019, 32, 856–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ayyildiz, E.; Gumus, A.T. A novel distance learning ergonomics checklist and risk evaluation methodology: A case of COVID-19 pandemic. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 2021, 31, 397–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ilias, A.; Baidi, N.; Ghani, E.; Razali, F. Issues on the use of online learning: An exploratory study among university students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Univers. J. Educ. Res. 2020, 8, 5092–5105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Karuppiah, K.; Sankaranarayanan, B.; Ali, S.M.; Kabir, G. Role of Ergonomic Factors Affecting Production of Leather Garment-Based SMEs of India: Implications for Social Sustainability. Symmetry 2020, 12, 1414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Foteinopoulos, P.; Papacharalampopoulos, A.; Stavropoulos, P. Block-based Analytical Hierarchy Process applied for the evaluation of Construction Sector Additive Manufacturing. Procedia CIRP 2019, 81, 950–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wolnowska, A.; Konicki, W. Multi-criterial analysis of oversize cargo transport through the city, using the AHP method. Transp. Res. Procedia 2019, 39, 614–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mayo, F.; Taboada, E.B. Ranking factors affecting public transport mode choice of commuters in an urban city of a developing country using analytic hierarchy process: The case of Metro Cebu, Philippines. Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect. 2019, 4, 100078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bhushan, N.; Rai, K. Strategic Decision Making: Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  25. Al-Husain, R.; Khorramshahgol, R. Incorporating analytical hierarchy process and goal programming to design responsive and efficient supply chains. Oper. Res. Perspect. 2020, 7, 100149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Alonso, J.A.; Lamata, M.T. Consistency in the analytic hierarchy process: A new approach. Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzziness Knowl. Based Syst. 2006, 14, 445–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Leal, J.E. AHP-express: A simplified version of the analytical hierarchy process method. MethodsX 2019, 7, 100748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Sinuany-Stern, Z.; Israeli, Y.; Bar-Eli, M. Application of the analytic hierarchy process for the evaluation of basketball teams. Int. J. Sport Manag. Mark. 2006, 1, 193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Upadhyay, H.; Juneja, A.; Juneja, S.; Gupta, D. AHP-based evaluation of critical barriers for social distancing in India during COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Netw. Virtual Organ. 2021, 25, 286–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Whitaker, R. Validation examples of the Analytic Hierarchy Process and Analytic Network Process. Math. Comput. Model. 2007, 46, 840–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ng, C.Y.; Chuah, K.B. Evaluation of design alternatives’ environmental performance using AHP and ER approaches. IEEE Syst. J. 2013, 8, 1185–1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kou, G.; Ergu, D.; Chen, Y.; Lin, C. Pairwise comparison matrix in multiple criteria decision making. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2016, 22, 738–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lima, E.; Gorski, E.; Loures, E.F.; Santos, E.A.P.; Deschamps, F. Applying machine learning to AHP multicriteria decision making method to assets prioritization in the context of industrial maintenance 4.0. IFAC Pap. 2019, 52, 2152–2157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Juneja, S.; Juneja, A.; Anand, R. Healthcare 4.0-digitizing healthcare using big data for performance improvisation. J. Comput. Theor. Nanosci. 2020, 17, 4408–4410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Uppal, M.; Gupta, D.; Juneja, S.; Dhiman, G.; Kautish, S. Cloud-Based Fault Prediction Using IoT in Office Automation for Improvisation of Health of Employees. J. Heal. Eng. 2021, 2021, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. De Farias, C.M.; Pirmez, L.; Delicato, F.C.; Pires, P.F.; Guerrieri, A.; Fortino, G.; Cauteruccio, F.; Terracina, G. A Multisensor Data Fusion Algorithm Using the Hidden Correlations in Multiapplication Wireless Sensor Data Streams. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 14th International Conference on Networking, Sensing and Control (ICNSC), Calabria, Italy, 16–18 May 2017; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 96–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Messaoudi, D.; Settou, N.; Negrou, B.; Rahmouni, S.; Settou, B.; Mayou, I. Site selection methodology for the wind-powered hydrogen refueling station based on AHP-GIS in Adrar, Algeria. Energy Procedia 2019, 162, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Monga, C.; Gupta, D.; Prasad, D.; Juneja, S.; Muhammad, G.; Ali, Z. Sustainable Network by Enhancing Attribute-Based Selection Mechanism Using Lagrange Interpolation. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Saaty, R.W. The analytic hierarchy process—What it is and how it is used. Math. Model. 1987, 9, 161–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Jensen, C.; Ryholt, C.U.; Burr, H.; Villadsen, E.; Christensen, H. Work-related psychosocial, physical and individual factors associated with musculoskeletal symptoms in computer users. Work Stress 2002, 16, 107–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Moom, R.K.; Sing, L.P.; Moom, N. Prevalence of Musculoskeletal Disorder among Computer Bank Office Employees in Punjab (India): A Case Study. Procedia Manuf. 2015, 3, 6624–6631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Korpinen, L.; Pääkkönen, R.; Gobba, F. Self-reported ache, pain, or numbness in hip and lower back and use of computers and cell phones amongst Finns aged 18–65. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2015, 48, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mozafari, A.; Vahedian, M.; Mohebi, S.; Najafi, M. Prevalence and risk factors of Musculoskeletal Disorders among official workers in Qom. Afinidad 2014, 80, 567. [Google Scholar]
  44. Sharan, D.; Parijat, P.; Sasidharan, A.P.; Ranganathan, R.; Mohandoss, M.; Jose, J. Workstyle Risk Factors for Work Related Musculoskeletal Symptoms Among Computer Professionals in India. J. Occup. Rehabil. 2011, 21, 520–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ariens, G.A.M.; Bongers, P.M.; Douwes, M.; Miedema, M.C.; Hoogendoorn, W.E.; van der Wal, G.; Bouter, L.M.; van Mechelen, W. Are neck flexion, neck rotation, and sitting at work risk factors for neck pain? Results of a prospective cohort study. Occup. Environ. Med. 2001, 58, 200–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Gerr, F.; Marcus, M.; Ensor, C.; Kleinbaum, D.; Cohen, S.; Ma, A.E.; Gentry, E.; Ortiz, D.J.; Monteilh, C. A prospective study of computer users: I. Study design and incidence of musculoskeletal symptoms and disorders. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2002, 41, 221–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lozano, C.; Jindrich, D.; Kahol, K. The Impact on Musculoskeletal System during Multitouch Tablet Interactions. In Proceedings of the Sigchi Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 7–12 May 2011; pp. 825–828. [Google Scholar]
  48. Punnett, L.; Bergqvist, U. Visual display unit work and upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders. Stockh. Natl. Inst. Work. Life 1997, 16, 997. [Google Scholar]
  49. Hayes, J.; Sheedy, J.; Stelmack, J.; Heaney, C. Computer use, symptoms, and quality of life. Optom Vis Sci. 2007, 84, 738–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Ali, Z.; Elamvazuthi, I.; Alsulaiman, M.; Muhammad, G. Detection of Voice Pathology using Fractal Dimension in a Multiresolution Analysis of Normal and Disordered Speech Signals. J. Med Syst. 2015, 40, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Della Casa, E.; Helbling, J.; Meichtry, A.; Luomajoki, H.; Kool, J. Head-Eye movement control tests in patients with Persistent Cervicalgia: Inter-observer reliability and discriminative validity. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2014, 15, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Werner, R.A.; Andary, M. Carpal tunnel syndrome: Pathophysiology and clinical neurophysiology. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2002, 113, 1373–1381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Altaheri, H.; Muhammad, G.; Alsulaiman, M.; Amin, S.U.; Altuwaijri, G.A.; Abdul, W.; Bencherif, M.A.; Faisal, M. Deep learning techniques for classification of electroencephalogram (EEG) motor imagery (MI) signals: A review. Neural Comput. Appl. 2021, 1–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Thomsen, J.F.; Gerr, F.; Atroshi, I. Carpal tunnel syndrome and the use of computer mouse and keyboard: A systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2008, 9, 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Feuerstein, M.; Armstrong, T.; Hickey, P.; Lincoln, A. Computer keyboard force and upper extremity symptoms. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 1997, 39, 1144–1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Simoneau, G.; Marklin, R.; Monroe, J. Wrist and forearm postures of users of conventional computer key-boards. Hum. Factors 1999, 41, 413–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Baker, N.A.; Cham, R.; Cidboy, E.H.; Cook, J.; Redfern, M.S. Kinematics of the fingers and hands during computer keyboard use. Clin. Biomech. 2007, 22, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Simoneau, G.G.; Marklin, R.W. Effect of computer keyboard slope and height on wrist extension angle. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 2001, 43, 287–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Karlqvist, L.K.; Hagberg, M.; Köster, M.; Wenemark, M.; Anell, R. Musculoskeletal Symptoms among Computer assisted Design (CAD) Operators and Evaluation of a Self-assessment Questionnaire. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Heal. 1996, 2, 185–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Laitinen, H.; Saari, J.; Kivistö, M.; Rasa, P.-L. Improving physical and psychosocial working conditions through a participatory ergonomic process A before-after study at an engineering workshop. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 1998, 21, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Frank, J.W.; Pulcins, I.R.; Kerr, M.S.; Shannon, H.S.; Stansfeld, S.A. Occupational back pain—An unhelpful polemic. Scand. J. Work. Environ. Health 1995, 21, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Serranheira, F.; Pereira, M.; Silva Santos, C.; Cabrita, M. Auto-referência de sintomas de lesões musculo-esqueleticas ligadas ao trabalho LMELT numa grande empresa em Portugal. Rev. Port. Saúde Pública 2003, 21, 37–47. [Google Scholar]
  63. Wongngam, P.; Rajaratnam, B.; Janwantanakul, P. Internal oblique and transversusabdominis muscle Exhaustion in-duced by slumped sitting posture after 1 hour of sitting in office workers. Saf. Health Work. 2016, 7, 49–54. [Google Scholar]
  64. Alshehri, F.; Muhammad, G. A Comprehensive Survey of the Internet of Things (IoT) and AI-Based Smart Healthcare. IEEE Access 2020, 9, 3660–3678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Homer, A.; Owen, N.; Dunstan, D. Too much sitting and dysglycemia: Mechanistic links and implications for obesity. Curr. Opin. Endocr. Metab. Res. 2019, 4, 42–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Dempsey, P.; Sacre, J.; Owen, N.; Straznicky, N.; Cohen, N.; Kingwell, B.; Dunstan, D. Interrupting prolonged sitting reduces resting blood pressure in adults with type 2 diabetes. Hear. Lung Circ. 2015, 24, S127–S128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  67. Colberg, S.; Sigal, R.; Yardley, J.; Riddell, M.; Dunstan, D.; Dempsey, P. Physical Activity/Exercise and Hyperglycemia: A Position Statement of the American Hyperglycemia. Assoc. Hyperglycemia Care 2016, 39, 2065–2079. [Google Scholar]
  68. Dempsey, P.C.; Dunstan, D.W.; Larsen, R.N.; Lambert, G.W.; Kingwell, B.A.; Owen, N. Prolonged uninterrupted sitting increases fatigue in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pr. 2017, 135, 128–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Pant, S.; Kumar, A.; Ram, M.; Klochkov, Y.; Sharma, H. Consistency Indices in Analytic Hierarchy Process: A Review. Mathematics 2022, 10, 1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Bargueño, D.R.; Salomon, V.A.P.; Marins, F.A.S.; Palominos, P.; Marrone, L.A. State of the Art Review on the Analytic Hierarchy Process and Urban Mobility. Mathematics 2021, 9, 3179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Juneja, S.; Dhiman, G.; Kautish, S.; Viriyasitavat, W.; Yadav, K. A Perspective Roadmap for IoMT-Based Early Detection and Care of the Neural Disorder, Dementia. J. Healthc. Eng. 2021, 2021, 6712424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Anand, R.; Sindhwani, N.; Juneja, S. Cognitive Internet of Things, Its Applications, and Its Challenges: A Survey. In Harnessing the Internet of Things (IoT) for a Hyper-Connected Smart World; Apple Academic Press, 2022; pp. 91–113. [Google Scholar]
  73. Mittal, S.; Bansal, A.; Gupta, D.; Juneja, S.; Turabieh, H.; Elarabawy, M.M.; Sharma, A.; Bitsue, Z.K. Using Identity-Based Cryptography as a Foundation for an Effective and Secure Cloud Model for E-Health. Comput. Intell. Neurosci. 2022, 2022, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Juneja, S.; Juneja, A.; Dhankhar, A.; Jain, V. IoT-Enabled Effective Healthcare Monitoring System Using Semantic Web. Semant. Web Eff. Healthc. 2021, 175–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Sharma, S.; Gupta, K.; Gupta, D.; Juneja, S.; Turabieh, H.; Sharma, S. SWOT: A Hybrid Hardware-Based Approach for Robust Fault-Tolerant Framework in a Smart Day Care. Secur. Commun. Netw. 2022, 2022, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Uppal, M.; Gupta, D.; Juneja, S.; Sulaiman, A.; Rajab, K.; Rajab, A.; Elmagzoub, M.A.; Shaikh, A. Cloud-Based Fault Prediction for Real-Time Monitoring of Sensor Data in Hospital Environment Using Machine Learning. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Iwendi, C.; Maddikunta, P.K.R.; Gadekallu, T.R.; Lakshmanna, K.; Bashir, A.K.; Piran, J. A metaheuristic optimization approach for energy efficiency in the IoT networks. Softw. Pract. Exp. 2020, 51, 2558–2571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Wang, W.; Xu, H.; Alazab, M.; Gadekallu, T.R.; Han, Z.; Su, C. Blockchain-Based Reliable and Efficient Certificateless Signature for IIoT Devices. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2021, 18, 7059–7067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Maddikunta, P.K.R.; Gadekallu, T.R.; Kaluri, R.; Srivastava, G.; Parizi, R.M.; Khan, M.S. Green communication in IoT networks using a hybrid optimization algorithm. Comput. Commun. 2020, 159, 97–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Alazab, M.; Lakshmanna, K.; Pham, Q.; Reddy Maddikunta, P. Multi-objective cluster head selection using fitness averaged rider optimization algorithm for IoT networks in smart cities. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2021, 43, 100973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
Experimental Study on Magnetic Coupling Piezoelectric–Electromagnetic Composite Galloping Energy Harvester
Previous
Data-Driven Non-Linear Current Controller Based on Deep Symbolic Regression for SPMSM
Next