You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
COVID
  • Article
  • Open Access

31 December 2025

Application of the ROSA Method for Evaluating Ergonomic Risk in University Students in Mexico During Remote Learning Due to COVID-19

,
,
,
,
and
1
Ecología, Universidad Estatal de Sonora, Hermosillo 83100, Sonora, Mexico
2
Ingeniería Ambiental, Universidad Estatal de Sonora, Hermosillo 83100, Sonora, Mexico
3
Nutrición Humana, Universidad Estatal de Sonora, Hermosillo 83100, Sonora, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
COVID2026, 6(1), 9;https://doi.org/10.3390/covid6010009 
(registering DOI)
This article belongs to the Section COVID Public Health and Epidemiology

Abstract

It is imperative that society becomes aware of ergonomic risks, not only in an occupational place but also in everyday contexts where they can go unnoticed, such as the educational sector, and in the specific case of students. To identify this risk, an ergonomic assessment was conducted on students in Mexico during remote learning due to COVID-19. To this end, a survey was applied, and the ROSA (Rapid Office Strain Assessment) method was used. According to the survey results, the students reported adopting inappropriate postures during online classes and suffering from musculoskeletal pains. Furthermore, they showed a strong interest in learning about ergonomics and improving their postures. In addition, the application of the ROSA method yielded a significant result 60% of the evaluated students are at high or very high ergonomic risk. Regardless of their profession, ergonomics should be integrated as part of educational programs. This measure would help prevent musculoskeletal disorders once students transition into their respective work environments.

1. Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic forced university students to rapidly adapt to new educational initiatives, which have resulted in dramatic increases in occupational computer use. The proliferation of portable devices (i.e., laptops, tablets) and the maturation of conferencing software have made it a viable option to attend any class or activity [1]. This trend in computer usage has been associated with an increase in musculoskeletal disorders and other symptoms [2].
Related to ergonomic risk, “the occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors is defined as occupational exposure to one or more of force exertion, demanding, posture, repetitive movement, hand-arm vibration, kneeling or squatting, lifting, and climbing” [3]. Additionally, musculoskeletal disorders are presented according to the workers’ postures and the movements they perform in their workplace [4].
In this context, the musculoskeletal system plays a relevant role in physiological health, as it supports the body’s movements and posture. However, as part of ergonomic risks, musculoskeletal disorders can be generated as a group of inflammatory or degenerative diseases affecting various parts of the body, such as the neck, back, arms, and legs [5].
The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labor Organization (ILO) attribute the burden of osteoarthritis and other musculoskeletal diseases to occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors [6]. The use of computers, laptops, and tablets in the workspace has been documented since the 1980s, and with the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of people working from home has increased exponentially [7]. Risk factors of computer equipment use are: (1) hands and wrists [8,9,10], (2) head and neck, and (3) shoulder, elbow, and lower back [11].
During the COVID-19 pandemic, teachers and students started experimenting with virtual classes, and rapidly, this new virtual learning through videoconferencing operated entirely in every school environment. However, most students did not have adequate space, dedicated to an ideal home office [12]. Under these conditions, teachers and students are prone to a negative experience, such as neck pain, lower back pain, and shoulder pain, all ergonomic risk factors associated with musculoskeletal disorders [13].
The RULA method (Rapid Upper Limb Assessment) was created to evaluate ergonomic risk and identify postures that can lead to musculoskeletal disorders [14]. RULA evaluates neck, trunk, upper limb postures, muscle functions, and the loads experienced by the body [15]. However, the RULA method does not consider the quality of the workstation setup. In this context, the Rapid Office Strain Assessment (ROSA) method was developed specifically to evaluate office work and musculoskeletal disorder risk factors [16]. The ROSA method evaluates body positioning and considers how the individual interacts with their office equipment [16].
The ROSA method was selected for this study because it can make a rapid assessment with urgent action steps if necessary, and it can be applicable where people sit in a chair, at a desk, and operate a computer with a screen. These activities are closely related to the academic practices that the students perform. Additionally, the ROSA method has been used to evaluate ergonomic risk in the academic field [17,18,19,20].
In addition, several studies have been conducted worldwide evaluating ergonomic risk in universities, involving teachers and/or students who are exposed to ergonomic risks during their academic activities. Table 1. Summary of the literature review of ergonomic risk factors in the academic field, showing a recent increase in ergonomics research within the education sector.
Table 1. Summary of the literature found on ergonomic risk factors in the academic field.
In this study, we used a survey to evaluate ergonomic risk factors in university students exposed to virtual classes during the COVID-19 pandemic. The high frequency of ergonomic risk factors associated with the computer equipment during virtual classes indicates a need to propose a plan of recommendations to improve postures and provide strategies to improve and lower the intensity of symptoms and minimize disability during virtual scholar activities.

2. Materials and Methods

Study design: a quantitative study with an observational and cross-sectional design was conducted to assess ergonomic risk among university students in Mexico during the COVID-19 remote learning period. The analysis was primarily descriptive to identify baseline patterns and trends for future large-scale research. This methodological approach was necessitated by the logistical and financial constraints of the pandemic, which limited the sample size and precluded inferential analysis.
Data was collected through surveys and an evaluation of the risk assessment for the students. The research was divided into two stages: (1) apply an inquiry to the students, (2) perceive the main muscle discomfort in students (ROSA method).
Participants and sampling: the study was conducted by identifying all academic programs offered by the university. Subsequently, four programs were selected through a convenience sampling method to facilitate the application of data collection instruments and ensure operational feasibility, given the logistical constraints inherent to the study context. For stage 1, a statistically representative survey was applied with 95% reliability and a maximum allowed error (α) of 0.05. The calculation resulted in a required sample of 280 students. It is important to mention that in this study, 289 students were evaluated with the survey, and it was applied in order to assess the students’ opinion about the ergonomic risk they consider themselves exposed to during remote learning due to COVID-19.
For stage 2, a control group was selected in order to compare the data information obtained from the survey. In this case, 20 students of the academic program of environmental engineering were selected based on convenience for assessment. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic complicated traditional ergonomic assessment; home visits were necessary to satisfy the ROSA method’s direct observation requirements for postural analysis during academic activities. The analysis was facilitated by the use of the Ergoniza software 3.5. All visits were conducted under strict safety protocols. Participant recruitment and data collection for the FTPs occurred between January and June 2021.
Inclusion criteria: (a) Academic criterion (belongs to the academic programs selected, bachelor’s degrees in ecology, environmental engineering, horticultural engineering and geoscience); (b) Geographical criterion, students must reside within the urban area of Hermosillo, Sonora, to ensure the viability and reduce the operational cost associated with in-home evaluation visits; (c) access criterion, students must provide their informed consent to participate and offer the opportunity to conduct in situ postural evaluation visits in accordance with the ROSA method.
Measures and Data Analysis. Once the data on ergonomic risks was collected, the Ergoniza software 3.5 (ROSA method) was applied for analysis. The data obtained from the surveys was automatically compiled into a Google spreadsheet linked to the form. The questions were multiple choice and were designed focus on identifying the conditions in which they attend their online courses.

3. Results

3.1. Stage 1

The main results obtained from the survey application are presented in stage 1. This data establishes the foundational context regarding students’ current knowledge and reported difficulties related to ergonomics. The results obtained from the application of the survey to the evaluated students are presented in the Supplementary Materials.
Considering the rapid change that occurred due to the COVID-19 pandemic, students had to address the change from face-to-face to virtual modality to attend their classes. This was difficult for the students since they had always been in a traditional learning system. Derived from the above, there were aspects that were left aside, such as ergonomics, which caused students to migrate to a 100% online activity. In addition to the above, the students were sitting in front of the monitor, considering the survey of the students evaluated, 49% indicated that they spent between 3 and 5 h in front of the monitor. Instead, the students were not provided with information about what actions they could carry out for correct ergonomics and to avoid musculoskeletal injuries. In fact, 92% of the students surveyed indicated that they would like to know how to improve their ergonomics.
Another important issue is the conditions in which students attend their online classes; according to the students surveyed, 83%, that is 239 students, indicated that they attended their classes from home, which, due to improvisation, did not give them the opportunity to have an adequate space to attend their classes and had to adapt the conditions of their home for their online classes. This finding is consistent with the students’ self-reports, in which 69% of the students indicated that they had experienced back, shoulder, and neck pain.
The results demonstrate a deficit in the student population’s knowledge regarding ergonomics principles and the correct postures required to mitigate associated risk. This evidence reflects a significant lack of specific information concerning several critical factors, including the necessity of break times, the optimal frequency for interrupting academic activities, and the appropriate type of chair for study. This collective unawareness directly contributes to a higher probability of ergonomic risk, primarily resulting in musculoskeletal problems due to the adoption of inadequate postures.

3.2. Stage 2

A value of one indicates that no risk is observed. Values between two and four indicate that the risk level is low, but that some aspects of the workstation are improvable. Values equal to or greater than five indicate that the risk level is high [33]. The ROSA method was applied to 20 students of environmental engineering. It can be observed that 5 of the 20 students (25%) are exposed to a very high ergonomic risk. Additionally, there were 7 students (35%) who were exposed to high ergonomic risk. Finally, there were 8 students (40%) at an improbable risk.
It is important to indicate that the results are because of the conditions in which the students are taking their online classes. The main problems were that their chairs do not have armrests. The seat height is not adjustable, which causes the screen height to be incorrect. On the other hand, the screen height is low, causing students to tilt their necks and backs. Considering keyboards are high, the wrists are not straight, and according to the mouse. Most of the students found themselves with their backs bowed and not fully supported by the backs of the chairs they used. It was observed that in several cases, the students were shrugging their shoulders to reach their keyboard or mouse. Additionally, there were students whose feet did not fully support them on the ground, either because their legs were crossed or bent, or because the height of the chair was incorrect.

4. Discussion

The education sector extends beyond traditional occupational contexts to include the education sector [21]. This contextually relevant observation is strongly supported by the present study’s findings. The results confirm a significant prevalence of ergonomics risk associated with musculoskeletal disorders, which correlated with their reports of muscular pain and the adoption of inadequate postures. This aligns with what has been consistently observed in ergonomic risk research within the educational sector [17,28,32].
Although issues related to musculoskeletal disorders caused by adopting inadequate postures exist, there is still no concerted effort to raise awareness about preventing these problems in the educational sector [20]. In the present study, it was observed how students improvised their study areas to attend online classes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, each student conditioned their area according to their economic possibilities. This is important given that improvements to furniture and classrooms have been proposed for existing university facilities, implying that even these established settings fail to meet the necessary ergonomic standards to prevent musculoskeletal disorders [25].
The findings from the ROSA assessment align with the self-reported discomfort survey. For instance, according to ROSA risk scores, 60% of students are exposed to high or very high ergonomic risk, which corresponds with the survey results showing that 69% of the students reported experiencing back, shoulder, and neck pain. This integration suggests that the observed ergonomic deficiencies are directly reflected in the participant’s ergonomic symptoms.
The need for early intervention is paramount, “a sustainable work life is of importance in all age groups when working life will be extended to a higher age”; however, it is also important to add that since the workers are studying [34], it will improve a sustainable work-life. There are authors who conclude that there is a positive effect on students who are trained in ergonomics when they are in their work area, once they finish their studies. Regardless of the profession, ergonomics should be part of educational programs, and this will help prevent musculoskeletal disorders when students are already in their work areas [35].

5. Conclusions

The evidence shows that even with ongoing documentation of musculoskeletal problems due to inadequate postures, proactive steps to educate on prevention are still absent from the educational sector. This shows the importance of immediate attention to the ergonomic conditions of the students. Furthermore, the improvisation of the study space, compounded by the knowledge deficit and pre-existing ergonomic deficiencies on campus, created a high-risk environment for student musculoskeletal health. Considering that, it is completely necessary to train students on ergonomics issues and how to adapt to the conditions they have at home so that it becomes a suitable space to take online classes.

Limitations

The ROSA sample size was limited due to COVID-19-related restrictions and logistical constraints, as academic activities were conducted remotely and many students lived outside the city. Additionally, the study had no financial support, which further restricted on-site assessments and travel. Consequently, a smaller, accessible sample was selected to ensure feasibility and safety. While this limits generalizability and inferential analysis, the study provides valuable exploratory insights using the established ROSA method.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/covid6010009/s1. Supplementary Materials File S1: Results obtained from the application of the survey to the evaluated students.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.E.S.-D., M.V.-A., M.P.-M., M.B.-H., H.C.D.L.T.-V., and D.M.-R.; methodology, N.E.S.-D., M.V.-A., M.P.-M., M.B.-H., H.C.D.L.T.-V., and D.M.-R.; software, N.E.S.-D., M.V.-A., M.P.-M., M.B.-H., H.C.D.L.T.-V., and D.M.-R.; validation, N.E.S.-D., M.V.-A., M.P.-M., M.B.-H., H.C.D.L.T.-V., and D.M.-R.; formal analysis, N.E.S.-D., M.V.-A., M.P.-M., M.B.-H., H.C.D.L.T.-V., and D.M.-R.; investigation, N.E.S.-D., M.V.-A., M.P.-M., M.B.-H., H.C.D.L.T.-V., and D.M.-R.; resources, N.E.S.-D., M.V.-A., M.P.-M., M.B.-H., H.C.D.L.T.-V., and D.M.-R.; data curation, N.E.S.-D., M.V.-A., M.P.-M., M.B.-H., H.C.D.L.T.-V., and D.M.-R.; writing—original draft preparation, N.E.S.-D., M.V.-A., M.P.-M., M.B.-H., H.C.D.L.T.-V., and D.M.-R.; writing—review and editing, N.E.S.-D., M.V.-A., M.P.-M., M.B.-H., H.C.D.L.T.-V., and D.M.-R.; visualization, N.E.S.-D., M.V.-A., M.P.-M., M.B.-H., H.C.D.L.T.-V., and D.M.-R.; supervision, N.E.S.-D., M.V.-A., M.P.-M., M.B.-H., H.C.D.L.T.-V., and D.M.-R.; project administration, N.E.S.-D., M.V.-A., M.P.-M., M.B.-H., H.C.D.L.T.-V., and D.M.-R.; funding acquisition, N.E.S.-D., M.V.-A., M.P.-M., M.B.-H., H.C.D.L.T.-V., and D.M.-R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Institutional Review Board approval was not required for this study, as the research was non-interventional and did not involve invasive procedures or any risk to the participants’ physical or mental integrity. Furthermore, all data were collected anonymously to ensure participant confidentiality.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on reasonable request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We appreciate the participation of the students in this project to be evaluated with the ROSA method and for taking the time to complete the survey. We thank to Laboratorio de Remediación de Suelos y Toxicología Ambiental from UES for allowing us to work on their installations. Special thanks to the Universidad Estatal de Sonora for providing the facilities and support necessary to conduct this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
WHOWorld Health Organization
ILOInternational Labor Organization
RULARapid Upper Limb Assessment
ROSARapid Office Strain Assessment

References

  1. Coyne, B.; McCoy, S. Forbidden fruit? Student views on the use of tablet PCs in education. Technol. Pedagog. Educ. 2020, 29, 347–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Mani, L.; Gerr, F. Work-related upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders. Prim. Care Clin. Off. Pract. 2000, 27, 845–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hulshof, C.T.; Colosio, C.; Daams, J.G.; Ivanov, I.D.; Prakash, K.; Kuijer, P.P.; Leppink, N.; Mandic-Rajcevic, S.; Masci, F.; van der Molen, H.F. WHO/ILO work-related burden of disease and injury: Protocol for systematic reviews of exposure to occupational ergonomic risk factors and of the effect of exposure to occupational ergonomic risk factors on osteoarthritis of hip or knee and selected other musculoskeletal diseases. Environ. Int. 2019, 125, 554–566. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  4. Wiedemann, L.G.; Planinc, R.; Kampel, M. (Eds.) Ergonomic-Monitoring of office workplaces using Kinect. In Proceedings of the Ambient Assisted Living and Daily Activities: 6th International Work-Conference, IWAAL 2014, Belfast, UK, 2–5 December 2014; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 275–278. [Google Scholar]
  5. Occhipinti, E.; Colombini, D. A toolkit for the analysis of biomechanical overload and prevention of WMSDs: Criteria, procedures and tool selection in a step-by-step approach. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2016, 52, 18–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hulshof, C.T.; Pega, F.; Neupane, S.; van der Molen, H.F.; Colosio, C.; Daams, J.G.; Descatha, A.; Kc, P.; Kuijer, P.P.; Mandic-Rajcevic, S. The prevalence of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury. Environ. Int. 2021, 146, 106157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Emerson, S.; Emerson, K.; Fedorczyk, J. Computer workstation ergonomics: Current evidence for evaluation, corrections, and recommendations for remote evaluation. J. Hand Ther. 2021, 34, 166–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Jensen, B.; Pilegaard, M.; Momsen, A. Vibrotactile sense and mechanical functional state of the arm and hand among computer users compared with a control group. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 2002, 75, 332–340. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  9. Marcus, M.; Gerr, F.; Monteilh, C.; Ortiz, D.J.; Gentry, E.; Cohen, S.; Edwards, A.; Ensor, C.; Kleinbaum, D. A prospective study of computer users: II. Postural risk factors for musculoskeletal symptoms and disorders. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2002, 41, 236–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Gerr, F.; Marcus, M.; Ensor, C.; Kleinbaum, D.; Cohen, S.; Edwards, A.; 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]
  11. Juul-Kristensen, B.; Søgaard, K.; Støyer, J.; Jensen, C. Computer users’ risk factors for developing shoulder, elbow and back symptoms. Scand. J. Work. Environ. Health 2004, 30, 390–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. McAllister, M.J.; Costigan, P.A.; Davies, J.P.; Diesbourg, T.L. The effect of training and workstation adjustability on teleworker discomfort during the COVID-19 pandemic. Appl. Ergon. 2022, 102, 103749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Gosain, L.; Ahmad, I.; Rizvi, M.R.; Sharma, A.; Saxena, S. Prevalence of musculoskeletal pain among computer users working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional survey. Bull. Fac. Phys. Ther. 2022, 27, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Liebregts, J.; Sonne, M.; Potvin, J. Photograph-based ergonomic evaluations using the Rapid Office Strain Assessment (ROSA). Appl. Ergon. 2016, 52, 317–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. McAtamney, L.; Corlett, E.N. RULA: A survey method for the investigation of work-related upper limb disorders. Appl. Ergon. 1993, 24, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sonne, M.; Villalta, D.L.; Andrews, D.M. Development and evaluation of an office ergonomic risk checklist: ROSA–Rapid office strain assessment. Appl. Ergon. 2012, 43, 98–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gumasing, M.; Sanchez, A. Ergonomic risk assessment of factors affecting musculoskeletal disorder of engineering students during online setup. In Industrial Engineering and Applications; IOS Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2023; pp. 534–548. ISBN 9781614994398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sánchez-Duarte, N.E.; De La Torre-Valdéz, H.C.; Morales-Romero, D.; Burgos-Hernandez, M.M.-A.; Acosta, J.V.M.; Pallanez-Murrieta, M. Ergonomic Risk Factors in University-Level Teachers in Sonora, Mexico: Towards a Sustainable Environment. Health Scope 2025, 14, e164351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Morán, J.C.V.; Molina, I.T.B.; Porro, E.M.; Leon, E.C.C. Evaluación ergonómica mediante el método ROSA en docentes con teletrabajo de la UTEQ. Ing. Innov. 2020, 8, 1–71. [Google Scholar]
  20. Ruiz, R.M.R.; León, I.M.; Mondragón, J.L.M. Análisis de riesgo ergonómico de los docentes de la UAEM durante la pandemia. RILCO DS Rev. Desarro. Sustentable Neg. Emprend. Educ. 2021, 3, 12. [Google Scholar]
  21. Jeffree, M.S.; Rahim, A.A.A.; Daud, D.M.A.; Pang, N.; Sazali, M.F.; Sudi, S.; Liau, S.N.; Wong, E.E.L.; Peter, H.F.; Amat, S.Z.A. Predictors of musculoskeletal disorders among special education teachers in Sabah, Malaysia. Heliyon 2024, 10, e30873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Farias, J.P.; de Sá Ferreira, A. Mapping evidence on burnout syndrome in university professors and its relationship with ergonomic and biopsychosocial factors: A scope review. Braz. J. Phys. Ther. 2024, 28, 100784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Darwish, M.A.; Al-Zuhair, S.Z. Musculoskeletal pain disorders among secondary school Saudi female teachers. Pain Res. Treat. 2013, 2013, 878570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ming, N.Y.; Kiong, P.V.S.; Maakip, I. Predictors of musculoskeletal disorders among teachers: An exploratory investigation in Malaysia. Asian Soc. Sci. 2020, 16, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Taifa, I.W.; Desai, D.A. Anthropometric measurements for ergonomic design of students’ furniture in India. Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 2017, 20, 232–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hoque, A.; Parvez, M.; Halder, P.; Szecsi, T. Ergonomic design of classroom furniture for university students of Bangladesh. J. Ind. Prod. Eng. 2014, 31, 239–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Cheng, H.-Y.K.; Wong, M.-T.; Yu, Y.-C.; Ju, Y.-Y. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders and ergonomic risk factors in special education teachers and teacher’s aides. BMC Public Health 2016, 16, 137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Thariq, M.M.; Munasinghe, H.; Abeysekara, J. Designing chairs with mounted desktop for university students: Ergonomics and comfort. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2010, 40, 8–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Fasulo, L.; Naddeo, A.; Cappetti, N. A study of classroom seat (dis) comfort: Relationships between body movements, center of pressure on the seat, and lower limbs’ sensations. Appl. Ergon. 2019, 74, 233–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Celis-Gurmendi, R.D.; Figueroa-Nole, F.M.; Quiroz-Flores, J.C. An Analysis of Ergonomic Risks of Undergraduate Students During Virtual Education in the wake of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Prospective Review. In Proceedings of the IEOM International Conference on Smart Mobility and Vehicle Electrification, Detroit, MI, USA, 10–12 October 2023. [Google Scholar]
  31. Cleonares, A.; Gavilánez, S.; Nevárez, J.; Armijos, J. Ergonomía en docente universitario durante la pandemia generada por la COVID-19. Rev. Conrado 2021, 17, 139–145. [Google Scholar]
  32. Araúz, E.; Mojica, C.; Zurdo, L.; Gómez, E. Estudios de factores de riesgo ergonomicos presentes en la educación a distancia. Rev. Iniciación Cient. 2021, 7, 72–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Diego-Mas, J.A. Evaluación de Puestos de Oficina Mediante el Método ROSA; Ergonautas, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia: Valencia, Spain, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  34. Nilsson, K. A sustainable working life for all ages–The swAge-model. Appl. Ergon. 2020, 86, 103082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Wolff, A.L.; Ling, D.I.; Casey, E.K.; Toresdahl, B.G.; Gellhorn, A.C. Feasibility and impact of a musculoskeletal health for musicians (MHM) program for musician students: A randomized controlled pilot study. J. Hand Ther. 2021, 34, 159–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.