Previous studies have shown that morning types are less sensitive to pain. This study aimed to examine the relationship between chronotypes and musculoskeletal problems in workers with musculoskeletal burdens at work.

This cross-sectional study included 119 male production workers from a large automobile manufacturing plant. All the participants worked 2 shifts and worked on the automobile assembly line. Data were obtained using structured questionnaires, including the reduced Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (rMEQ), and musculoskeletal symptom questionnaire. Participants with an rMEQ score of 18 points or more were defined as morning-type workers (MTWs). Participants whose scores were less than 18 points were defined as neither-type workers (NTWs).

The arithmetic mean age was 51.8 ± 5.3 years. MTWs and NTWs accounted for 35.3% and 64.7% of the total participants, respectively. Evening- and intermediate-type workers accounted form 6.7% and 58.0% of the participants, respectively. There was no significant difference in the health indicators when the MTW and NTW groups were compared. However, the musculoskeletal symptom questionnaire demonstrated a significant difference between the MTW and NTW groups. In the preceding year, the MTW group had significantly lower musculoskeletal pain and treatment ratios compared to the NTW group (35.7% vs. 62.3%, p = 0.005 and 14.3% vs. 32.5%, p = 0.031, respectively). After adjusting for variables, the odds ratio (OR) for musculoskeletal pain was significantly higher in the NTW group than in the MTW group (OR, 3.112; 95% confidence interval, 1.285–7.535; p = 0.012).

In this study, the musculoskeletal pain ratio was significantly lower for MTWs when compared to NTWs. Chronotypes could play an important role in work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Further, larger-scale, follow-up studies on chronotypes are required to assist in the prevention of musculoskeletal disorders in future.

Pure-tone audiometry is used as a gold standard for hearing measurement. However, since communication in the work environment occurs in noise, it might be difficult to evaluate the actual communication ability accurately based on pure-tone audiometry only. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to evaluate speech intelligibility in noisy environments by using Speech-in-Noise Tests and to check its relationship with pure-tone audiometry.

From January 2017 to September 2018, for 362 workers who visited a university hospital for the purpose of compensating for noise-induced hearing loss, several tests were conducted: pure-tone audiometry, speech reception threshold, speech discrimination score, and Speech-in-Noise Tests (Words-in-Noise Test [WIN] and quick-Hearing-in-Noise Test [quick-HINT]). The subjects were classified into serviceable hearing group and non-serviceable hearing group based on 40 dB hearing level (HL) pure-tone average. In both groups, we conducted age-adjusted partial correlation analysis in order to find out the relationship between pure-tone threshold, speech reception threshold, speech discrimination score and WIN and quick-HINT respectively.

In non-serviceable hearing group, all results of partial correlation analysis were statistically significant. However, in serviceable hearing group, there were many results which showed little or no significant relationship between pure-tone threshold and Speech-in-Noise Tests (WIN and quick-HINT).

The relationship between Speech-in-Noise Tests and the pure-tone thresholds were different by the hearing impairment levels; in mild to moderate hearing loss workers, there was little or no relationship; in severe cases, the relationship was significant. It is not enough to predict the speech intelligibility of hearing-impaired persons, especially in mild to moderate level, with pure-tone audiometry only. Therefore, it would be recommended to conduct Speech-in-Noise Test.

The aim of this study was to evaluate musculoskeletal and psychosocial perception and compare these conditions regarding the type of job (white or blue-collar) and the type of management model (private or public).

Forty-seven public white-collar (PuWC), 84 private white-collar (PrWC) and 83 blue-collar workers (PrBC) were evaluated. Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ) and Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) were applied to evaluate psychosocial factors. Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire (NMQ) was used to assess musculoskeletal symptoms. Pressure Pain Threshold (PPT) was measured to evaluate sensory responses.

According to JCQ, all groups were classified as active profile. There was a significant association between work engagement and workers’ categories (p < 0.05). PrWC workers had the highest scores for all the UWES domains, while PrBC had the lowest ones. PPT showed that PrBC workers had an increased sensitivity for left deltoid (p < 0.01), and for both epicondyles (p < 0.01), when compared to the other groups. PrWC workers had an increased sensitivity for both epicondyles than PuWC (right p < 0.01; left, p = 0.05). There was no significant association in the report of symptoms across the groups (p > 0.05).

This study showed differences in psychosocial risk factors and musculoskeletal symptoms in workers engaged in different types of jobs and work organization. Personal and work-related characteristics, psychosocial factors and PPT responses were different across workers’ group. Despite all, there was no significant difference in reported symptoms across the groups, possibly indicating that the physical load is similar among the sectors.