Comfort assessment of school desks and chairs ergonomics among students with different body types
-
摘要:
目的 了解不同体型学生按照标准匹配课桌椅舒适度的差异性，为指导超重肥胖学生选择合适的课桌椅以及相关标准修订提供参考。 方法 2024年1—4月，采用整群随机抽样方法选取上海市、天津市和江苏省13个区(县市)26所学校2 443名幼儿园至大学的学生，对学生进行体格检查，根据其身高匹配课桌椅型号调查舒适度的主观和客观评价。根据相关标准划分为非超重肥胖、超重和肥胖组后进行分层分析。采用χ2检验分析不同体型研究对象对于课桌椅主客观舒适度评价之间的差异。 结果 调查学生中，有16.7%为超重，12.6%为肥胖。所有学生主观认为与其身高匹配的较大尺寸型号课桌搭配较小尺寸型号课椅(大桌小椅)舒适的报告率最高(84.1%)，主观评价与客观评估的结果一致。肥胖组学生主观认为与其身高匹配的较小尺寸型号课桌椅(小桌小椅)舒适的报告率(36.8%)低于超重组和非超重肥胖组(52.1%，48.0%)(χ2=14.63，P＜0.01)。小学生中超重肥胖组对大桌大椅和小桌小椅舒适度评价较非超重肥胖组更差(χ2值分别为15.78，7.63，P值均＜0.05)。高中生中超重肥胖组对大桌大椅和大桌小椅舒适度评价较非超重肥胖组更差(χ2值分别为9.62，11.77，P值均＜0.05)。客观评价中，不同课桌椅类型，小桌小椅搭配的大腿与小腿是否自然成>90°角(55.6%)及桌下净空高是否合适(50.3%)达标率较低(χ2值分别为94.05，166.47，P值均＜0.05)。 结论 与非超重肥胖学生相比，超重和肥胖学生对与身高匹配的课桌椅型号的舒适度评价较差。标准修订中应考虑学生体型因素，提高超重肥胖学生对课桌椅舒适度的评价。 Abstract:Objective To investigate the differences in the comfort of desks and chairs furniture among students with different body types according to the standard, so as to provide a reference for guiding students with overweight and obesity to choose the correct study furniture and revising the standards. Methods From January to April 2024, 2 443 students from 26 schools in 13 districts (counties/cities) in Shanghai, Tianjin, and Jiangsu Province were selected by the cluster random sampling method to conduct physical examination. The subjective and objective evaluations of the comfort of height-matched desks and chairs were investigated. The students were divided into non-overweight, overweight, and obesity groups according to relevant criteria, and stratified analysis was performed. The χ2 test was used to analyze differences in the comfort evaluations of desks and chairs among students with different body types. Results Among the 2 443 students surveyed, 16.7% and 12.6% were respectively classified as overweight and obese. All students assigned the highest comfort ratings to large desks and small chairs (84.1%), and consistency was observed between students' subjective and objective evaluations. The reporting rate of samll desks and chairs of obesity students' subjective evaluation was lower (36.8%) than that of overweight and non-overweight/obesity students (52.1%, 48.0%) (χ2=14.63, P < 0.01). The overweight and obese group of primary school students had a worse evaluation of the comfort of large desks and chairs and small desks and chairs than those of the non-overweight and obese groups(χ2=15.78, 7.63, P < 0.05). Among high school students, the overweight and obese group had worse evaluation of the comfort of large desks and chairs, as well as large desks and small chairs, than those of the non-overweight and obese groups(χ2=9.62, 11.77, P < 0.05). The objective evaluations revealed low compliance ratings on the posture of the thighs and calves for naturally forming an angle greater than 90° (55.6%), and headroom height under the table (50.3%) with small desks and chairs (χ2=94.05, 166.47, P < 0.05). Conclusions Compared with non-overweight/obese students, students with overweight and obese students report poor comfort evaluations of height-matched desks and chairs. Revision of the standard should consider the body types of students, and evaluations of the comfort of desks and chairs furniture by students with overweight and obesity should be improved. -
Key words:
- Overweight /
- Obesity /
- Desk and chair /
- Comfortable /
- Students
1) 利益冲突声明 所有作者声明无利益冲突。 -
表 1 不同组别学生超重肥胖检出率比较
Table 1. Comparison of the detection rate of overweight and obesity among different groups
组别 选项 人数 超重 肥胖 检出人数 χ2值 检出人数 χ2值 性别 男 1 201 260(21.6) 54.4** 191(15.9) 35.5** 女 1 242 148(11.9) 118(9.5) 学段 幼儿园 461 78(16.9) 3.4 57(12.4) 11.7* 小学 510 75(14.7) 72(14.1) 初中 517 94(18.2) 72(13.9) 高中 467 82(17.6) 67(14.3) 高等院校 488 79(16.2) 41(8.4) 注：()内数字为检出率/%；*P＜0.05，**P＜0.01。 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 不同学段各营养状况学生的标准匹配课桌椅主观舒适报告率比较
Table 2. Comparison of subjective comfort reporting rates of standard-matched desks and chairs for students with different nutritional status in different school groups
学段 营养状况 统计值 大桌大椅 小桌小椅 大桌小椅 人数 报告人数 人数 报告人数 人数 报告人数 幼儿园 非超重肥胖 323 277(85.8) 300 268(89.3) 297 267(89.9) 超重 77 66(85.7) 73 64(87.7) 72 66(91.7) 肥胖 52 49(94.2) 42 36(85.7) 37 34(91.9) χ2值 2.88 0.57 0.31 P值 0.24 0.75 0.86 小学 非超重肥胖 363 282(77.7) 363 120(33.1) 363 290(79.9) 超重 75 44(58.7) 75 23(30.7) 75 56(74.7) 肥胖 72 45(62.5) 72 12(16.7) 72 56(77.8) χ2值 15.78 7.63 1.07 P值 ＜0.01 0.02 0.59 初中 非超重肥胖 351 251(71.5) 351 127(36.2) 351 286(81.5) 超重 94 70(74.5) 94 29(30.9) 94 67(71.3) 肥胖 72 53(73.6) 72 25(34.7) 72 59(81.9) χ2值 0.39 0.93 5.00 P值 0.82 0.63 0.08 高中 非超重肥胖 318 272(85.5) 317 124(39.1) 317 287(90.5) 超重 81 64(79.0) 82 32(39.0) 81 76(93.8) 肥胖 67 47(70.1) 67 20(29.9) 67 52(77.6) χ2值 9.62 2.09 11.77 P值 0.01 0.35 ＜0.01 高等院校 非超重肥胖 368 253(68.8) 超重 79 47(59.5) 肥胖 41 24(58.5) χ2值 3.74 P值 0.15 总体 非超重肥胖 1 723 1 335(77.5) 1 331 639(48.0) 1 328 1 130(85.1) 超重 406 291(71.7) 338 176(52.1) 322 265(82.3) 肥胖 304 218(71.7) 253 93(36.8) 248 201(81.0) χ2值 9.19 14.63 3.48 P值 0.01 ＜0.01 0.18 注：()内数字为报告率/%。
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 不同学段各营养状况学生的标准匹配课桌椅客观舒适报告率比较
Table 3. Comparison of objective comfort reporting rates of standard-matched desks and chairs for students with different nutritional status in different school groups
学段 营养状况 统计值 大桌大椅 小桌小椅 大桌小椅 人数 报告人数 人数 报告人数 人数 报告人数 幼儿园 非超重肥胖 323 308(95.4) 300 292(97.3) 297 262(98.3) 超重 77 74(96.1) 73 69(94.5) 72 72(100.0) 肥胖 52 52(100.0) 42 41(97.6) 37 36(97.3) χ2值 2.53 1.62 1.55 P值 0.28 0.45 0.46 小学 非超重肥胖 363 355(97.8) 363 320(88.2) 363 355(97.8) 超重 75 73(97.3) 75 63(84.0) 75 72(96.0) 肥胖 72 69(95.8) 72 50(69.4) 72 70(97.2) χ2值 0.83 16.46 0.74 P值 0.66 ＜0.01 0.69 初中 非超重肥胖 351 340(96.9) 351 303(86.3) 351 340(96.9) 超重 94 88(93.6) 94 79(84.0) 94 87(92.6) 肥胖 72 66(91.7) 72 53(73.6) 72 68(94.4) χ2值 4.81 7.24 3.73 P值 0.09 0.03 0.16 高中 非超重肥胖 318 316(99.4) 317 307(96.8) 317 316(99.7) 超重 81 78(96.3) 82 73(89.0) 81 80(98.8) 肥胖 67 64(95.5) 67 54(80.6) 67 64(95.5) χ2值 7.15 25.46 6.48 P值 0.03 ＜0.01 0.04 高等院校 非超重肥胖 368 347(94.3) 超重 79 73(92.4) 肥胖 41 37(90.2) χ2值 1.26 P值 0.53 总体 非超重肥胖 1 723 1 666(96.7) 1 331 1 222(91.8) 1 328 1 303(98.1) 超重 406 386(95.1) 324 284(87.7) 322 311(96.6) 肥胖 304 288(94.7) 253 198(78.3) 248 238(96.0) χ2值 4.30 41.99 5.70 P值 0.12 ＜0.01 0.06 注：()内数字为报告率/%。
下载: 导出CSV
表 4 超重肥胖学生对不同型号课桌椅客观舒适度评价的各条目达标率比较
Table 4. Comparison of the compliance rates of each item in the objective comfort evaluation of desks and chairs of different models by overweight and obese students
课桌椅类型 人数 脚部完全着地 大腿与地面平行 大腿与小腿自然成略>90°角 脚部不存在悬空或者椅子过矮造成腿部不适的情况 桌下净空高合适 眼睛距离桌面中心≥33.3 cm 桌面深度和宽度合适 椅面深度和宽度合适 大桌大椅 710 709(99.9) 655(92.3) 541(76.2) 630(88.7) 535(75.4) 656(92.4) 634(89.3) 639(90.0) 小桌小椅 577 576(99.8) 517(89.6) 321(55.6) 441(76.4) 290(50.3) 538(93.2) 483(83.7) 498(86.3) 大桌小椅 570 569(99.8) 555(97.4) 452(79.3) 521(91.4) 476(83.5) 514(90.2) 522(91.6) 521(91.4) χ2值 0.03 27.55 94.05 61.02 166.47 3.51 18.33 7.97 P值 0.99 ＜0.01 ＜0.01 ＜0.01 ＜0.01 0.17 ＜0.01 0.02 注： ()内数字为达标率/%。
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] ASSIRI A, MAHFOUZ A A, AWADALLA N J, et al. Classroom furniture mismatch and back pain among adolescent school-children in Abha City, Southwestern Saudi Arabia[J]. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2019, 16(8): 1395. [2] 李娟娟, 章荣华, 孟佳, 等. 浙江省中学生脊柱弯曲异常的影响因素研究[J]. 预防医学, 2024, 36(12): 1036-1039, 1044.LI J J, ZHANG R H, MENG J, et al. Influencing factors for abnormal spinal curvature among middle school students in Zhejiang Province[J]. China Prev Med J, 2024, 36(12): 1036-1039, 1044. (in Chinese) [3] 戴辉, 秦萌, 高善西, 等. 2022年上海奉贤区高中生视力不良现状及与教室视觉环境关系的分析[J]. 上海医药, 2024, 45(14): 45-48. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-1533.2024.14.012DAI H, QIN M, GAO S X, et al. Analysis of the current situation of poor vision among senior high school students in Fengxian District and the relationship with the visual environment of the classroom in 2022[J]. Shanghai Med Pharmaceut J, 2024, 45(14): 45-48. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-1533.2024.14.012 [4] 中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局. 学校课桌椅功能尺寸及技术要求: GB/T 3976—2014[S]. 2014-05-01.General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the PRC. Functional sizes and technical requirements of chairs and tables for education instututions: GB/T 3976-2014[S]. 2014-05-01. (in Chinese) [5] NCD Risk Factor Collaboration. Worldwide trends in underweight and obesity from 1990 to 2022: a pooled analysis of 3 663 population-representative studies with 222 million children, adolescents, and adults[J]. Lancet, 2024, 403(10431): 1027-1050. [6] 中国居民营养与慢性病状况报告(2020年)[J]. 营养学报, 2020, 42(6): 521.Report on nutrition and chronic diseases in China(2020)[J]. Acta Nutr Sinca, 2020, 42(6): 521. (in Chinese) [7] 李辉, 宗心南, 季成叶, 等. 中国2~18岁儿童青少年超重和肥胖筛查体重指数界值点的研究[J]. 中华流行病学杂志, 2010, 31(6): 616-620. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-6450.2010.06.004LI H, ZONG X N, JI C Y, et al. Body mass index cut-offs for overweight and obesity in Chinese children and adolescents aged 2-18 years[J]. Chin J Epidemiol, 2010, 31(6): 616-620. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-6450.2010.06.004 [8] 中华人民共和国国家卫生健康委员会. 学龄儿童青少年超重与肥胖筛查: WS/T 586—2018[S]. 2018-08-01.National Health Commission of the PRC. Screening for overweight and obesity among school-age children and adolescents: WS/T 586-2018[S]. 2018-08-01. (in Chinese) [9] SEJDIU R, SYLEJMANI B, IDRIZI L, et al. Discrepancy between pupils' body and classroom furniture in elementary schools: a case study in the Republic of Kosovo[J]. Work, 2023, 75(2): 447-459. [10] TO Y, LU C W, LU J M, et al. Evaluation of the Indonesian National Standard for elementary school furniture based on children's anthropometry[J]. Appl Ergon, 2017, 62: 168-181. [11] CASTELLUCCI H I, AREZES P M, VIVIANI C A, et al. Mismatch between classroom furniture and anthropometric measures in Chilean schools[J]. Appl Ergon, 2010, 41(4): 563-568. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2009.12.001 [12] HOSTENS I, PAPAJOANNOU G, SPAEPEN A, et al. Buttock and back pressure distribution tests on seats of mobile agricultural machinery[J]. Appl Ergon, 2001, 32(4): 347-355. doi: 10.1016/S0003-6870(01)00013-8 [13] RINCNC N O, BERNAL M L, SALAZAR J J, et al. Relationship between seat surface shape and pressure distribution in school seat models[J]. Work, 2020, 66(1): 161-171. [14] OZDEMIR S, GENCBAS D, TOSUN B, et al. Musculoskeletal pain, related factors, and posture profiles among adolescents: a cross-sectional study from Turkey[J]. Pain Manag Nurs, 2021, 22(4): 522-530. [15] SATIR B, ERDO AN F. Comparison of classroom furniture to anthropometric measures of Turkish middle school students[J]. Work, 2021, 70(2): 493-508. [16] FASULO L, NADDEO A, CAPPETTI A N. A study of classroom seat(dis)comfort: relationships between body movements, center of pressure on the seat, and lower limbs' sensations[J]. Appl Ergon, 2019, 74: 233-240. [17] SAMMONDS G M, M FRAY, N J MANSFIELD. Effect of long term driving on driver discomfort and its relationship with seat fidgets and movements(SFMs)[J]. Appl Ergon, 2017, 58: 119-127. [18] VAN NIEKERK S M, LOUW Q A, GRIMMER K. Does a prototype 'Experimental' chair facilitate more postural changes in computing adolescents compared to a normal school chair?[J]. Work, 2016, 55(1): 63-75. [19] FIDELIS O P, B OGUNLADE. Anthropometric perspective to classroom furniture ergonomics and the need for standards in Nigerian schools[J]. Work, 2022, 72(1): 279-289. [20] PODREKAR LOREDAN N, KASTELIC K, BURNARD M D, et al. Ergonomic evaluation of school furniture in Slovenia: from primary school to university[J]. Work, 2022, 73(1): 229-245. [21] BAHRAMPOUR S, NAZARI J, DIANAT I, et al. Determining optimum seat depth using comfort and discomfort assessments[J]. Int J Occup Saf Ergon, 2020, 26(3): 429-435. -
点击查看大图
表(4)
计量
- 文章访问数: 68
- HTML全文浏览量: 34
- PDF下载量: 28
- 被引次数: 0
