Abstract
Low back pain has been described as a 20th century health care enigma. Increasingly, adolescents report back discomfort at an earlier age. In a cross-sectional study amongst a Danish population of 29,424 twins, Leboeuf-Yde reported a rapid increase in back pain prevalence after the age of 12. The link between childhood and adult back pain however, remains controversial.
In 1997 the NBPA School Bag Survey reported that 80% of school children carry ‘too much weight’ in ‘poorly designed’ school bags, resulting in postural stress. In response, BackCare (formerly NBPA) designed an ergonomic school bag. This study was undertaken to establish 16-year-olds’ views on the comfort and usability of the ergonomic bag in comparison to their usual school bag.
Thirty students, aged 16 years, were recruited from three local sixth form colleges. Each student used the ergonomic bag for one week. They evaluated the comfort and usability of both the ergonomic bag and their usual school bag using self-report questionnaires.
Seventy percent of the students reported back pain within the last 12 months. Ratings for the comfort of the ergonomic bag were compared with those for their usual school bag using the Wilcoxon test. There were statistically significant differences between the bags for comfort at the shoulders (p = 0.001) and all regions of the spine: neck (p = 0.000); upper back (p = 0.008); lower back (p = 0.001), with the ergonomic bag more comfortable than the students’ own. No significant differences were found between the bags for comfort in the arms, hands or legs.
Despite this improvement in spinal comfort, only 13% of students said they would use the ergonomic bag in preference to their usual bag. This was due to practical aspects such as its appearance and perceived lack of security for valuable items, such as ‘money and mobile phones’.
In this population of 16-year-olds, cosmetic and practical aspects of a school bag were more important than comfort. If such bags are to be accepted, manufacturers must create a fusion between ergonomics and fashion.
The abstracts were prepared by Dr C Pither. Correspondence should be addressed to him at the British Orthopaedic Association, Royal College of Surgeons, 35–43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PN