Cross-sectional study estimates high prevalence of MSDs in garment workers, indicating urgent need for ergonomic interventions.
Introduction Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are a major occupational health problem worldwide. Garment workers are particularly vulnerable due to repetitive movements, awkward postures, and prolonged static work. In Vietnam, evidence on work-related MSDs in this workforce remains limited. Aims and Objectives This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of MSDs and identify factors associated with them among garment workers. Methods A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted among 391 garment workers at Hieu Ha Embroider Print Sew Company Limited in Haiphong, Vietnam, using a structured questionnaire covering socio-demographic characteristics, occupational factors, and the extended Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire (NMQ-E). MSDs were defined as pain or discomfort occurring at least once per month or lasting at least one week in the previous twelve months. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors independently associated with MSDs. Results The 12-month prevalence of MSDs was 62.7%. The lower back was the most commonly affected body region (39.9% in the past 12 months). Female workers had significantly higher odds of MSDs than males (aOR = 3.7; 95% CI: 2.3-5.8). Overweight workers were more likely to report MSDs compared with those of normal BMI (aOR = 2.5; 95% CI: 1.1-5.9). Occupational factors were also significant, with cutting workers (aOR = 4.3; 95% CI: 1.7-11.3) and workers with more than 10 years of job seniority (aOR = 2.6; 95% CI: 1.1-6.1) showing increased risk. Discussion Female sex, overweight, repetitive sewing-line work, and longer job seniority were associated with an increased risk of MSD symptoms. Conclusion MSDs were highly prevalent among garment workers, particularly lower back pain, highlighting the need for further research to inform ergonomic and preventive interventions in the Vietnamese garment industry.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Thanh et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: