NIOSH Study Backs Claims of Stress Injury : Workplace: A two-year examination of workers at the Los Angeles Times finds objective evidence of computer hazards.

In a report that bolsters mounting evidence about the hazards of working on computers, a federal agency has found that the majority of Los Angeles Times employees who complained of computer-related pain were suffering from “significant” musculoskeletal disorders.

In a two-year study requested by The Times, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health surveyed nearly 1,000 Times workers who use computers. Forty-one percent of the workers reported that they had been injured. Medical examinations found objective evidence of injuries in more than half those cases.

NIOSH said the study was its most comprehensive look at the relationship between work on visual-display terminals (VDTs) and repetitive-strain injuries.

Such ailments strike 185,000 office and factory workers a year, accounting for more than half the nation’s occupational illnesses, compared to about 20% a decade ago. NIOSH studies at individual companies such as The Times are intended to encourage preventive health practices at workplaces with similar concerns.

Like a number of past studies, the two-year survey of four departments at The Times found that the more hours per day a worker spends on a VDT, the greater the odds are that he or she will develop hand or wrist injuries.

Michael J. Valenti, The Times’ director of human resources, said in a written statement that the NIOSH findings “will be very helpful to us” and that recommendations for more frequent work breaks and adjustable equipment “support . . . much of what we have already been doing.”

The Times has made a number of workplace improvements aimed at reducing repetitive-stress injuries, providing adjustable computer stands and chairs and various ergonomic aids and setting up special exercise rooms in many of its offices. But because many of these changes were made during the course of the NIOSH study, NIOSH could not measure their effectiveness.

Dr. Bruce Bernard, a NIOSH medical officer who supervised the Times study, said it went further than previous research in authenticating employee claims.

For example, NIOSH staff members conducted on-duty observation of scores of injured and healthy employees to confirm employees’ estimates of the amount of time they spent on VDTs. The observations showed that injured computer workers typed “significantly longer” than those who were not injured, Bernard said.

Worker complaints were also validated by medical examinations of 229 employees who complained of VDT-related symptoms. The finding of objective evidence of injury in 53% of those cases was similar to the conclusions of other studies that NIOSH has conducted in a variety of industries.

NIOSH’s recommendations to The Times--which are non-binding--suggest that the newspaper continue its employee-management ergonomics program. The study also recommends that the newspaper “restructure” some jobs to allow employees greater freedom in “self-pacing” their work and in taking breaks.

The correlation between VDT injuries and workplace factors other than the computer equipment itself--such as surges in workload, worries over job security and excessive work pressure--has been receiving increased emphasis from researchers in recent years as the frequency of repetitive-strain injuries mounts.

However, NIOSH officials say they have yet to develop an overall explanation of what combination of work, equipment, management and individual physical characteristics causes repetitive-stress injuries.

Like most newspapers, The Times computerized many jobs in the early 1980s. In 1989, the newspaper asked NIOSH to conduct a study after more than 200 employees--mostly editors and reporters--filed workers’ compensation claims for repetitive-strain injuries.

NIOSH studied three other Times departments in addition to the editorial department. It found higher rates of employee-reported injuries in the circulation, classified advertising and accounting and finance departments than among writers and editors.

Bernard said that finding was not surprising because workers in those departments generally had less control over the pace of their work than did editorial employees.