The Lowdown on Backbelts

Can back belts help control lower back injuries in the workplace? Maybe, but only if workers are instructed in their proper use—and their limitations.

By Rodney G. Graham

Rodney G. Graham is a senior loss prevention consultant for Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. (Boston).

Back injuries are putting a strain on American industry. In fact, back injuries account for more than a third of workers’ compensation costs paid out by industry each year.

It’s no wonder, then, that many firms in all kinds of businesses—including recycling companies—have turned to back belts as a possible way to reduce the astounding number of back injuries their workers suffer each year.

But are back belts actually effective in controlling these injuries? Manufacturers of the devices answer with a resounding “yes.” There is also some anecdotal evidence in favor of back belts. Nevertheless, scientific evidence supporting the use of back belts as a preventive measure is mostly lacking.

What the Studies Reveal

The Liberty Mutual Research Center for Safety and Health recently investigated the effects of rigid back belts on the endurance and fatigue characteristics of the back musculature. In this study, 13 male industrial workers were tested for back endurance before and after four hours of lifting and lowering with and without a back belt. The results indicated that there were no significant differences in back endurance between wearing back belts and not wearing them.

Similarly, a 1993 Texas A&M University study of 642 airline baggage handlers indicated that back belt use did not reduce back injuries, nor did it reduce the severity of injuries.

On the other hand, a University of Oklahoma study of 1,316 Air Force workers conducted in 1994 cited a slight reduction in the number of injuries experienced as a result of the use of back belts. And a 1990 study by the University of Texas of 90 male grocery warehouse workers cited a reduction in the severity of injuries with back belt use.

With such conflicting research findings, it’s not surprising that industrial businesses have taken diverse stances on worker use of back belts. Some companies mandate their use among employees who perform heavy lifting tasks, while other firms ban back belts outright. And still others provide back belts as an option to workers.

So which is the right approach? Most safety and loss prevention specialists seem to believe there’s nothing wrong with workers wearing back belts as long as this is not the primary focus of a company’s back injury prevention efforts and the company provides proper instruction and information on the limitations of the devices. Indeed, safety and loss prevention experts tend to favor ergonomic approaches to reducing back injury exposures using scientifically proven engineering controls—perhaps combined with back belt use.

A Recycler’s Experience

Scrap recycler Suisman & Blumenthal (Hartford, Conn.) has found some success in controlling worker back injuries through just such an approach, integrating back belts within a larger program of engineering controls.

In 1991, faced with a significant increase in on-the-job injuries and workers’ compensation losses, the company set out to change this situation. “We had to do something to stem the tide and get both dollar losses and the number of injuries down,” recalls Sal Amaral, Suisman & Blumenthal’s safety and security manager.

What Amaral did first was analyze the accidents the company had experienced in recent years, an analysis that revealed that back injuries were adding up to major losses. With this knowledge, he then examined workers’ scrap handling methods and researched potential engineering solutions to their back injuries, and this led him to develop a plan based on the installation of additional material handling equipment such as over-hoists, scissor lifts, vibratory conveyors, and barrel dumpers.

Amaral next investigated the use of back belts as a supplement to engineering controls. Contacting the safety managers of several local corporations to discuss their experiences with the devices, he found that most had positive but cautionary opinions about back belts, convincing him that the company’s best course of action would be to implement an optional back belt program with thorough instruction on their use and limitations.

Presenting his findings and proposals to Suisman & Blumenthal’s top executives, he received their wholehearted endorsement. “Employee safety is an integral part of our business and anything we can do to improve safety, we fully support,” says Rod Hamilton, vice president of manufacturing.

The next step was talking it all through with workers. In a series of departmental meetings, Amaral explained the company’s adverse loss situation, discussed how the new material handling equipment and proper lifting techniques could help reduce those losses, and invited employees to try to further reduce injuries by wearing back belts—though emphasizing that their use was not mandatory. All production employees were then trained in the proper use of back belts and instructed in good lifting techniques. In addition, they were taught that back belts are not the ultimate answer and that mechanical material handling devices should be used whenever possible.

And the Results Are ...

Employee response to back belts was overwhelmingly positive, with 95 percent of the company’s production staff choosing to wear the back belts Suisman & Blumenthal purchased for their use. And now, a few years into the program, workers continue to favor back belt use, with most convinced that the belts make their jobs safer, according to a recent employee survey. (See the chart below for complete results of workers’ opinions about the devices.)

The total ergonomic control program, including the use of back belts, has also had positive effects on Suisman & Blumenthal’s losses. In 1990 and 1991, the company had 21 back-related injuries. In the years since, with the program in place, there have been only seven such injuries and the firm’s workers’ compensation costs have dropped 35 percent.

These results certainly indicate that there may be a place for back belts in scrap plant use and that employees tend to like back belts. Nevertheless, they don’t diminish the fact that back belts are not a panacea to controlling manual material handling disabilities and that engineering controls—such as automating the movement of heavy objects through equipment use and redesigning tasks to reduce injury exposure—should be explored as the first step in controlling losses. 

Making the Most of Back Belts

If your company chooses to include back belts as part of a comprehensive loss control program, the following recommendations can help you achieve the best results from this part of the program:

• Obtain the support of top management.
  
• Communicate the use and limitations of back belts to employees.
  
• Carefully consider what type of back belts to obtain (flexible or rigid).
  
• Provide thorough training in back belt usage.
  
• Review correct lifting procedures.
  
• Follow up on the use of back belts.