Development and evaluation of a dual density insole for people standing for long periods of time at work.
Arch height
Customisation
Footwear comfort
Insoles
Occupation
Personalisation
Shoes
Standing
Workplace
Journal
Journal of foot and ankle research
ISSN: 1757-1146
Titre abrégé: J Foot Ankle Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101471610
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Jul 2020
08 Jul 2020
Historique:
received:
01
04
2020
accepted:
25
05
2020
entrez:
10
7
2020
pubmed:
10
7
2020
medline:
28
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Appropriate footwear is important for those who stand for prolonged periods of time at work, enabling them to remain comfortable, healthy and safe. Preferences for different footwear cushioning or hardness are often person specific and one shoe or insole will not be the choice for all. The aim of this study was to develop a range of insole options to maintain comfort during long periods of standing at work and test insole material preferences in the workplace. The study consisted of two parts. Part one evaluated 9 insoles of the same geometry that varied in hardness under 2 different plantar regions (n = 34). Insole preference, plantar pressure and selected anthropometric foot measures were taken. Three insole designs based on the most preferred options were identified from this part. In part two, these three insoles were evaluated with 22 workers immediately after trying them on (1 min) and after a working day. Foot anthropometric measures and subjective questions concerning material hardness preferences and self-reported foot characteristics were used to investigate whether either had a relationship with insole preference. Part one found insole preference predominantly varied according to material hardness under the medial arch rather than the heel/forefoot. Softer material under the heel and forefoot was associated with a reduction in peak pressures in these regions (p < 0.05). The most preferred insole had lower pressures under the hallux and first metatarsal phalangeal joint, and greater pressures and contact area under the medial midfoot (p < 0.05) compared to the least preferred insole. Height and foot anthropometrics were related to insole preference. In part two, under real world conditions, insole preference changed for 65% of participants between the immediate assessment (1 min) and after a whole workday, with dorsum height related to the latter (p < 0.05). Subjective questions for self-assessed arch height and footwear feel identified 66.7% of the insole preferences after 1 day at work, compared to 36% using immediate assessment of insole preference. Preference for material hardness varies underneath the medial arch of the foot and is time dependent. Simple foot measures and questions about comfort can guide selection of preferred insoles.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Appropriate footwear is important for those who stand for prolonged periods of time at work, enabling them to remain comfortable, healthy and safe. Preferences for different footwear cushioning or hardness are often person specific and one shoe or insole will not be the choice for all. The aim of this study was to develop a range of insole options to maintain comfort during long periods of standing at work and test insole material preferences in the workplace.
METHODS
METHODS
The study consisted of two parts. Part one evaluated 9 insoles of the same geometry that varied in hardness under 2 different plantar regions (n = 34). Insole preference, plantar pressure and selected anthropometric foot measures were taken. Three insole designs based on the most preferred options were identified from this part. In part two, these three insoles were evaluated with 22 workers immediately after trying them on (1 min) and after a working day. Foot anthropometric measures and subjective questions concerning material hardness preferences and self-reported foot characteristics were used to investigate whether either had a relationship with insole preference.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Part one found insole preference predominantly varied according to material hardness under the medial arch rather than the heel/forefoot. Softer material under the heel and forefoot was associated with a reduction in peak pressures in these regions (p < 0.05). The most preferred insole had lower pressures under the hallux and first metatarsal phalangeal joint, and greater pressures and contact area under the medial midfoot (p < 0.05) compared to the least preferred insole. Height and foot anthropometrics were related to insole preference. In part two, under real world conditions, insole preference changed for 65% of participants between the immediate assessment (1 min) and after a whole workday, with dorsum height related to the latter (p < 0.05). Subjective questions for self-assessed arch height and footwear feel identified 66.7% of the insole preferences after 1 day at work, compared to 36% using immediate assessment of insole preference.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Preference for material hardness varies underneath the medial arch of the foot and is time dependent. Simple foot measures and questions about comfort can guide selection of preferred insoles.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32641098
doi: 10.1186/s13047-020-00402-2
pii: 10.1186/s13047-020-00402-2
pmc: PMC7341629
doi:
Types de publication
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
42Subventions
Organisme : Innovate UK (GB), Toffeln Ltd
ID : KTP0009994
Références
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001 Nov;33(11):1939-45
pubmed: 11689747
Acta Bioeng Biomech. 2018;20(2):179-186
pubmed: 30220725
Br J Sports Med. 2015 Oct;49(20):1290-4
pubmed: 26221015
Gait Posture. 2016 Oct;50:232-238
pubmed: 27662483
Gait Posture. 2017 Oct;58:310-318
pubmed: 28863296
Foot Ankle Int. 2004 Jul;25(7):462-6
pubmed: 15319103
J Sports Sci. 2011 Oct;29(13):1407-15
pubmed: 21834655
Foot Ankle Int. 2000 Sep;21(9):759-67
pubmed: 11023224
Appl Ergon. 2005 May;36(3):355-62
pubmed: 15854579
Eur J Sport Sci. 2019 Mar;19(2):177-185
pubmed: 30044208
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003 Oct;35(10):1710-9
pubmed: 14523309
Appl Ergon. 2008 May;39(3):385-91
pubmed: 17880907
J Sports Sci. 2014;32(18):1712-21
pubmed: 24823258
J Foot Ankle Res. 2009 Mar 06;2:6
pubmed: 19267907
J Foot Ankle Res. 2013 May 24;6:20
pubmed: 23705863
J Foot Ankle Res. 2017 Aug 30;10:41
pubmed: 28861123
J Healthc Eng. 2017;2017:8614341
pubmed: 29065655
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 Jan;88(1):88-93
pubmed: 17207681
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 1994 Nov;9(6):335-41
pubmed: 23916351
Gait Posture. 2002 Aug;16(1):38-45
pubmed: 12127185
J Foot Ankle Res. 2009 Jun 16;2:20
pubmed: 19531262
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011 Aug;43(8):1507-12
pubmed: 21233775
Ergonomics. 2019 Aug;62(8):1055-1065
pubmed: 31058582
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2006 Jan;21(1):89-98
pubmed: 16182419
Appl Ergon. 2001 Feb;32(1):81-90
pubmed: 11209835
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010 Oct;42(10):1966-71
pubmed: 20216463
Hum Factors. 2017 May;59(3):432-441
pubmed: 28430546