This cross-sectional survey of 85 maintenance workers at a Chilean mining company examined acceptability of industrial exoskeletons. Likert items were analyzed by age group (30 or younger, 31 to 40, 41 or older). Willingness to use was high with device knowledge low. Older workers reported lower expected helpfulness and greater distrust (errors). Musculoskeletal discomfort concentrated in the lower back and upper limbs, consistent with tasks identified for assistance. Open-ended responses highlighted expectations of pain and effort relief, alongside constraints of space, fit, and training. Findings indicate favorable social acceptability with practical gaps for implementation pilots integrated with ergonomic controls.
AdriaensenA.CostantinoF.Di GravioG.PatriarcaR. (2022). Teaming with industrial cobots: A socio‐technical perspective on safety analysis. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 32(2), 173–198. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20939
2.
AkinwandeF.KimS.OjeladeA.MuslimK.IridiastadiH.NasarwanjiM.KimJ. H.NussbaumM. A. (2025). Perspectives of mining personnel on adopting occupational exoskeletons: Comparisons between a developed and a developing country. Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration, 42(2), 523–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42461-025-01189-1
3.
AlatabS.SepanlouS. G.IkutaK.VahediH.BisignanoC.SafiriS.NaghaviM. (2020). The global, regional, and national burden of inflammatory bowel disease in 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: A systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2017. The Lancet gastroenterology & hepatology, 5(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-1253(19)30333-4
4.
Astudillo CornejoP.Ibarra VillanuevaC.Ramos PisonM. J.Aguilera OlivaresF.Ramos HarrisS. (2024). Regulaciones en ergonomía y trastornos musculoesqueléticos laborales de extremidades superiores en Chile (2009-2019): impactos según género. Revista Facultad Nacional De Salud Pública, 42, Article e355915. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rfnsp.e355915
5.
BarcelliniF.Van BelleghemL.DaniellouF. (2014). Design projects as opportunities for the development of activities. In FalzonP. (Ed.), Constructive ergonomics. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/b17456-18
6.
BergerI.DenisD.GonellaM. (2025). Exosquelettes au travail: vers une adoption contextualisée grâce à une démarche d'intégration structurée. In 58e Congrès de la SELF 2025: ergonomie, communauté(s) et société: entre héritage et perspectives (pp. 378–387). Société d’Ergonomie de Langue Française (SELF). https://ergonomie-self.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/2507-self-2025-actes-v070725.pdf
7.
BodinJ.GarlantézecR.DescathaA.EvanoffB.ThomasT.RoquelaureY. (2022). Risk factors for shoulder disorders among French workers: Prospective cohort study. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 95(7), 1511–1519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-022-01853-9
8.
BonfiglioliR.Caraballo-AriasY.Salmen-NavarroA. (2022). Epidemiology of work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Current Opinion in Epidemiology and Public Health, 1(1), 18–24. https://doi.org/10.1097/PXH.0000000000000003
9.
BriggsA. M.WoolfA. D.DreinhöferK.HombN.HoyD. G.Kopansky-GilesD.ÅkessonK.MarchL. (2018). Reducing the global burden of musculoskeletal conditions. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 96(5), 366–368. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.17.204891
10.
CastellucciH. I.VivianiC.HernandezP.BravoG.MartínezM.IbacacheJ. (2025) (In this issue). Does expertise matter? A study of Chile’s ergonomic risk assessment tool. Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications, 10648046251361605. https://doi.org/10.1177/10648046251361605
CompanN.CoutarelF.BrissaudD.Rix-LièvreG. (2022). Enabling collaborative situations in 4.0 industry: Multiple case study. In BlackN. L.NeumannW. P.NoyI. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st congress of the international Ergonomics Association (IEA 2021). IEA 2021. Lecture notes in networks and systems (Vol. 223, pp. 614–620). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74614-8_76
De BockS.GhillebertJ.GovaertsR.TassignonB.Rodriguez-GuerreroC.CreaS.VenemanJ.GeeromsJ.MeeusenR.De PauwK. (2022). Benchmarking occupational exoskeletons: An evidence mapping systematic review. Applied Ergonomics, 98, Article 103582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103582
15.
de LoozeM. P.BoschT.KrauseF.StadlerK. S.O’SullivanL. W. (2015). Exoskeletons for industrial application and their potential effects on physical work load. Ergonomics, 59(5), 671–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2015.1081988
16.
DempseyP. G.KocherL. M.NasarwanjiM. F.PollardJ. P.WhitsonA. E. (2018). Emerging ergonomics issues and opportunities in mining. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(11), 2449. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15112449
17.
DenisD.BergerI.GonellaM. (2025). Pourquoi l’adoption d’un exosquelette sur le long terme représente-t-il un défi? In 58e Congrès de la SELF 2025: ergonomie, communauté(s) et société: entre héritage et perspectives (pp. 398–409). Société d’Ergonomie de Langue Française (SELF). https://ergonomie-self.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/2507-self-2025-actes-v070725.pdf
18.
DufraisseM.Atain KouadioJ.-J.HayotC.DesbrossesK.Clerc-UrmèsI.MorelO.RémyO.WiolandL.CegarraJ. (2025). Embodiment of occupational exoskeletons as developing a sense of ownership and readiness-to-hand: Laboratory and field explorations. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 68(2), 239–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208251368269
19.
ElpramaS. A.VanderborghtB.JacobsA. (2022). An industrial exoskeleton user acceptance framework based on a literature review of empirical studies. Applied Ergonomics, 100, Article 103615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103615
20.
GonellaM.DenisD.BergerI. (2025). Comment sont intégrés les exosquelettes dans les milieux de travail? Résultats d’une revue systématique. In 58e Congrès de la SELF 2025: ergonomie, communauté(s) et société: entre héritage et perspectives (pp. 129–136). Société d’Ergonomie de Langue Française (SELF). https://ergonomie-self.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/2507-self-2025-actes-v070725.pdf
21.
IbarraC.AstudilloP.DenisD.LedouxÉ.VézinaN. (2025). Expériences dans la mise en œuvre d’exosquelettes dans les travaux miniers au Chili. In 58e Congrès de la SELF 2025: ergonomie, communauté(s) et société: entre héritage et perspectives (pp. 124–128). Société d’Ergonomie de Langue Française (SELF). https://ergonomie-self.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/2507-self-2025-actes-v070725.pdf
22.
Ibarra-VillanuevaC.DenisD.LedouxÉ.VézinaN.VelásquezJ. C. (2025). Passive industrial exoskeletons as a possible solution for the prevention of work-related musculoskeletal disorders in the Chilean mining industry: A panoramic review. In JinS.KimJ. H.KongY. K.ParkJ.YunM. H. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd congress of the international ergonomics association, volume 5. IEA 2024. Springer series in design and innovation (Vol. 57, pp. 102–107). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-96-9334-4_18
23.
International Organization for Standardization. (2018). Ergonomics of human–system interaction—Part 11: Usability: Definitions and concepts. (ISO 9241-11:2018). https://www.iso.org/standard/63500.html
24.
MartínezM.Alvarado MuñozR. (2017). Validación del Cuestionario Nórdico Estandarizado de Síntomas Musculoesqueléticos para la población trabajadora chilena, adicionando una escala de dolor. Revista de Salud Pública, 21(2), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.31052/1853.1180.v21.n2.16889
RalfsL.HoffmannN.GlitschU.HeinrichK.JohnsJ.WeidnerR. (2023). Insights into evaluating and using industrial exoskeletons: Summary report, guideline, and lessons learned from the interdisciplinary project “Exo@ Work”. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 97, Article 103494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2023.103494
TheurelJ.DesbrossesK.RouxT.SavescuA. (2018). Physiological consequences of using an upper limb exoskeleton during manual handling tasks. Applied Ergonomics, 67, 211–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2017.10.008
29.
van de WijdevenB.VisserB.DaamsJ.KuijerP. P. (2023). A first step towards a framework for interventions for individual working practice to prevent work-related musculoskeletal disorders: A scoping review. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 24(1), 87. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06155-w
30.
ZouH.KimS.KwonH.JinS. (2025). Passive exoskeletons reduce low-back passive tissue creep. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 187208251388336. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208251388336
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
