How to improve the assessment of the impact of occupational diseases at a national level? The Netherlands as an example.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the impact of occupational diseases (ODs) through estimations of population attributable fractions (PAFs) in a national context. METHODS: PAFs were calculated for eight prevalent ODs using existing data on the prevalence of exposure to risk factors at work and the strength of their association with diseases based on systematic reviews. Six systematic reviews with meta-analyses and two overview papers were selected. All addressed the relationship between occupational exposure to work-related risk factors for these eight prevalent ODs. Prevalence figures for exposure to work-related risk factors were retrieved from the Dutch National Working Conditions Survey (NWCS) based on self-reports by approximately 40 000 workers. The specific risk factors retrieved from the reviews were matched with the available and dichotomised self-reported exposure items from the NWCS by two authors. RESULTS: The eight frequently reported ODs among the Dutch working population revealed PAFs varying between 3% and 25%. Lateral epicondylitis and distress/burnout had the highest attributable fractions, with percentages of 25% and 18%, respectively. For knee osteoarthritis (13%), shoulder soft tissue disorders (10%) and non-specific low back pain (10%) approximately 1 in 10 cases were attributable to work. PAFs for irritant contact dermatitis, noise-induced hearing loss and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were 15%, 6% and 3%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Data from systematic reviews and self-reported data on exposure provide opportunities to estimate the impact of ODs. For the Netherlands, they revealed substantial and varying attributions of work for prevalent diseases.

Systematic review of prognostic factors for work participation in patients with sciatica.

Sciatica impacts on the ability to work and may lead to a reduced return to work. This study reviewed and summarised prognostic factors of work participation in patients who received conservative or surgical treatment for clinically diagnosed sciatica. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and PsycINFO until January 2018. Cohort studies, using a measure of work participation as outcome, were included. Two independent reviewers performed study inclusion and used the Quality In Prognosis Studies tool for risk of bias assessment and GRADE to rate the quality of the evidence. Based on seven studies describing six cohorts (n=1408 patients) that assessed 21 potential prognostic factors, favourable factors for return to work (follow-up ranging from 3 months to 10 years) included younger age, better general health, less low back pain or sciatica bothersomeness, better physical function, negative straight leg raise-test, physician expecting surgery to be beneficial, better pain coping, less depression and mental stress, less fear of movement and low physical work load. Study results could not be pooled. Using GRADE, the quality of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low, with downgrading mainly for a high risk of bias and imprecision. Several prognostic factors like pain, disability and psychological factors were identified and reviewed, and these could be targeted using additional interventions to optimise return to work. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42016042497.

Manual material handling advice and assistive devices for preventing and treating back pain in workers.

BACKGROUND: Training and the provision of assistive devices are considered major interventions to prevent back pain and its related disability among workers exposed to manual material handling (MMH). OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of MMH advice and training and the provision of assistive devices in preventing and treating back pain. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2011, issue 1), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Nioshtic, CISdoc, Science Citation Index, and PsychLIT to February 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) and cohort studies with a concurrent control group that were aimed at changing human behaviour in MMH and measured back pain, back pain-related disability or sickness absence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group for RCTs and MINORS for the cohort studies.We based the results and conclusions on the analysis of RCTs only. We compared these with the results from cohort studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs (20,101 employees) and nine cohort studies (1280 employees) on the prevention of back pain in this updated review. Studies compared training to no intervention (4), professional education (2), a video (3), use of a back belt (3) or exercise (2). Other studies compared training plus lifting aids to no intervention (3) and to training only (1). The intensity of training ranged from a single educational session to very extensive personal biofeedback.Six RCTs had a high risk of bias.None of the included studies showed evidence of a preventive effect of training on back pain.There was moderate quality evidence from seven RCTs (19,317 employees) that those who received training reported levels of back pain similar to those who received no intervention, with an odds ratio of 1.17 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.68 to 2.02) or minor advice (video), with a relative risk of 0.93 (95% CI 0.69 to 1.25). Confidence intervals around the effect estimates were still wide due to the adjustment for the design effect of clustered studies.The results of the cohort studies were similar to those of the randomised studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate quality evidence that MMH advice and training with or without assistive devices does not prevent back pain or back pain-related disability when compared to no intervention or alternative interventions. There is no evidence available from RCTs for the effectiveness of MMH advice and training or MMH assistive devices for treating back pain. More high quality studies could further reduce the remaining uncertainty.

Tennis elbow.

Tennis elbow is the most common cause of lateral-sided elbow pain with a major socioeconomic impact. The etiology of tennis elbow is not completely understood, but there are many different treatment options. This review gives an overview of the current concepts of diagnosis and treatment of tennis elbow and the impact on work participation.

An Evidence-Based Multidisciplinary Practice Guideline to Reduce the Workload due to Lifting for Preventing Work-Related Low Back Pain.

We developed an evidence-based practice guideline to support occupational safety and health (OSH) professionals in assessing the risk due to lifting and in selecting effective preventive measures for low back pain (LBP) in the Netherlands. The guideline was developed at the request of the Dutch government by a project team of experts and OSH professionals in lifting and work-related LBP. The recommendations for risk assessment were based on the quality of instruments to assess the risk on LBP due to lifting. Recommendations for interventions were based on a systematic review of the effects of worker- and work directed interventions to reduce back load due to lifting. The quality of the evidence was rated as strong (A), moderate (B), limited (C) or based on consensus (D). Finally, eight experts and twenty-four OSH professionals commented on and evaluated the content and the feasibility of the preliminary guideline. For risk assessment we recommend loads heavier than 25 kg always to be considered a risk for LBP while loads less than 3 kg do not pose a risk. For loads between 3-25 kg, risk assessment shall be performed using the Manual handling Assessment Charts (MAC)-Tool or National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) lifting equation. Effective work oriented interventions are patient lifting devices (Level A) and lifting devices for goods (Level C), optimizing working height (Level A) and reducing load mass (Level C). Ineffective work oriented preventive measures are regulations to ban lifting without proper alternatives (Level D). We do not recommend worker-oriented interventions but consider personal lift assist devices as promising (Level C). Ineffective worker-oriented preventive measures are training in lifting technique (Level A), use of back-belts (Level A) and pre-employment medical examinations (Level A). This multidisciplinary evidence-based practice guideline gives clear criteria whether an employee is at risk for LBP while lifting and provides an easy-reference for (in)effective risk reduction measures based on scientific evidence, experience, and consensus among OSH experts and practitioners.

Return to work after an acute coronary syndrome: patients' perspective.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the time perspective of return to work and the factors that facilitate and hinder return to work in a group of survivors of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHODS: Retrospective semi-structured telephone survey 2 to 3 years after hospitalization with 84 employed Dutch ACS-patients from one academic medical hospital. RESULTS: Fifty-eight percent of patients returned to work within 3 months, whereas at least 88% returned to work once within 2 years. Two years after hospitalization, 12% of ACS patients had not returned to work at all, and 24% were working, but not at pre-ACS levels. For all ACS-patients, the most mentioned categories of facilitating factors to return to work were having no complaints and not having signs or symptoms of heart disease. Physical incapacity, co-morbidity, and mental incapacity were the top 3 categories of hindering factors against returning to work. CONCLUSION: Within 2 years, 36% of the patients had not returned to work at their pre-ACS levels. Disease factors, functional capacity, environmental factors, and personal factors were listed as affecting subjects' work ability level.