Associations of screen work with neck and upper extremity symptoms: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: It has often been suggested that screen work (ie, work on desktop, laptop, notebook or tablet computers) is a risk factor for neck and upper extremity symptoms. However, an up-to-date overview and quantification of evidence are lacking. We aimed to systematically review the association of exposure to screen work with neck and upper extremity symptoms from prospective studies. METHODS: An electronic database search (PubMed, Embase, Cinahl and Scopus) for prospective studies on the association of exposure to screen work and musculoskeletal symptoms was conducted. Studies were synthesised regarding extracted data and risk of bias, and meta-analyses were conducted. RESULTS: After screening 3423 unique references, 19 articles from 12 studies (with 18 538 participants) were included for the current review, with the most recent exposure assessment reported in 2005. Studies described duration and input frequency of screen work (ie, computer, keyboard and mouse use, assessed using self-reports or software recordings) and musculoskeletal symptoms (ie, self-reported neck/shoulder and distal upper extremity symptoms and diagnosed carpal tunnel syndrome [CTS]). Although there was overall an increased occurrence of musculoskeletal symptoms with larger exposure to screen work (relative risk: 1.11 [1.03 1.19]), findings were rather inconsistent with weaker (and statistically non-significant) risks when screen work was assessed by software recording (1.05 [0.91 1.21]) compared to with self-report (1.14 [1.03 1.19]). CONCLUSIONS: We found an increased risk of musculoskeletal symptoms with screen work. However, the evidence is heterogeneous, and it is striking that it lacks information from contemporary screen work using laptop, notebook or tablet computers.

Interventions to prevent injuries in construction workers.

BACKGROUND: Construction workers are frequently exposed to various types of injury-inducing hazards. There are a number of injury prevention interventions, yet their effectiveness is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions for preventing injuries in construction workers. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's specialised register, CENTRAL (issue 3), MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO up to April 2017. The searches were not restricted by language or publication status. We also handsearched the reference lists of relevant papers and reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, controlled before-after (CBA) studies and interrupted time-series (ITS) of all types of interventions for preventing fatal and non-fatal injuries among workers at construction sites. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed their risk of bias. For ITS studies, we re-analysed the studies and used an initial effect, measured as the change in injury rate in the year after the intervention, as well as a sustained effect, measured as the change in time trend before and after the intervention. MAIN RESULTS: Seventeen studies (14 ITS and 3 CBA studies) met the inclusion criteria in this updated version of the review. The ITS studies evaluated the effects of: introducing or changing regulations that laid down safety and health requirements for the construction sites (nine studies), a safety campaign (two studies), a drug-free workplace programme (one study), a training programme (one study), and safety inspections (one study) on fatal and non-fatal occupational injuries. One CBA study evaluated the introduction of occupational health services such as risk assessment and health surveillance, one evaluated a training programme and one evaluated the effect of a subsidy for upgrading to safer scaffoldings. The overall risk of bias of most of the included studies was high, as it was uncertain for the ITS studies whether the intervention was independent from other changes and thus could be regarded as the main reason of change in the outcome. Therefore, we rated the quality of the evidence as very low for all comparisons.Compulsory interventionsRegulatory interventions at national or branch level may or may not have an initial effect (effect size (ES) of -0.33; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.08 to 1.41) and may or may not have a sustained effect (ES -0.03; 95% CI -0.30 to 0.24) on fatal and non-fatal injuries (9 ITS studies) due to highly inconsistent results (I² = 98%). Inspections may or may not have an effect on non-fatal injuries (ES 0.07; 95% CI -2.83 to 2.97; 1 ITS study).Educational interventionsSafety training interventions may result in no significant reduction of non-fatal injuries (1 ITS study and 1 CBA study).Informational interventionsWe found no studies that had evaluated informational interventions alone such as campaigns for risk communication.Persuasive interventionsWe found no studies that had evaluated persuasive interventions alone such as peer feedback on workplace actions to increase acceptance of safe working methods.Facilitative interventionsMonetary subsidies to companies may lead to a greater decrease in non-fatal injuries from falls to a lower level than no subsidies (risk ratio (RR) at follow-up: 0.93; 95% CI 0.30 to 2.91 from RR 3.89 at baseline; 1 CBA study).Multifaceted interventionsA safety campaign intervention may result in an initial (ES -1.82; 95% CI -2.90 to -0.74) and sustained (ES -1.30; 95% CI -1.79 to -0.81) decrease in injuries at the company level (1 ITS study), but not at the regional level (1 ITS study). A multifaceted drug-free workplace programme at the company level may reduce non-fatal injuries in the year following implementation by -7.6 per 100 person-years (95% CI -11.2 to -4.0) and in the years thereafter by -2.0 per 100 person-years (95% CI -3.5 to -0.5) (1 ITS study). Introducing occupational health services may result in no decrease in fatal or non-fatal injuries (one CBA study). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of interventions to adopt safety measures recommended by standard texts on safety, consultants and safety courses have not been adequately evaluated. There is very low-quality evidence that introducing regulations as such may or may not result in a decrease in fatal and non-fatal injuries. There is also very low-quality evidence that regionally oriented safety campaigns, training, inspections or the introduction of occupational health services may not reduce non-fatal injuries in construction companies. There is very low-quality evidence that company-oriented safety interventions such as a multifaceted safety campaign, a multifaceted drug workplace programme and subsidies for replacement of scaffoldings may reduce non-fatal injuries among construction workers. More studies, preferably cluster-randomised controlled trials, are needed to evaluate different strategies to increase the employers' and workers' adherence to the safety measures prescribed by regulation.

A research framework for the development and implementation of interventions preventing work-related musculoskeletal disorders.

Objectives Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) are highly prevalent and put a large burden on (working) society. Primary prevention of work-related MSD focuses often on physical risk factors (such as manual lifting and awkward postures) but has not been too successful in reducing the MSD burden. This may partly be caused by insufficient knowledge of etiological mechanisms and/or a lack of adequately feasible interventions (theory failure and program failure, respectively), possibly due to limited integration of research disciplines. A research framework could link research disciplines thereby strengthening the development and implementation of preventive interventions. Our objective was to define and describe such a framework for multi-disciplinary research on work-related MSD prevention. Methods We described a framework for MSD prevention research, partly based on frameworks from other research fields (ie, sports injury prevention and public health). Results The framework is composed of a repeated sequence of six steps comprising the assessment of (i) incidence and severity of MSD, (ii) risk factors for MSD, and (iii) underlying mechanisms; and the (iv) development, (v) evaluation, and (vi) implementation of preventive intervention(s). Conclusions In the present framework for optimal work-related MSD prevention, research disciplines are linked. This framework can thereby help to improve theories and strengthen the development and implementation of prevention strategies for work-related MSD.

Barriers and Facilitators for the Use of a Medical Mobile App to Prevent Work-Related Risks in Pregnancy: A Qualitative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The number of women participating in the labor market in Europe has increased over the last several decades. At the same time, there is growing evidence that certain conditions of employment during pregnancy may have a negative influence on pregnancy outcomes. In order to better inform pregnant women, we aim to develop an app to help assess the health risk as a result of personal and work-related factors and provide personal advice for these women and their health care providers. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compose a thematic overview of the perceived facilitators and barriers according to pregnant women, medical professionals, and employers for the use of a mobile app in obstetrical care to prevent occupational-related pregnancy complications. METHODS: Two multidisciplinary focus group meetings with in total 14 participants were conducted with pregnant women, occupational physicians, general practitioners, midwives, obstetricians, and representatives of trade unions and employer organizations. Transcripts were analyzed by qualitatively coding procedures and constant comparative methods. RESULTS: We identified 24 potential facilitators and 12 potential barriers for the use of the app in 4 categories: content of the app, the app as a mean to provide information, ease of use, and external factors. The 3 main facilitators identified were the need for a good interaction between the app and the user, apps were viewed as a more practical source of information, and the information should be understandable, according to the existing guidelines, and well-dosed. The 2 main barriers for use were extensive battery and memory use of the smartphone and sending frequent push notifications. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study are important considerations in the developing process of a medical app implementing a guideline or evidence-based information in practice.

Enhancing the Return to Work of Cancer Survivors: Development and Feasibility of the Nurse-Led eHealth Intervention Cancer@Work.

BACKGROUND: It is important to enhance the return to work of cancer survivors with an appropriate intervention, as cancer survivors experience problems upon their return to work but consider it an essential part of their recovery. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to develop an eHealth intervention to enhance the return to work of cancer survivors and to test the feasibility of the eHealth intervention with end users. METHODS: To develop the intervention we 1) searched the literature, 2) interviewed 7 eHealth experts, 3) interviewed 7 cancer survivors, 2 employers, and 7 occupational physicians, and 4) consulted experts. To test feasibility, we enrolled 39 cancer survivors, 9 supervisors, 7 occupational physicians, 9 general physicians and 2 social workers and gave them access to the eHealth intervention. We also interviewed participants, asked them to fill in a questionnaire, or both, to test which functionalities of the eHealth intervention were appropriate and which aspects needed improvement. RESULTS: Cancer survivors particularly want information and support regarding the possibility of returning to work, and on financial and legal aspects of their situation. Furthermore, the use of blended care and the personalization of the eHealth intervention were preferred features for increasing compliance. The first version of the eHealth intervention consisted of access to a personal and secure website containing various functionalities for cancer survivors blended with support from their specialized nurse, and a public website for employers, occupational physicians, and general physicians. The eHealth intervention appeared feasible. We adapted it slightly by adding more information on different cancer types and their possible effects on return to work. CONCLUSIONS: A multistakeholder and mixed-method design appeared useful in the development of the eHealth intervention. It was challenging to meet all end user requirements due to legal and privacy constraints. The eHealth intervention appeared feasible, although implementation in daily practice needs to be subject of further research. CLINICALTRIAL: Dutch Trial Register number (NTR): 5190; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=5190 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6hm4WQJqC).

Musculoskeletal disorders among construction workers: a one-year follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are an important cause of functional impairments and disability among construction workers. An improved understanding of MSDs in different construction occupations is likely to be of value for selecting preventive measures. This study aimed to survey the prevalence of symptoms of MSDs, the work-relatedness of the symptoms and the problems experienced during work among two construction occupations: bricklayers and supervisors. METHODS: We randomly selected 750 bricklayers and 750 supervisors resident in the Netherlands in December 2009. This sample was surveyed by means of a baseline questionnaire and a follow-up questionnaire one year later. The participants were asked about complaints of the musculoskeletal system during the last six months, the perceived work-relatedness of the symptoms, the problems that occurred during work and the occupational tasks that were perceived as causes or aggravating factors of the MSD. RESULTS: Baseline response rate was 37%, follow-up response was 80%. The prevalence of MSDs among 267 bricklayers and 232 supervisors was 67% and 57%, respectively. Complaints of the back, knee and shoulder/upper arm were the most prevalent among both occupations. Irrespective of the body region, most of the bricklayers and supervisors reported that their complaints were work-related. Complaints of the back and elbow were the most often reported among the bricklayers during work, whereas lower arm/wrist and upper leg complaints were the most often reported among the supervisors. In both occupations, a majority of the participants perceived several occupational physical tasks and activities as causes or aggravating factors for their MSD. Recurrent complaints at follow-up were reported by both bricklayers (47% of the complaints) and supervisors (31% of the complaints). Participants in both occupations report that mainly back and knee complaints result in additional problems during work, at the time of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial number of the bricklayers and the supervisors report musculoskeletal disorders, mainly back, knee and shoulder/upper arm complaints. The majority of the bricklayers and half of the supervisors believe that their complaints are work-related. Irrespective of occupation, participants with MSDs report substantial problems during work. Workplace intervention measures aimed at occupational physical tasks and activities seem justified for both occupations.

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.

Workplace interventions for treatment of occupational asthma.

BACKGROUND: The impact of workplace interventions on the outcome of occupational asthma is not well-understood. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of workplace interventions on the outcome of occupational asthma. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; NIOSHTIC-2; CISDOC and HSELINE up to February 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series of workplace interventions for occupational asthma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and trial quality, and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: We included 21 controlled before and after studies with 1447 participants that reported on 29 comparisons.In 15 studies, removal from exposure was compared with continued exposure. Removal increased the likelihood of reporting absence of symptoms (risk ratio (RR) 21.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 7.20 to 63.77), improved forced expiratory volume (FEV1 %) (mean difference (MD) 5.52 percentage points, 95% CI 2.99 to 8.06) and decreased non-specific bronchial hyper-reactivity (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.67, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.21).In six studies, reduction of exposure was compared with continued exposure. Reduction increased the likelihood of reporting absence of symptoms (RR 5.35, 95% CI 1.40 to 20.48) but did not affect FEV1 % (MD 1.18 percentage points, 95% CI -2.96 to 5.32).In eight studies, removal from exposure was compared with reduction of exposure. Removal increased the likelihood of reporting absence of symptoms (RR 39.16, 95% CI 7.21 to 212.83) but did not affect FEV1 % (MD 1.16 percentage points, 95% CI -7.51 to 9.84).Two studies reported that the risk of unemployment after removal from exposure was increased compared with reduction of exposure (RR 14.3, 95% CI 2.06 to 99.16). Three studies reported loss of income of about 25% after removal from exposure.Overall the quality of the evidence was very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very low-quality evidence that removal from exposure improves asthma symptoms and lung function compared with continued exposure.Reducing exposure also improves symptoms, but seems not as effective as complete removal.However, removal from exposure is associated with an increased risk of unemployment, whereas reduction of exposure is not. The clinical benefit of removal from exposure or exposure reduction should be balanced against the increased risk of unemployment. We need better studies to identify which interventions intended to reduce exposure give most benefit.

Interventions to enhance return-to-work for cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Cancer survivors are 1.4 times more likely to be unemployed than healthy people. It is therefore important to provide cancer patients with programmes to support the return-to-work process. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at enhancing return-to-work in cancer patients. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, in The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2010), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, OSH-ROM, PsycINFO, DARE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Trialregister.nl and Controlled-trials.com to February 2010, reference lists of included articles and selected reviews, and contacted authors of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled before-after studies (CBAs) of the effectiveness of psychological, vocational, physical, medical or multidisciplinary interventions enhancing return-to-work in cancer patients. The primary outcome was return-to-work measured as either return-to-work rate or sick leave duration. Secondary outcome was quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected trials, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. We pooled studies with sufficient data, judged to be clinically homogeneous in different comparisons. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each comparison using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen articles reporting 14 RCTs and 4 CBAs were included. These studies involved a total of 1652 participants. Results indicated low quality evidence of similar return-to-work rates for psychological interventions compared to care as usual (odds ratio (OR) = 2.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 5.71). No vocational interventions were retrieved. Very low evidence suggested that physical training was not more effective than care as usual on improving return-to-work (OR = 1.20, 95% CI 0.32 to 4.54). Eight RCTs on medical interventions showed low quality evidence that functioning conserving approaches had similar return-to-work rates as more radical treatments (OR = 1.53, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.45). Moderate quality evidence showed multidisciplinary interventions involving physical, psychological and vocational components led to higher return-to-work rates than care as usual (OR = 1.87, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.27). No differences in the effect of psychological, physical, medical or multidisciplinary interventions compared to care as usual were found on quality of life outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate quality evidence showed that employed patients with cancer experience return-to-work benefits from multidisciplinary interventions compared to care as usual. More high quality RCTs aimed at enhancing return-to-work in cancer patients are needed.

Feasibility and acceptability of workers' health surveillance for fire fighters.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to test the feasibility and acceptability of a new workers' health surveillance (WHS) for fire fighters in a Dutch pilot-implementation project. METHODS: In three fire departments, between November 2007 and February 2009, feasibility was tested with respect to i) worker intent to change health and behavior; ii) the quality of instructions for testing teams; iii) the planned procedure in the field; and iv) future WHS organisation. Acceptability involved i) satisfaction with WHS and ii) verification of the job-specificity of the content of two physical tests of WHS. Fire fighters were surveyed after completing WHS, three testing teams were interviewed, and the content of the two tests was studied by experts. FEASIBILITY: nearly all of the 275 fire fighters intended to improve their health when recommended by the occupational physician. The testing teams found the instructions to be clear, and they were mostly positive about the organisation of WHS. Acceptability: the fire fighters rated WHS at eight points (out of a maximum of ten). The experts also reached a consensus about the optimal job-specific content of the future functional physical tests. CONCLUSION: Overall, it is feasible and acceptable to implement WHS in a definitive form in the Dutch fire-fighting sector.

Facilitators and Barriers in the Use of a Checklist by Insurance Physicians during Work Ability Assessments in Depressive Disorder.

OBJECTIVES: Depressive disorder (DD) is a complex disease, and the assessment of work ability in patients with DD is also complicated. The checklist depression (CDp) has recently been developed to support such work ability assessments and has been recommended for implementation in insurance medicine, starting with an analysis of the organisational and social contexts. The aim of this study was to identify the potential facilitators and barriers in the use of the CDp by insurance physicians (IPs) during work ability assessments of employees on sick leave due to DD. METHODS: A qualitative research was conducted based on semi-structured interviews. The participants were IPs with at least one year of work experience in performing work ability assessments. The interviews were audiotaped, transcribed and analysed qualitatively. RESULTS: Ten IPs (7 males, 3 females; mean 53 years) were interviewed. Important facilitators, which emerged for use of the CDp, were an oral introduction for colleagues and staff, support from management, valuing the increased transparency in work ability assessments with using the CDp, having adequate time for assessments as well as modification of the appearance (colour, plasticised form) and content (clarifying aspects of the examples) of the assessment tool. The fear of the loss of autonomy, lack of added value of the CDp, high workload, inadequate instructions and lack of time were mentioned as barriers. CONCLUSION: Adequate introduction to the use of CDp and the fear of the loss of autonomy of IPs need special attention in planning its implementation.