Non-medical interventions to enhance return to work for people with cancer.

BACKGROUND: People with cancer are 1.4 times more likely to be unemployed than people without a cancer diagnosis. Therefore, it is important to investigate whether programmes to enhance the return-to-work (RTW) process for people who have been diagnosed with cancer are effective. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2011 and updated in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of non-medical interventions aimed at enhancing return to work (RTW) in people with cancer compared to alternative programmes including usual care or no intervention. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and three trial registers up to 18 August 2021. We also examined the reference lists of included studies and selected reviews, and contacted authors of relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs on the effectiveness of psycho-educational, vocational, physical or multidisciplinary interventions enhancing RTW in people with cancer. The primary outcome was RTW measured as either RTW rate or sick leave duration measured at 12 months' follow-up. The secondary outcome was quality of life (QoL). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed RCTs for inclusion, extracted data and rated certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We pooled study results judged to be clinically homogeneous in different comparisons reporting risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for RTW and mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs for QoL. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 RCTs involving 1477 people with cancer with 19 evaluations because of multiple treatment groups. In this update, we added eight new RCTs and excluded seven RCTs from the previous versions of this review that were aimed at medical interventions. All included RCTs were conducted in high-income countries, and most were aimed at people with breast cancer (nine RCTs) or prostate cancer (two RCTs). Risk of bias We judged nine RCTs at low risk of bias and six at high risk of bias. The most common type of bias was a lack of blinding (9/15 RCTs). Psycho-educational interventions We found four RCTs comparing psycho-educational interventions including patient education and patient counselling versus care as usual. Psycho-educational interventions probably result in little to no difference in RTW compared to care as usual (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.24; 4 RCTs, 512 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This means that in the intervention and control groups, approximately 625 per 1000 participants may have returned to work. The psycho-educational interventions may result in little to no difference in QoL compared to care as usual (MD 1.47, 95% CI -2.38 to 5.32; 1 RCT, 124 participants; low-certainty evidence). Vocational interventions We found one RCT comparing vocational intervention versus care as usual. The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of a vocational intervention on RTW compared to care as usual (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.13; 1 RCT, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report QoL. Physical interventions Four RCTs compared a physical intervention programme versus care as usual. These physical intervention programmes included walking, yoga or physical exercise. Physical interventions likely increase RTW compared to care as usual (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.39; 4 RCTs, 434 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This means that in the intervention group probably 677 to 871 per 1000 participants RTW compared to 627 per 1000 in the control group (thus, 50 to 244 participants more RTW). Physical interventions may result in little to no difference in QoL compared to care as usual (SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.32; 1 RCT, 173 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD translates back to a 1.8-point difference (95% CI -7.54 to 3.97) on the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). Multidisciplinary interventions Six RCTs compared multidisciplinary interventions (vocational counselling, patient education, patient counselling, physical exercises) to care as usual. Multidisciplinary interventions likely increase RTW compared to care as usual (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.33; 6 RCTs, 497 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This means that in the intervention group probably 694 to 844 per 1000 participants RTW compared to 625 per 1000 in the control group (thus, 69 to 217 participants more RTW). Multidisciplinary interventions may result in little to no difference in QoL compared to care as usual (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.28; 3 RCTs, 378 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD translates back to a 1.4-point difference (95% CI -2.58 to 5.36) on the EORTC QLQ-C30. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Physical interventions (four RCTs) and multidisciplinary interventions (six RCTs) likely increase RTW of people with cancer. Psycho-educational interventions (four RCTs) probably result in little to no difference in RTW, while the evidence from vocational interventions (one RCT) is very uncertain. Psycho-educational, physical or multidisciplinary interventions may result in little to no difference in QoL. Future research on enhancing RTW in people with cancer involving multidisciplinary interventions encompassing a physical, psycho-educational and vocational component is needed, and be preferably tailored to the needs of the patient.

Individual-level interventions for reducing occupational stress in healthcare workers.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers can suffer from work-related stress as a result of an imbalance of demands, skills and social support at work. This may lead to stress, burnout and psychosomatic problems, and deterioration of service provision. This is an update of a Cochrane Review that was last updated in 2015, which has been split into this review and a review on organisational-level interventions.  OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of stress-reduction interventions targeting individual healthcare workers compared to no intervention, wait list, placebo, no stress-reduction intervention or another type of stress-reduction intervention in reducing stress symptoms.  SEARCH METHODS: We used the previous version of the review as one source of studies (search date: November 2013). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science and a trials register from 2013 up to February 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the effectiveness of stress interventions directed at healthcare workers. We included only interventions targeted at individual healthcare workers aimed at reducing stress symptoms.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We categorised interventions into ones that: 1. focus one's attention on the (modification of the) experience of stress (thoughts, feelings, behaviour);  2. focus one's attention away from the experience of stress by various means of psychological disengagement (e.g. relaxing, exercise);  3. alter work-related risk factors on an individual level; and ones that 4. combine two or more of the above.  The crucial outcome measure was stress symptoms measured with various self-reported questionnaires such as the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), measured at short term (up to and including three months after the intervention ended), medium term (> 3 to 12 months after the intervention ended), and long term follow-up (> 12 months after the intervention ended).  MAIN RESULTS: This is the second update of the original Cochrane Review published in 2006, Issue 4. This review update includes 89 new studies, bringing the total number of studies in the current review to 117 with a total of 11,119 participants randomised.  The number of participants per study arm was ≥ 50 in 32 studies. The most important risk of bias was the lack of blinding of participants.  Focus on the experience of stress versus no intervention/wait list/placebo/no stress-reduction intervention Fifty-two studies studied an intervention in which one's focus is on the experience of stress. Overall, such interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms in the short term (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.52 to -0.23; 41 RCTs; 3645 participants; low-certainty evidence) and medium term (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.14; 19 RCTs; 1851 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD of the short-term result translates back to 4.6 points fewer on the MBI-emotional exhaustion scale (MBI-EE, a scale from 0 to 54). The evidence is very uncertain (one RCT; 68 participants, very low-certainty evidence) about the long-term effect on stress symptoms of focusing one's attention on the experience of stress. Focus away from the experience of stress versus no intervention/wait list/placebo/no stress-reduction intervention  Forty-two studies studied an intervention in which one's focus is away from the experience of stress. Overall, such interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms in the short term (SMD -0.55, 95 CI -0.70 to -0.40; 35 RCTs; 2366 participants; low-certainty evidence) and medium term (SMD -0.41 95% CI -0.79 to -0.03; 6 RCTs; 427 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD on the short term translates back to 6.8 fewer points on the MBI-EE. No studies reported the long-term effect. Focus on work-related, individual-level factors versus no intervention/no stress-reduction intervention Seven studies studied an intervention in which the focus is on altering work-related factors. The evidence is very uncertain about the short-term effects (no pooled effect estimate; three RCTs; 87 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and medium-term effects and long-term effects (no pooled effect estimate; two RCTs; 152 participants, and one RCT; 161 participants, very low-certainty evidence) of this type of stress management intervention.  A combination of individual-level interventions versus no intervention/wait list/no stress-reduction intervention Seventeen studies studied a combination of interventions. In the short-term, this type of intervention may result in a reduction in stress symptoms (SMD -0.67 95%, CI -0.95 to -0.39; 15 RCTs; 1003 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD translates back to 8.2 fewer points on the MBI-EE. On the medium term, a combination of individual-level interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms, but the evidence does not exclude no effect (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.95 to 0.00; 6 RCTs; 574 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the long term effects of a combination of interventions on stress symptoms (one RCT, 88 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Focus on stress versus other intervention type  Three studies compared focusing on stress versus focusing away from stress and one study a combination of interventions versus focusing on stress. The evidence is very uncertain about which type of intervention is better or if their effect is similar. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review shows that there may be an effect on stress reduction in healthcare workers from individual-level stress interventions, whether they focus one's attention on or away from the experience of stress. This effect may last up to a year after the end of the intervention. A combination of interventions may be beneficial as well, at least in the short term. Long-term effects of individual-level stress management interventions remain unknown. The same applies for interventions on (individual-level) work-related risk factors. The bias assessment of the studies in this review showed the need for methodologically better-designed and executed studies, as nearly all studies suffered from poor reporting of the randomisation procedures, lack of blinding of participants and lack of trial registration. Better-designed trials with larger sample sizes are required to increase the certainty of the evidence. Last, there is a need for more studies on interventions which focus on work-related risk factors.

Heavyweight Mesh Is Superior to Lightweight Mesh in Laparo-endoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis aims to provide an update on the available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and recommendations on using lightweight mesh (LWM) or heavyweight mesh (HWM) in laparo-endoscopic inguinal hernia repair. BACKGROUND: LWM might reduce chronic pain through improved mesh flexibility and less fibrosis formation. However, in laparo-endoscopic repair chronic pain is already rare and LWM raise concerns of higher recurrence rates. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in May 2019 in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane library for RCTs that compared lightweight (≤50 g/m2) and heavyweight (>70 g/m2) mesh in patients undergoing laparo-endoscopic surgery for uncomplicated inguinal hernias. Outcomes were recurrences, chronic pain, and foreign-body sensation. The level of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated by random effect meta-analyses. Trial-sequential-analyses were subsequently performed. RESULTS: Twelve RCTs, encompassing 2909 patients (LWM 1490 vs HWM 1419), were included. The follow-up range was 3 to 60 months. Using LWM increased the recurrence risk (LWM 32/1571, HWM 13/1508; RR 2.21; CI 1.14-4.31), especially in nonfixated mesh direct repairs (LWM 13/180, HWM 1/171; RR 7.27; CI 1.33-39.73) and/or large hernia defects. No difference was determined regarding any pain (LWM 123/1362, HWM 127/1277; RR 0.79; CI 0.52-1.20), severe pain (LWM 3/1226, HWM 9/1079; RR 0.38; CI 0.11-1.35), and foreign-body sensation (LWM 100/1074, HWM 103/913; RR 0.94; CI 0.73-1.20). CONCLUSION: HWM should be used in laparo-endoscopic repairs of direct or large inguinal hernias to reduce recurrence rates. LWM provide no benefit in indirect hernias.

Lightweight mesh is recommended in open inguinal (Lichtenstein) hernia repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The use of lightweight mesh for inguinal hernia repair has been suggested to be preferable compared with heavyweight mesh. Nevertheless, surgeons do not use lightweight mesh routinely, possibly owing to the higher price and lack of confidence in evaluation of previous evidence. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to update the available randomized controlled trials and provide a recommendation on the use of lightweight mesh or heavyweight mesh in open inguinal hernia repair. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in May 2019 in MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane library for randomized controlled trials comparing lightweight (≤50 g/m2) and heavyweight (>70 g/m2) mesh in patients undergoing open (Lichtenstein) surgery for uncomplicated inguinal hernias. Outcomes were recurrences (overall, after direct or indirect repair), chronic pain (analyzing any and severe pain), and the feeling of a foreign body. The level of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by random effect meta-analyses. RESULTS: Twenty-one randomized controlled trials involving 4,576 patients (lightweight mesh 2,257 vs heavyweight mesh 2,319) were included. Follow-up ranged from 3 to 60 months. No difference between lightweight mesh and heavyweight mesh was determined for recurrence rates (lightweight mesh 42 of 2,068 and heavyweight mesh 34 of 2,132; risk ratios 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-1.96) or severe pain (lightweight mesh 14 of 1,517 and heavyweight mesh 26 of 1,591; risk ratios 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-1.41). A significant reduction was seen for any pain after lightweight mesh (234 of 1,603) compared with heavyweight mesh (322 of 1,683; risk ratios 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.96) and for the feeling of a foreign body (lightweight mesh 130 of 1,053 and heavyweight mesh 209 of 1,035; risk ratios 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.80). CONCLUSION: Lightweight mesh should be used in open (Lichtenstein) inguinal hernia repair.

Within-person fluctuations in wellbeing and task-specific work ability.

PURPOSE: To research within-person fluctuations in occupational health, work ability and wellbeing, we need new measurement strategies. We studied absolute agreement for weekly measurements of task-specific work ability and relationships between wellbeing, work demands and personal factors and task-specific work ability over time. METHODS: Forty-eight Dutch academic researchers answered questions during 12 consecutive weeks. Physical and mental work demands, indicators of wellbeing and task-specific work ability in each week were measured. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) for absolute agreement between task-specific work ability measures were calculated. For application in individual workers, an ICC > 0.90 was regarded as suitable. Multilevel models were used to relate both time-invariant and time-varying predictors to task-specific work ability. RESULTS: Multiple measurements increased the reliability. Absolute agreement, however, did not reach the optimal level, except for the task 'ability to conduct data analyses' which had an ICC value of 0.95 (95% CI 0.91-0.98). Individuals' leisure time physical activity (p = 0.03) and relational (p = 0.02) and social (p = 0.02) wellbeing were related to their average task-specific work ability. Weekly physical demands (p = 0.01) and personal (p = 0.04) and general wellbeing (p = 0.03) were related to weekly fluctuations in work ability. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated intra-individual variability in repeated assessments of task-specific work ability, pointing to the need for multiple measurements when characterizing work ability. The finding that some time-invariant and time-varying predictors can be related to the estimate of aspects of task-specific work ability and its fluctuations is helpful in understanding the dynamics of this concept.

When is job rotation perceived useful and easy to use to prevent work-related musculoskeletal complaints?

Job rotation is often recommended to optimize physical work demands and prevent work-related musculoskeletal complaints, but little is known about possible facilitators and barriers to its usefulness and ease of use. Following a qualitative research design, semi-structured interviews with employers (n = 12) and workers (n = 11) from the construction industry were conducted. Organizational climate, job autonomy, job characteristics and work processes were mentioned as either facilitators or barriers on an organizational level. Worker characteristics, work behavior and attitude were mentioned as either facilitators or barriers on an individual level. Following a structured approach to assess usefulness of job rotation to optimize physical work exposures and identifying barriers to usefulness and ease of use in relevant stakeholder groups is necessary in order to select or develop strategies to overcome these barriers, or to reject job rotation as a useful or easy to use intervention in the given context.

Use of Ergonomic Measures Related to Musculoskeletal Complaints among Construction Workers: A 2-year Follow-up Study.

BACKGROUND: The physical work demands of construction work can be reduced using ergonomic measures. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of ergonomic measures related to musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) among construction workers. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent at baseline and 2 years later to 1,130 construction workers. We established (1) the proportion of workers reporting an increase in their use of ergonomic measures, (2) the proportion of workers reporting a decrease in MSDs, (3) the relative risk for an increase in the use of ergonomic measures and a decrease in MSDs, and (4) workers' knowledge and opinions about the use of ergonomic measures. RESULTS: At follow-up, response rate was 63% (713/1,130). The proportion of workers using ergonomic measures for vertical transport increased (34%, 144/419, p < 0.01); for measures regarding horizontal transport and the positioning of materials, no change was reported. The proportion of workers reporting shoulder complaints decreased (28%, 176/638, p = 0.02). A relationship between the use of ergonomic measures and MSDs was not found; 83% (581/704) of the workers indicated having sufficient knowledge about ergonomic measures. Lightening the physical load was reported to be the main reason for using them. CONCLUSION: Only the use of ergonomic measures for vertical transport increased over a 2-year period. No relationship between the use of ergonomic measures and MSDs was found. Strategies aimed at improving the availability of ergonomic equipment complemented with individualized advice and training in using them might be the required next steps to increase the use of ergonomic measures.

Reproducibility and validity of the myotest for measuring step frequency and ground contact time in recreational runners.

The purpose of this study was to assess the reproducibility (test-retest reliability and agreement) and concurrent validity of the Myotest for measuring step frequency (SF) and ground contact time (GCT) in recreational runners. Based on a within-subjects design (test and retest), SF and GCT of 14 participants (11 males, 3 females) were measured at three different running speeds with the Myotest during two test sessions. SF and GCT were also assessed with a foot-mounted accelerometer (Gold Standard, previously validated by comparing to force plate data) during the first test session. Levels of test-retest reliability and concurrent validity were expressed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), agreement with standard errors of measurement (SEM). For SF, test-retest reliability (ICC's > 0.75) and agreement of the Myotest were considered as good at all running speeds. For GCT, test-retest reliability was found to be moderate at a running speed of 14 km/h and poor at speeds of 10 and 12 km/h (ICC < 0.50). Agreement of the Myotest for GCT at all three running speeds was considered not acceptable given the SEM's calculated. Concurrent validity of the Myotest with the foot-mounted accelerometer (Gold Standard) at all three running speeds was found to be good for SF (ICC's > 0.75) and moderate for GCT (0.50 < ICC's < 0.75). The conclusion of our study is that estimates obtained with the Myotest are reproducible and valid for SF but not for GCT.

Effects of job rotation on musculoskeletal complaints and related work exposures: a systematic literature review.

The aim of this systematic review was to summarise evidence on the effects of job rotation on musculoskeletal complaints, exposures related to musculoskeletal complaints and sustainable working life parameters. A total of 16 studies were included. No studies on sustainable working life parameters were found. The quality of the studies was assessed using a checklist; eight field studies and three laboratory studies of sufficient quality were used to summarise the following evidence: one field study showed positive results and one field study showed negative results for musculoskeletal complaints, two field studies showed positive results and two field studies showed inconsistent results for exposures, and two field studies showed inconsistent results for musculoskeletal complaints and exposures. Two laboratory studies showed inconsistent results and one laboratory study showed no changes for exposures. In conclusion, there is currently inconsistent evidence for positive or negative effects of job rotation on musculoskeletal complaints and exposures related to musculoskeletal complaints. Practitioner's Summary: Currently, there is inconsistent evidence for recommending job rotation as a strategy for preventing musculoskeletal complaints. Exposures from all involved work activities and body regions should be identified and assessed first, to determine if job rotation provides increased exposure variation and/or beneficial changes in mean exposures related to musculoskeletal complaints.

Improving occupational health care for construction workers: a process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the process of a job-specific workers' health surveillance (WHS) in improving occupational health care for construction workers. METHODS: From January to July 2012 were 899 bricklayers and supervisors invited for the job-specific WHS at three locations of one occupational health service throughout the Netherlands. The intervention aimed at detecting signs of work-related health problems, reduced work capacity and/or reduced work functioning. Measurements were obtained using a recruitment record and questionnaires at baseline and follow-up. The process evaluation included the following: reach (attendance rate), intervention dose delivered (provision of written recommendations and follow-up appointments), intervention dose received (intention to follow-up on advice directly after WHS and remembrance of advice three months later), and fidelity (protocol adherence). The workers scored their increase in knowledge from 0-10 with regard to health status and work ability, their satisfaction with the intervention and the perceived (future) effect of such an intervention. Program implementation was defined as the mean score of reach, fidelity, and intervention dose delivered and received. RESULTS: Reach was 9% (77 workers participated), fidelity was 67%, the intervention dose delivered was 92 and 63%, and the intervention dose received was 68 and 49%. The total programme implementation was 58%. The increases in knowledge regarding the health status and work ability of the workers after the WHS were graded as 7.0 and 5.9, respectively. The satisfaction of the workers with the entire intervention was graded as 7.5. The perceived (future) effects on health status were graded as 6.3, and the effects on work ability were graded with a 5.2. The economic recession affected the workers as well as the occupational health service that enacted the implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Programme implementation was acceptable. Low reach, limited protocol adherence and modest engagement of the workers with respect to the intervention were the most prominent aspects that influenced the intervention process. The increase in the workers' knowledge about their health status and work ability was substantial, and the workers' satisfaction with the intervention was good. The perceived effect of the advised preventive actions on health status was sufficient. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register: http://NTR3012.

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.

A trial of a job-specific workers' health surveillance program for construction workers: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Dutch construction workers are offered periodic health examinations. This care can be improved by tailoring this workers health surveillance (WHS) to the demands of the job and adjust the preventive actions to the specific health risks of a worker in a particular job. To improve the quality of the WHS for construction workers and stimulate relevant job-specific preventive actions by the occupational physician, we have developed a job-specific WHS. The job-specific WHS consists of modules assessing both physical and psychological requirements. The selected measurement instruments chosen, are based on their appropriateness to measure the workers' capacity and health requirements. They include a questionnaire and biometrical tests, and physical performance tests that measure physical functional capabilities. Furthermore, our job-specific WHS provides occupational physicians with a protocol to increase the worker-behavioural effectiveness of their counselling and to stimulate job-specific preventive actions. The objective of this paper is to describe and clarify our study to evaluate the behavioural effects of this job-specific WHS on workers and occupational physicians. METHODS/DESIGN: The ongoing study of bricklayers and supervisors is a nonrandomised trial to compare the outcome of an intervention (job-specific WHS) group (n = 206) with that of a control (WHS) group (n = 206). The study includes a three-month follow-up. The primary outcome measure is the proportion of participants who have undertaken one or more of the preventive actions advised by their occupational physician in the three months after attending the WHS. A process evaluation will be carried out to determine context, reach, dose delivered, dose received, fidelity, and satisfaction. The present study is in accordance with the TREND Statement. DISCUSSION: This study will allow an evaluation of the behaviour of both the workers and occupational physician regarding the preventive actions undertaken by them within the scope of a job-specific WHS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR3012.

Occupational demands and health effects for bricklayers and construction supervisors: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: knowledge was gathered on occupational demands and health effects of two occupations in the construction industry, bricklayers and supervisors, in order to design a job-specific workers' health surveillance (WHS) for construction workers. METHODS: we systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, HSELINE, NIOSHTIC-2, and Picarta up to December 2008. RESULTS: a total of 60 articles were included. Evidence was found for the following demands for bricklayers: energetic load (exceeding 25% heart rate reserve), load on the lower back (exceeding the NIOSH-threshold value of 3.4 kN), repetitive force exertions of the upper extremities, frequent bending with trunk flexion exceeding 60° and working with the arms more than 60° elevated. Environmental demands include: dust and quartz exposure (exceeding the limit values of 3.0 and 0.05 mg/m(3), respectively), vibration and noise (exceeding the limit value of 80 dBA). Bricklayers are at increased risk of lung cancer, low back pain, complaints of arms and legs and getting injuries. Among construction supervisors are walking and standing common physically demanding activities. Psychosocial demands with evidence for supervisors were mental demands, workload, time pressure, working long hours, and social-organizational factors. Supervisors are at increased risk of lung cancer and injuries. CONCLUSIONS: for bricklayers evidence was found for physical demands and risk on low back pain and complaints of arms and legs, for construction supervisors on psychosocial demands. Both occupations are at increased risk of lung cancer and injuries. Job-specific demands and health effects should be incorporated in WHS for construction workers.