Documents Kuijer, P. Paul F.M. 9 results

"Background
Waste collectors around the world are at risk for work-related disorders and injuries. The aim of this study was to assess work demands, acute physiologic responses, illnesses, and injuries as a starting point for worker health surveillance (WHS).
Methods
A systematic search was performed in PubMed and Embase on work demands, acute bodily responses, health, and injuries. A quality assessment and evidence synthesis was performed.
Results
From a total of 379 retrieved studies, 50 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Waste collecting varied from informal manual gathering to semi-automated systems. Most studies (“number of studies”) on work demands and/or acute bodily responses addressed bioaerosols (14). Studies of health effects addressed respiratory complaints (8), and those on injuries addressed acute musculoskeletal disorders (3). Strong evidence is available that exposure to bioaerosols exceeds recommendations. Moderate evidence is available for an increased risk of respiratory complaints and musculoskeletal injuries, with significant odds ratios reported varying between 1.9–4.1 and 1.5–3.3, respectively. Limited evidence exists for gastrointestinal disorders and hearing loss.
Conclusions
WHS in waste collection is warranted for early detection of respiratory, gastrointestinal, and musculoskeletal disorders, and hearing loss."

"Back pain is very common among adults. There is evidence that individuals who physically move or lift objects (manual material handling) on a regular basis increase the strain on their backs and the risk of developing back pain. In many occupations, it is difficult to avoid this. Training on proper lifting techniques and the use of mechanical aides (assistive devices) are considered important techniques to prevent back pain.

We included nine randomised controlled trials (20,101 employees) and nine cohort studies (1280 employees) that examined the effects of training and the use of assistive devices on preventing low-back pain and reducing back-related disability. We found no studies that examined the effects of training or the use of assistive devices as part of a treatment plan for back pain.

We found moderate quality evidence that reports of back pain, back-related disability or absence from work were similar between groups who received training on proper lifting techniques and assistive devices compared to a control group that received either no training, minor advice only, professional education, exercise training or back belts. Reports of back pain were also similar between those who received intensive training and those who received shorter instruction. These findings were consistent when measured in the short-term or long-term and when examined in randomised trials or cohort studies.

These results are similar to other reviews that examined a range of possible prevention measures. Some of the other reviews found that workers who received training were satisfied and demonstrated increased knowledge on the subject, but this did not appear to consistently translate into behaviour change.

In conclusion, training workers in proper material handling techniques or providing them with assistive devices are not effective interventions by themselves in preventing back pain. Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate."

"BACKGROUND: Training and assistive devices are considered major interventions to prevent back pain 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 MEDLINE to November 2005, EMBASE to August 2005, and CENTRAL, the Back Group's Trials Register, CINAHL, Nioshtic, CISdoc, Science Citation Index, and PsychLIT to September 2005. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCT) and cohort studies with a concurrent control group, aimed at changing human behaviour in MMH and measuring back pain, back pain-related disability or sickness absence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted the data and assessed the methodological quality using the criteria recommended by the Back Review Group for RCTs and MINORS for the cohort studies. One author of an original study supplied additional data for the review. The results and conclusions are based on the primary analysis of RCTs. We conducted a secondary analysis with cohort studies. We compared and contrasted the conclusions from the primary and secondary analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs (17,720 employees) and five cohort studies (772 employees). All studies focused on prevention of back pain. Two RCTs and all cohort studies met the majority of the quality criteria and were labeled high quality. We summarized the strength of the evidence with a qualitative analysis since the lack of data precluded a statistical analysis. There is moderate evidence that MMH advice and training are no more effective at preventing back pain or back pain-related disability than no intervention (four studies) or minor advice (one study). There is limited evidence that MMH advice and training are no more effective than physical exercise or back belt use in preventing back pain (three studies), and that MMH advice plus assistive devices are not more effective than MMH advice alone (one study) or no intervention (one study) in preventing back pain or related disability. The results of the cohort studies were similar to the randomised studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is limited to moderate evidence that MMH advice and training with or without assistive devices do not prevent back pain, back pain-related disability or reduce sick leave when compared to no intervention or alternative interventions. There is no evidence available for the effectiveness of MMH advice and training or MMH assistive devices for treating back pain."

"The aim of this systematic review was to survey methods to assess the functional capacity of the musculoskeletal system within the context of work, daily activities, and sport. The following key words and synonyms were used: functional physical assessment, healthy/disabled subjects, and instruments. After applying the inclusion criteria on 697 potential studies and a methodological quality appraisal, 34 studies were included. A level of reliability > 0.80 and of > 0.60 resp 0.75 and 0.90, dependent of type of validity, was considered high. Four questionnaires (the Oswestry Disability Index, the Pain Disability Index, the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire, and the Upper Extremity Functional Scale) have high levels on both validity and reliability. None of the functional tests had a high level of both reliability and validity. A combination of a questionnaire and a functional test would seem to be the best instrument to assess functional capacity of the musculoskeletal system, but need further examined."(Authors' abstract)

"Recent epidemiological studies show that pushing and pulling increase the risks of shoulder complaints and not necessarily of low back complaints. Moreover, the magnitude of the exerted hand forces during pushing and pulling is poorly related to the magnitude of the mechanical loading of the low back and the shoulder. In light of that, this paper combines results of several studies to present an approach for evaluating not only the exerted hand forces, but also the low back and shoulder load during pushing and pulling in practice. The approach specifies, based on scientific evidence, that (1) in order to validly obtain exposure (frequency and duration) to pushing and pulling, 10 workers should be observed during eight periods of 30 min; (2) how the exerted hand forces and the load of the low back and shoulder can be estimated in practice based solemnly on the weight of the object, one-handed or two-handed pushing or pulling, and the height of the handle; and finally, (3) how these outcomes can be evaluated in combination with existing guidelines regarding exerted hand forces, compression forces on the low back and the moments at the shoulder. Two cases will be presented here to illustrate the application of the approach"

"Background: Waste collectors around the world are at risk for work-related disorders and injuries. The aim of this study was to assess work demands, acute physiologic responses, illnesses, and injuries as a starting point for worker health surveillance (WHS).Methods: A systematic search was performed in PubMed and Embase on work demands, acute bodily responses, health, and injuries. A quality assessment and evidence synthesis was performed.Results: From a total of 379 retrieved studies, 50 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Waste collecting varied from informal manual gathering to semi-automated systems. Most studies (“number of studies”) on work demands and/or acute bodily responses addressed bioaerosols (14). Studies of health effects addressed respiratory complaints (8), and those on injuries addressed acute musculoskeletal disorders (3). Strong evidence is available that exposure to bioaerosols exceeds recommendations. Moderate evidence is available for an increased risk of respiratory complaints and musculoskeletal injuries, with significant odds ratios reported varying between 1.9-4.1 and 1.5-3.3, respectively. Limited evidence exists for gastrointestinal disorders and hearing loss.Conclusions: WHS in waste collection is warranted for early detection of respiratory, gastrointestinal, and musculoskeletal disorders, and hearing loss. "

"Background. This study evaluated the effects of a combination of three ergonomic measures designed to reduce the risk of low back complaints among gypsum bricklayers. The measures focused on optimizing working height and reducing carrying distances.
Methods. A within-subjects (N = 10) controlled field study was used to compare the effects of working with the ergonomic measures with those of working with conventional working methods at the worksite during the course of a full working day. Productivity, work demands, and workload were assessed.
Results. No effects were found on productivity, total work time, duration of tasks, duration of carrying, or energetic or biomechanical workload. However, the duration and frequency of working between knee and hip height during a working day increased by 25% and 15%, respectively, due to the ergonomic measures. During the finishing task, the duration and frequency of working below knee level decreased significantly by 4 min and 71 times, respectively.
Conclusion. The limited impact of the ergonomic measures argues for additional measures to reduce the risk of low back complaints."

"Training and provision of assistive devices are considered major interventions to prevent and treat low back pain (LBP) among workers exposed to manual material handling (MMH). To establish the effectiveness of training and provision of assistive devices in preventing and treating LBP an update of a Cochrane literature review was performed to November 2010. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies with a concurrent control group (CCTs) were included. Nine RCTs (20.101 employees) and nine CCTs (1280 employees) were included for prevention: six more than in the previous version. No study on treatment was found. None of the included RCTs and CCTs provided evidence that training and provision of assistive devices prevented LBP when compared to no intervention or another intervention."

"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."