English version - Fit for Work Europe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

MSDs and employers 56 The most frequently cited risk factors for MSDs encountered in the work place include the following: • Rapid work pace and repetitive motion patterns; • Heavy lifting and forceful manual exertions; • Non-neutral body postures (dynamic or static), frequent bending and twisting; • Mechanical pressure concentrations; • Segmental or whole body vibrations; • Local or whole-body exposure to cold; • Insufficient recovery time (Punnett and Wegman, 2004). MSDs affect employees in all kinds of industries and occupations, although some pf those are associated with a higher risk than others, and certain occupations are associated with strain on specific parts of the musculoskeletal system. Figure 6.4 below illustrated the comparative prevalence of MSDs among employees in four different industries. At the same time, due to the higher awareness of the risks, employers in labour-intensive industries are more likely to have improved the health and safety norms in their workplaces. Figure 6.4. Prevalence of MSDs, by occupation 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Low back pain Nurses Neck pain Shoulder pain Office workers Elbow pain Wrist/hand pain Disabling pain at any site Pain causing sickness absence, at any site Sales/marketing personnel Transportation operatives Source: ACCJ (2011a) Fit For Work? Musculoskeletal Disorders and the Japanese Labour Market
It is noted that large organisations are more likely to monitor health and safety of their workers consistently by performing workstation assessments and giving guidance on manual handling, for example (Tanaka et al., 1998). However, they are still likely to neglect the wider range of work-associated factors, including psychosocial aspects of the workplace, that can also contribute to MSDs. These aspects are often missed in the literature and advice dealing with health and safety. Even where ‘stress’ is mentioned, the connection between psychosocial factors and physical conditions is omitted, reinforcing the primary focus on safety. Lack of financial and human resources means that small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), especially those with fewer than 50 employees, are at risk of low compliance with occupational health and safety legislation. Small enterprises are not required to contract an occupational physician and may not see improving health and safety of the work environment as a benefit to performance and productivity. 25 Examining the organisations with clear occupational risks, Furuki, Hirata and Kage (2006) found that 51.9 per cent of enterprises with 1-4 employees, about 42 per cent of enterprises with 5-9 employees and 20 per cent of organisations with 10-49 employees did not conduct special health examinations. At least 40.6 per cent of SMEs with 1-4 employees, 26.8 per cent of SMEs with 5-9 employees, and 14.1 per cent of SMEs with 10-49 employees failed to conduct regular periodic health examinations (Furuki, Hirata and Kage, 2006). At the same time, the costs of ill health may be particularly significant for SMEs, as both presenteeism and absenteeism may have more severe effects on customer satisfaction, productivity and business performance. For example, occupational health specialists may at times be overly enthusiastic to return individuals to work immediately to ensure performance targets are met. 26 In some cases, 24 to 48 hours rest is advisable for people with certain MSDs. The importance of balancing support to return employees to work and the value of giving an employee the chance for respite is yet to be acknowledged by some Japanese employers. Generally there is an increased risk of injury when any of the physical risk factors mentioned above are combined, or when adverse psychosocial, personal or occupational factors are present (Devereux, Rydstedt, Kelly, Weston and Buckle, 2004). Psychological and organisational factors can also combine with physical factors to influence the probability of an individual leaving work prematurely. Research on low back pain shows that an employee’s belief that work itself produces pain precedes sickness behaviour, and is a risk factor for chronic work disability (Werner, Lærum, Wormgoor, Lindh and Indhal, 2007). Sokka and Pincus (2001) reviewed 15 studies and showed that physically demanding work, lack of autonomy, higher 25 Reiterated in expert interviews 26 Expert interview MSDs and employers Fit For Work? Musculoskeletal Disorders and the Japanese Labour Market 57
Page 1:
Fit For Work? Musculoskeletal Disor
Page 4 and 5:
Contents 4 1. Executive summary 6 2
Page 6 and 7: 1. Executive summary 6 The ‘Fit f
Page 8 and 9: Executive summary 8 the data that i
Page 10 and 11: 2. Introduction 10 2.1 The global b
Page 12 and 13: Introduction 12 2.3 International c
Page 14 and 15: Introduction 14 2.5 Structure of th
Page 16 and 17: Work and MSDs in Japan 16 Figure 3.
Page 18 and 19: Work and MSDs in Japan 18 3.2 Defin
Page 20 and 21: Work and MSDs in Japan 20 3.3 The i
Page 22 and 23: Work and MSDs in Japan 22 average t
Page 24 and 25: Work and MSDs in Japan 24 RA affect
Page 26 and 27: Work and MSDs in Japan 26 3.3.4 Spo
Page 28 and 29: Work and MSDs in Japan 28 3.4 Summa
Page 30 and 31: MSDs and government 30 4.2 MSDs: Po
Page 32 and 33: MSDs and government 32 of good heal
Page 34 and 35: MSDs and government 34 Figure 4.1.
Page 36 and 37: MSDs and government 36 deliver bett
Page 38 and 39: 5. MSDs and health care professiona
Page 40 and 41: MSDs and health care professionals
Page 50 and 51: 6. MSDs and employers 50 6.1 Costs
Page 52 and 53: MSDs and employers 52 6.2 The role
Page 54 and 55: MSDs and employers 54 Occupational
Page 58 and 59: MSDs and employers 58 levels of pai
Page 60 and 61: MSDs and employers 60 • Modified
Page 62 and 63: MSDs and employers 62 Box 2. Case s
Page 64 and 65: MSDs and employers 64 lower the mor
Page 66 and 67: 7. MSDs and individuals 66 7.1 Impa
Page 68 and 69: MSDs and individuals 68 Figure 7.1.
Page 70 and 71: MSDs and individuals 70 7.2 MSDs: I
Page 72 and 73: MSDs and individuals 72 and other h
Page 74 and 75: MSDs and individuals 74 Figure 7.4.
Page 76 and 77: MSDs and individuals 76 Cont. Kaize
Page 78 and 79: MSDs and individuals 78 reported wo
Page 80 and 81: Conclusions and recommendations 80
Page 82 and 83: References 82 American Chamber of C
Page 84 and 85: References 84 Dagfinrud, H., Mengsh
Page 86 and 87: References 86 Hori, Y., Hoshino, J.
Page 88 and 89: References 88 Matsudaira, K., Hara,
Page 90 and 91: References 90 Rudwaleit, M., Gooch,
Page 92 and 93: References 92 Young, A., Dixey, J.,
Page 94 and 95: Appendix 2: Fit Note Sample 94 Sour
Page 96 and 97: Appendix 3: Benchmarking grid 96 So
Page 98 and 99: Appendix 3: Benchmarking grid 98 So
Page 100 and 101: Appendix 3: Benchmarking grid 100 O
Page 102 and 103: Appendix 3: Benchmarking grid Refer
Page 104: We provide: Research Advisory Consu
show all

English version - Fit for Work Europe

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?