InterventioncategoryAuthor, year Country Industry/Sector Job titles Sample size Loss t<strong>of</strong>ollow-upRTW/DM Brown, 1992 US Municipal Sanitation, police, I 1 n=70, C NPengineering etc. n=70RTW/DM Feuerstein, US Center for NPI 1 n=19, C1993Occupationaln=15RehabilitationSafety training Sinclair, 2003 US Food service Managers <strong>and</strong> line I 1 n=30 units, NPcompanies employeesC n=64 unitsSkin care L<strong>of</strong>fler, 2006 Germany Nursing Schools -training - HCSupervisorpracticesSupervisorpracticesTraining -manual liftingTraining -manual liftingTraining -manual liftinghealthcareZohar, 2002 Israel Maintenancecenter specializingin repairLength <strong>of</strong>observation2.5 years17 months3 monthsNurses (students) I 1 +C n=521 I+C n=196 18 monthsSupervisors <strong>and</strong> lineworkersShaw, 2006 US Food processingplantSupervisors IC 1 n=400, IC 2n=400Tuchin, 1998 Australia Mailing house NP I 1 n=34, C 1n=27, C 2 n=60Fanello, 2002 France Hospital cleaning staff, nursingassistants <strong>and</strong> male <strong>and</strong>nursesJensen, 2006 Sweden np Blue collar &service/care workersI+C n=397 NP 40 weeksI 1 n=136, Cn=136I 1 n=53, I 2n=49, C n=61NPI 1 n=0, C 1n=0, C +G14n=0I 1 n=10, Cn=21NP14 months6 months2 years2 yearsTraining &equipment -forkliftsWorkstationadjustment -<strong>of</strong>ficeWorkstationadjustment -<strong>of</strong>ficeShinozaki,2001Psihogios,2001JapanCopper-smelterplantForklift truck operators,blue-collar workers,white collar workersNP S<strong>of</strong>tware company S<strong>of</strong>tware developers,quality assuranceanalysts, managers <strong>and</strong>technical supportGerr, 2005 US Office Computer users -insurance, financial,food producers <strong>and</strong>universitiesI 1 n=27, C 1n=233, C 2n=55I 1 n=8, I 2 n=8,C 1 n=2, C 2n=2I 1 n=121(ah)&126(ns), I 2n=130(ah) &122(ns), Cn=119(ah)&113(ns)I 1 n=8,C 1 =NP,C 2 =NPNPI 1 n=83(ah) &90(ns), I 2n=89(ah) &85(ns), Cn=87(ah) &84(ns)24 months4 weeks6 months100 Institute for Work & Health
InterventioncategoryWorkstationadjustment &ergonomictraining - <strong>of</strong>ficeWorkstationadjustment &ergonomictraining – <strong>of</strong>ficeWorkstationadjustment &ergonomictraining - <strong>of</strong>ficeAuthor, year Country Industry/Sector Job titles Sample size Loss t<strong>of</strong>ollow-upLength <strong>of</strong>observationMartin, 2003 US College Clerical, Office I 1 n=7, C n=8 I 1 n=0, C n=1 5 weeks(<strong>and</strong> Gatty,2004)May, 2004 US Municipal <strong>of</strong>fices Clerical employees I 1 n=61, Cn=26Robertson,2003US Office Partner, associatepartner, manager,consultant/specialist,analyst, assistantI 1 n=494; I 2n=45, C 1 n=94NPI 1 =NP, I 2n=15 (laid<strong>of</strong>f), C=NP8 months3 monthsNP=not providedI=intervention groupC=<strong>control</strong> groupA <strong>systematic</strong> <strong>review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>injury</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>illness</strong> <strong>prevention</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>loss</strong> <strong>control</strong> programs (IPCs)101
- Page 1 and 2:
A systematic review of injury/illne
- Page 3 and 4:
Table of ContentsForeword ………
- Page 5 and 6:
ForewordIn recent years, the Instit
- Page 7 and 8:
employers with valuable information
- Page 9 and 10:
forward. In 1970, the Occupational
- Page 11 and 12:
Figure 1: IPC frameworkInput(to wor
- Page 13 and 14:
publish the results of the review i
- Page 15 and 16:
A key part of the literature would
- Page 17 and 18:
2.4 Level 2 - Quality AssessmentIn
- Page 19 and 20:
allowed us to insure the answers pr
- Page 21 and 22:
Table 4: Best evidence synthesis gu
- Page 23 and 24:
Figure 3: Flowchart of systematic r
- Page 25 and 26:
• Return-to-work/disability manag
- Page 27 and 28:
etween groups, but only 32% adjuste
- Page 29 and 30:
Workstationadjustment andtrainingRo
- Page 31 and 32:
focused on just RTW (Durand et al.
- Page 33 and 34:
ExerciseThree medium quality studie
- Page 35 and 36:
compensation and medical bills is m
- Page 37 and 38:
interventions provide an insufficie
- Page 39 and 40:
Researchers and practitioners also
- Page 41 and 42:
5.0 MessagesBefore making recommend
- Page 43 and 44:
1) Of the articles that remained af
- Page 45 and 46:
11) Agency for Healthcare Research
- Page 47 and 48:
Carayon P, Haims MC, Hoonakker PLT,
- Page 49 and 50:
workers: Randomized controlled work
- Page 51 and 52: Nelson NA, Silverstein BA. Workplac
- Page 53 and 54: pain in sedentary office workers -
- Page 55 and 56: Appendix A: Content expertsNameBarb
- Page 57 and 58: Appendix C: Stakeholder search term
- Page 59 and 60: Appendix D - Literature search term
- Page 61 and 62: A systematic review of injury and i
- Page 63 and 64: Zohar DZohar D,Modifying Supervisor
- Page 65 and 66: Level 1 Guide for ReviewersThe guid
- Page 67 and 68: Appendix G: Quality Appraisal Revie
- Page 69 and 70: Q4. Were time-based comparisons use
- Page 71 and 72: If there are no major significant d
- Page 73 and 74: Q17. Was the calendar duration of t
- Page 75 and 76: a) YesBaseline differences were obs
- Page 77 and 78: 5. List the jurisdiction where the
- Page 79 and 80: have intended to prevent both “as
- Page 81 and 82: Sample SizeEg: C 1 , C 2 , …(or I
- Page 83 and 84: 29. If injury rates were calculated
- Page 85 and 86: 38. Describe for each injury/illnes
- Page 87 and 88: Appendix J: Quality assessment tabl
- Page 89 and 90: StudyTime-Based ComparisonsRandom A
- Page 91 and 92: Appendix K: Intervention descriptio
- Page 93 and 94: InterventionCategoryErgonomictraini
- Page 95 and 96: InterventionCategoryBricklayingmeth
- Page 97 and 98: InterventionCategoryTraining &equip
- Page 99 and 100: Appendix L: Study description*key t
- Page 101: InterventioncategoryPrograms(regula
- Page 105 and 106: InterventioncategoryErgonomictraini
- Page 107 and 108: InterventioncategoryAuthor, Year QA
- Page 109: InterventioncategoryWorkstationadju
Change language