A systematic review of injury/illness prevention and loss control ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Appendix M: Effects tableInterventioncategoryArm supports -officeBricklayingmethodData entrydevices - officeData entrydevices - office*key to all abbreviations appears at end of tableAuthor, Year QA* Effect (positive, no, negative) on: injury/illnessoutcomes ALintula, 2001 M no effect (I 1 vs I 2 and I 1 , I 2 vs C) on theneck/shoulder/arm regionLuijsterburg, M no effect (I 1 vs C) on MSK symptoms2005Swanson, M positive effect (I 1 vs C) for left shoulder symptoms2006no effect for neck, right shoulder, arms, hands or backTittiranonda,1999Msymptomspositive effect (I 3 vs C) on arm/hand symptoms orchange in overall pain severity no effect(I 1 , I 2 vs C) on arm/hand symptoms or change inoverall pain severityEffect (positive, no,negative) on: losscontrol/disabilitymanagement outcomes AData entrydevices, armsupports - officeErgonomictraining - officeRempel, 2006 H Arm support: positive effect (arm supports vs noarm supports) on neck/shoulder pain and disorders orright upper extremity pain. No effect on left upperextremity pain. No effect (arm supports vs no armsupports) on days of pain medication usePointing device: positive effect on left upperextremity pain and disorders. No effect (trackball vsmouse) on neck/shoulder pain and disorders or rightupper extremity pain. No effect (trackball vs mouse)on days of pain medication usePeper, 2004 M positive effect (I 1 vs C) on head, neck/shoulder, arms,wrists/hands symptoms or overall tirednessno effect (I 1 vs C) on back, leg or eye symptoms102 Institute for Work & Health
InterventioncategoryErgonomictrainingErgonomictrainingErgonomictraining - multiErgonomictraining - officeErgonomictraining, chair -officeExercise -constructionExercise -workplaceExercise,ergonomictrainingHearingprotectorsAuthor, Year QA* Effect (positive, no, negative) on: injury/illnessoutcomes AEffect (positive, no,negative) on: losscontrol/disabilitymanagement outcomes ADaltroy, 1997 M no effect (I 1 vs C) fortime off work or mediancostsGreene, 2005 M no effect (I 1 vs C) on symptoms of upper back orupper extremitiesFaucett, 2002 H no effect (I 1 , I 2 vs C) at 72 weeks on symptomsBohr, 2000(and Bohr,2002)Hpositive effect (I 1 vs C) on upper bodypain/discomfort or total body pain/discomfortno effect (I 2 vs C) on upper body pain/discomfort ortotal body discomfort no effect (I 1, I 2 vsC) on lower body pain/discomfortAmick, 2003 H Training: no effect (I 2 vs C) on total body symptomsor symptom growth New Chair: positiveeffect (I 1 vs C) on total body symptoms or symptomgrowthLudewig, M positive effects (I 1 vs C 1 and C 2 ) for pain or disability2003Sjogren, 2006 M positive effect (I 1 vs C) for low back symptomsDehlin, 1981 M no effect (I 1 vs C) for intensity, duration or frequencyof low back pain/symptoms no effect (I 2 vs C) forintensity, duration or frequency of low backpain/symptomsErlandsson,1980Mno effect (I 1 vs C) that ear plugs are better than earmuffsA systematic review of injury and illness prevention and loss control programs (IPCs)103
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 and 102: InterventioncategoryPrograms(regula
Page 103: InterventioncategoryWorkstationadju
Page 107 and 108: InterventioncategoryAuthor, Year QA
Page 109: InterventioncategoryWorkstationadju
show all

A systematic review of injury/illness prevention and loss control ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?