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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Marras WS, Allread WG, Burr DL, Fathallah FA. Prospective validation of alow-back disorder risk model and assessment of ergonomic interventionsassociated with manual materials handling tasks. Ergonomics. 2000; 43(11):1866 – 1886.Martin SA, Irvine JL, Fluharty K, Gatty CM. Students for WORK. Acomprehensive work injury prevention program with clerical and officeworkers: Phase I. WORK: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment &Rehabilitation. 2003; 21(2): 185 – 196.Secondary Reference: Gatty CM. A comprehensive work injury preventionprogram with clerical and office workers: Phase II. Work: A Journal ofPrevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation. 2004; 23(2): 131 – 137.May DR, Schwoerer CE, Reed K, Potter P. Ergonomic office design andaging: A quasi-experimental field study of employee reactions to anergonomics intervention program. Journal of Occupational HealthPsychology. 2004; 9(2): 123 – 135.May DC. Results of an OSHA ergonomic intervention program in NewHampshire. Applied Occupational & Environmental Hygiene. 2002; 17(11):768 – 773.Mayhew C. The impact of auditing on the OHS performance of demolishers,Journal of Occupational Health & Safety - Australia & New Zealand. 1999;15(5): 441 – 447.Mendelson MH, Short LJ, Schechter CB, Meyers BR, Rodriguez M, CohenS, Lozada J, DeCambre M, Hirschman SZ. Study of a needless intermittentintravenous-access system for peripheral infusions: Analysis of staff, patient,and institutional outcomes. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology.1998; 19(6): 401 – 406.Mitchell LV, Lawler FH, Bowen D, Mote W, Asundi P, Purswell J.Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of employer-issued back belts in areas ofhigh risk for back injury. Journal of Occupational Medicine. 1994; 36(1): 90– 94.Nave ME, Veltri A. Effect of loss control service on reported injuryincidence. Journal of Safety Research. 2004; 35(1): 39 – 46.Nelson NA, Kaufman J, Kalat J, Silverstein B. Falls in construction: Injuryrates for OSHA-inspected employers before and after citation for violatingthe Washington State Fall Protection Standard. American Journal ofIndustrial Medicine. 1997; 31(3): 302.48 Institute for Work & Health
Nelson NA, Silverstein BA. Workplace changes associated with a reductionin musculoskeletal symptoms in office workers. Human Factors. 1998; 40(2):337 – 350.Owen BD, Keene K, Olson S. An ergonomic approach to reducingback/shoulder stress in hospital nursing personnel: A five year follow up.International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2002; 39(3): 295 – 302.Peper E, Gibney, KH, Wilson, VE. Group training with healthy computingpractices to prevent repetitive strain injury (RSI): A preliminary study.Applied Psychophysiology & Biofeedback. 2004; 29(4): 279 – 287.Poosanthanasarn N, Lohachit C, Fungladda W, Sriboorapa S, Pulkate C. Anergonomics intervention program to prevent worker injuries in a metalautoparts factory. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine & PublicHealth. 2005; 36(2): 512 – 522.Psihogios JP, Sommerich CM, Mirka GA, Moon SD. A field evaluation ofmonitor placement effects in VDT users. Applied Ergonomics. 2001; 32(4):313 – 325.Rempel D, Krause N, Goldberg R, Benner D, Hudes M, Goldner GU. Arandomized controlled trial evaluating the effects of two workstationinterventions on upper body pain and incident musculoskeletal disordersamong computer operators. Occupational & Environmental Medicine. 2006;63(5): 300 – 306.Reynolds JL, Royster LH, Pearson RG, Hearing conservation programs(HCPs): The effectiveness of one company's HCP in a 12-hr work shiftenvironment. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal. 1990; 51(8):437 – 446.Robertson MM, O'Neill MJ. Reducing musculoskeletal discomfort: Effects ofan office ergonomics workplace and training intervention. InternationalJournal of Occupational Safety & Ergonomics. 2003; 9(4): 491 – 502.Rosenblum KE, Shankar A. A study of the effects of isokinetic preemploymentphysical capability screening in the reduction of musculoskeletaldisorders in a labor intensive work environment. WORK: A Journal ofPrevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation. 2006; 26(2): 215 – 228.Shaw WS, Robertson MM, McLellan RK, Verma S, Pransky G. A controlledcase study of supervisor training to optimize response to injury in the foodA systematic review of injury/illness prevention and loss controlprograms (IPCs)49
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: workers: Randomized controlled work
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 and 104:
InterventioncategoryWorkstationadju
Page 105 and 106:
InterventioncategoryErgonomictraini
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?