Maximum Acceptable Weight of Lift reflects peak lumbosacral extension moments in a Functional Capacity Evaluation test using free style, stoop, and squat lifting

It is unclear whether the maximum acceptable weight of lift (MAWL), a common psychophysical method, reflects joint kinetics when different lifting techniques are employed. In a within-participants study (n = 12), participants performed three lifting techniques - free style, stoop and squat lifting from knee to waist level - using the same dynamic functional capacity evaluation lifting test to assess MAWL and to calculate low back and knee kinetics. We assessed which knee and back kinetic parameters increased with the load mass lifted, and whether the magnitudes of the kinetic parameters were consistent across techniques when lifting MAWL. MAWL was significantly different between techniques (p = 0.03). The peak lumbosacral extension moment met both criteria: it had the highest association with the load masses lifted (r > 0.9) and was most consistent between the three techniques when lifting MAWL (ICC = 0.87). In conclusion, MAWL reflects the lumbosacral extension moment across free style, stoop and squat lifting in healthy young males, but the relation between the load mass lifted and lumbosacral extension moment is different between techniques. Practitioner Summary: Tests of maximum acceptable weight of lift (MAWL) from knee to waist height are used to assess work capacity of individuals with low-back disorders. This article shows that the MAWL reflects the lumbosacral extension moment across free style, stoop and squat lifting in healthy young males, but the relation between the load mass lifted and lumbosacral extension moment is different between techniques. This suggests that standardisation of lifting technique used in tests of the MAWL would be indicated if the aim is to assess the capacity of the low back. © 2012 Copyright Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

Working conditions and health behavior as causes of educational inequalities in self-rated health: an inverse odds weighting approach

Objective Using a novel mediation method that presents unbiased results even in the presence of exposure– mediator interactions, this study estimated the extent to which working conditions and health behaviors contribute to educational inequalities in self-rated health in the workforce. Methods Respondents of the longitudinal Survey of Health, Ageing, and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) in 16 countries were selected, aged 50–64 years, in paid employment at baseline and with information on education and self-rated health (N=15 028). Education, health behaviors [including body mass index (BMI)] and working conditions were measured at baseline and self-rated health at baseline and two-year follow-up. Causal mediation analysis with inverse odds weighting was used to estimate the total effect of education on self-rated health, decomposed into a natural direct effect (NDE) and natural indirect effect (NIE). Results Lower educated workers were more likely to perceive their health as poor than higher educated workers [relative risk (RR) 1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.37–1.60]. They were also more likely to have unfavorable working conditions and unhealthy behaviors, except for alcohol consumption. When all working conditions were included, the remaining NDE was RR 1.30 (95% CI 1.15–1.44). When BMI and health behaviors were included, the remaining NDE was RR 1.40 (95% CI 1.27–1.54). Working conditions explained 38% and health behaviors and BMI explained 16% of educational inequalities in health. Including all mediators explained 64% of educational inequalities in self-rated health. Conclusions Working conditions and health behaviors explain over half of the educational inequalities in selfrated health. To reduce health inequalities, improving working conditions seems to be more important than introducing health promotion programs in the workforce

Sleep characteristics across the lifespan in 1.1 million people from the Netherlands, United Kingdom and United States: a systematic review and meta-analysis

How long does the average person sleep? Here, Kocevska et al. conducted a meta-analysis including over 1.1 million people to produce age- and sex-specific population reference charts for sleep duration and efficiency.We aimed to obtain reliable reference charts for sleep duration, estimate the prevalence of sleep complaints across the lifespan and identify risk indicators of poor sleep. Studies were identified through systematic literature search in Embase, Medline and Web of Science (9 August 2019) and through personal contacts. Eligible studies had to be published between 2000 and 2017 with data on sleep assessed with questionnaires including >= 100 participants from the general population. We assembled individual participant data from 200,358 people (aged 1-100 years, 55% female) from 36 studies from the Netherlands, 471,759 people (40-69 years, 55.5% female) from the United Kingdom and 409,617 people (>= 18 years, 55.8% female) from the United States. One in four people slept less than age-specific recommendations, but only 5.8% slept outside of the 'acceptable' sleep duration. Among teenagers, 51.5% reported total sleep times (TST) of less than the recommended 8-10 h and 18% report daytime sleepiness. In adults (>= 18 years), poor sleep quality (13.3%) and insomnia symptoms (9.6-19.4%) were more prevalent than short sleep duration (6.5% with TST = 9 h in bed, whereas poor sleep quality was more frequent in those spending = 41 years) reported sleeping shorter times or slightly less efficiently than men, whereas with actigraphy they were estimated to sleep longer and more efficiently than man. This study provides age- and sex-specific population reference charts for sleep duration and efficiency which can help guide personalized advice on sleep length and preventive practices.Pathophysiology, epidemiology and therapy of agein

Return to work for employees with distress: Cost-effectiveness of the participatory workplace intervention

Mechelen, W. van [Promotor]Vet, H.C.W. de [Promotor]Anema, J.R. [Copromotor]Terluin, B. [Copromotor

Samen werken aan kennis voor arbeid en gezondheid

Diverse maatschappelijke ontwikkelingen roepen de vraag op of we over de juiste kennis beschikken om de (potentiële) werkende bevolking duurzaam inzetbaar te houden. In samenwerking met vertegenwoordigers uit de praktijk, beleid en wetenschap heeft het RIVM het initiatief genomen een kennisagenda op het brede domein van Arbeid en Gezondheid te ontwikkelen. Hiertoe zijn interviews gehouden en is een werkconferentie gehouden met vertegenwoordigers uit praktijk, beleid en wetenschap. Dit heeft geresulteerd in een kennisagenda met 9 thema’s: wisselwerking arbeid en gezondheid, duurzame inzetbaarheid, preventie, arbeid en zorg, technologische ontwikkelingen, flexibilisering, psychische gezondheid, (her)waardering van werk, en inclusieve arbeidsmarkt. Naast behoefte aan kennisontwikkeling is de indruk dat bestaande preventieve interventies niet bekend zijn bij professionals in de praktijk en daardoor onvoldoende benut worden. Verspreiding van bestaande kennis verdient aandacht. Van belang is dat alle stakeholders kennisontwikkeling initiëren om de kennisvraagstukken op te pakken teneinde de gezondheid van werkenden te bevorderen

Economic evaluation of a workplace intervention for sick-listed employees with distress

Objectives: To evaluate the cost effectiveness, cost utility and cost benefit of a workplace intervention compared with usual care for sick-listed employees with distress. Methods: An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a randomised controlled trial. Employees with distress and who were sick-listed for 2-8 weeks were randomised to a workplace intervention (n=73) or to usual care (n=72). The workplace intervention is a stepwise process involving the sick-listed employee and their supervisor, aimed at formulating a consensus-based plan for return to work (RTW). The effect outcomes were lasting RTW and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Healthcare utilisation was measured over 12 months. Cost effectiveness analyses (CEA) and cost utility analyses (CUA) were conducted from the societal perspective and cost benefit analyses (CBA) from the employer perspective. Bootstrapping techniques were used to estimate cost and effect differences, related CIs, and cost effectiveness and cost utility ratios. Cost effectiveness planes were presented and subgroup analyses were performed. Results: CEA and CUA revealed no statistically significant differences in lasting RTW, QALYs or costs. The CBA indicated a statistically significant higher cost of occupational health services in the workplace intervention group. The workplace intervention was not cost effective according to the CEA, CUA and CBA. Conclusions: Widespread implementation of the workplace intervention for sick-listed employees with distress is not recommended because there was no economic benefit compared with usual care. Future trials should confirm if the workplace intervention is cost effective for the subgroup employees who intended to return to work despite symptoms