Occupation and bladder cancer: a cohort study in Sweden

In a follow-up study of occupational exposures and bladder cancer, an increased risk was observed after an adjustment for smoking, for physicians, administrators and managers, clerical workers and sales agents among men and assistant nurses among women. For physicians, the reason may be early diagnosis; for the other groups a sedentary type of work may have a role in bladder cancer aetiology

Lung Cancer Risk after Exposure to Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons: A Review and Meta-Analysis

Typical polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon mixtures are established lung carcinogens, but the quantitative exposure–response relationship is less clear. To clarify this relationship we conducted a review and meta-analysis of published reports of occupational epidemiologic studies. Thirty-nine cohorts were included. The average estimated unit relative risk (URR) at 100 μg/m(3) years benzo[a]pyrene was 1.20 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11–1.29] and was not sensitive to particular studies or analytic methods. However, the URR varied by industry. The estimated means in coke ovens, gasworks, and aluminum production works were similar (1.15–1.17). Average URRs in other industries were higher but imprecisely estimated, with those for asphalt (17.5; CI, 4.21–72.78) and chimney sweeps (16.2; CI, 1.64–160.7) significantly higher than the three above. There was no statistically significant variation of URRs within industry or in relation to study design (including whether adjusted for smoking), or source of exposure information. Limited information on total dust exposure did not suggest that dust exposure was an important confounder or modified the effect. These results provide a more secure basis for risk assessment than was previously available

Work-related musculoskeletal disorders : A survey of physical therapists in Izmir-Turkey

BACKGROUND: This study was planned to collect data about causes, prevalence and responses to work-related musculoskeletal disorders reported by physiotherapists employed in Izmir, Turkey. METHOD: A two-page survey with closed ended questions was used as the data collected method. This survey was distributed to 205 physiotherapists working in Izmir, Turkey, and 120 physiotherapists answered. Questions included occupational history of physiotherapists and musculoskeletal symptoms, special areas, tasks, job-related risk factors, injury prevention strategies, and responses to injury. RESULTS: Eighty-five percent of the physiotherapists have had a musculoskeletal injury once or more in their lifetime. Injuries have been occurred mostly in low back (26 %), hand-wrist (18 %), shoulders (14 %) and neck (12 %). The highest risk factor in causing the injury was transferring the patient at 15%. Sixty-nine percent of physiotherapists visited a physician for their injury and sixty-seven percent of the respondents indicated that they had not limited their patient contact time as a result to their injury CONCLUSIONS: According to the results of this study, the rate of musculoskeletal disorders in physiotherapists in Izmir-Turkey has been found to be high due to their profession. Respondents felt that a change in work habits was required in order to decrease the risk of another injury

Process evaluation of a participatory ergonomics programme to prevent low back pain and neck pain among workers

Background: Both low back pain (LBP) and neck pain (NP) are major occupational health problems. In the workplace, participatory ergonomics (PE) is frequently used on musculoskeletal disorders. However, evidence on the effectiveness of PE to prevent LBP and NP obtained from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is scarce. This study evaluates the process of the Stay@Work participatory ergonomics programme, including the perceived implementation of the prioritised ergonomic measures.Methods: This cluster-RCT was conducted at the departments of four Dutch companies (a railway transportation company, an airline company, a steel company, and a university including its university medical hospital). Directly after the randomisation outcome, intervention departments formed a working group that followed the steps of PE during a six-hour working group meeting. Guided by an ergonomist, working groups identified and prioritised risk factors for LBP and NP, and composed and prioritised ergonomic measures. Within three months after the meeting, working groups had to implement the prioritised ergonomic measures at their department. Data on various process components (recruitment, reach, fidelity, satisfaction, and implementation components, i.e., dose delivered and dose received) were collected and analysed on two levels: department (i.e., working group members from intervention departments) and participant (i.e., workers from intervention departments).Results: A total of 19 intervention departments (n = 10 with mental workloads, n = 1 with a light physical workload, n = 4 departments with physical and mental workloads, and n = 4 with heavy physical workloads) were recruited for participation, and the reach among working group members who participated was high (87%). Fidelity and satisfaction towards the PE programme rated by the working group members was good (7.3 or higher). The same was found for the Stay@Work ergocoach training (7.5 or higher). In total, 66 ergonomic measures were prioritised by the working groups. Altogether, 34% of all prioritised ergonomic measures were perceived as implemented (dose delivered), while the workers at the intervention departments perceived 26% as implemented (dose received).Conclusions: PE can be a successful method to develop and to prioritise ergonomic measures to prevent LBP and NP. Despite the positive rating of the PE programme the implementation of the prioritised ergonomic measures was lower than expected. © 2010 Driessen et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd