http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : Kuijer, P. Paul F.M. (검색결과 4 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
P Paul FM Kuijer,Jos HAM Verbeek,Bart Visse,Leo AM Elders,Nico Van Roden,Marion ER Van den Wittenboer,Marian Lebbink,Alex Burdorf,Carel TJ Hulshof 대한직업환경의학회 2014 대한직업환경의학회지 Vol.26 No.-
We developed an evidence-based practice guideline to support occupational safety and health (OSH) professionals in assessing the risk due to lifting and in selecting effective preventive measures for low back pain (LBP) in the Netherlands. The guideline was developed at the request of the Dutch government by a project team of experts and OSH professionals in lifting and work-related LBP. The recommendations for risk assessment were based on the quality of instruments to assess the risk on LBP due to lifting. Recommendations for interventions were based on a systematic review of the effects of worker- and work directed interventions to reduce back load due to lifting. The quality of the evidence was rated as strong (A), moderate (B), limited (C) or based on consensus (D). Finally, eight experts and twenty-four OSH professionals commented on and evaluated the content and the feasibility of the preliminary guideline. For risk assessment we recommend loads heavier than 25 kg always to be considered a risk for LBP while loads less than 3 kg do not pose a risk. For loads between 3?25 kg, risk assessment shall be performed using the Manual handling Assessment Charts (MAC)-Tool or National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) lifting equation. Effective work oriented interventions are patient lifting devices (Level A) and lifting devices for goods (Level C), optimizing working height (Level A) and reducing load mass (Level C). Ineffective work oriented preventive measures are regulations to ban lifting without proper alternatives (Level D). We do not recommend worker-oriented interventions but consider personal lift assist devices as promising (Level C). Ineffective worker-oriented preventive measures are training in lifting technique (Level A), use of back-belts (Level A) and pre-employment medical examinations (Level A). This multidisciplinary evidence-based practice guideline gives clear criteria whether an employee is at risk for LBP while lifting and provides an easy-reference for (in)effective risk reduction measures based on scientific evidence, experience, and consensus among OSH experts and practitioners.
-
Verbeek, Jos,Mischke, Christina,Robinson, Rachel,Ijaz, Sharea,Kuijer, Paul,Kievit, Arthur,Ojajarvi, Anneli,Neuvonen, Kaisa Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute 2017 Safety and health at work Vol.8 No.2
Background: Osteoarthritis of the knee is considered to be related to knee straining activities at work. The objective of this review is to assess the exposure dose-response relation between kneeling or squatting, lifting, and climbing stairs at work, and knee osteoarthritis. Methods: We included cohort and case-control studies. For each study that reported enough data, we calculated the odds ratio (OR) per 5,000 hours of cumulative kneeling and per 100,000 kg of cumulative lifting. We pooled these incremental ORs in a random effects meta-analysis. Results: We included 15 studies (2 cohort and 13 case-control studies) of which nine assessed risks in more than two exposure categories. We considered all but one study at high risk of bias. The incremental OR per 5,000 hours of kneeling was 1.26 (95% confidence interval 1.17-1.35, 5 studies, moderate quality evidence) for a log-linear exposure dose-response model. For lifting, there was no exposure dose-response per 100,000 kg of lifetime lifting (OR 1.00, 95% confidence interval 1.00-1.01). For climbing, an exposure dose-response could not be calculated. Conclusion: There is moderate quality evidence that longer cumulative exposure to kneeling or squatting at work leads to a higher risk of osteoarthritis of the knee. For other exposure, there was no exposure dose-response or there were insufficient data to establish this. More reliable exposure measurements would increase the quality of the evidence.
-
Jos Verbeek,Christina Mischke,Rachel Robinson,Sharea Ijaz,Paul Kuijer,Arthur Kievit,Anneli Ojajärvi,Kaisa Neuvonen 한국산업안전보건공단 산업안전보건연구원 2017 Safety and health at work Vol.8 No.2
Background: Osteoarthritis of the knee is considered to be related to knee straining activities at work. The objective of this review is to assess the exposure dose-response relation between kneeling or squatting, lifting, and climbing stairs at work, and knee osteoarthritis. Methods: We included cohort and caseecontrol studies. For each study that reported enough data, we calculated the odds ratio (OR) per 5,000 hours of cumulative kneeling and per 100,000 kg of cumulative lifting. We pooled these incremental ORs in a random effects meta-analysis. Results: We included 15 studies (2 cohort and 13 caseecontrol studies) of which nine assessed risks in more than two exposure categories.We considered all but one study at high risk of bias. The incremental OR per 5,000 hours of kneeling was 1.26 (95% confidence interval 1.17e1.35, 5 studies, moderate quality evidence) for a log-linear exposure dose-response model. For lifting, there was no exposure doseresponse per 100,000 kg of lifetime lifting (OR 1.00, 95% confidence interval 1.00e1.01). For climbing, an exposure dose-response could not be calculated. Conclusion: There is moderate quality evidence that longer cumulative exposure to kneeling or squatting at work leads to a higher risk of osteoarthritis of the knee. For other exposure, there was no exposure dose-response or there were insufficient data to establish this. More reliable exposure measurements would increase the quality of the evidence.
-
Return to Work after an Acute Coronary Syndrome: Patients' Perspective
Slebus, Frans G.,Jorstad, Harald T.,Peters, Ron J.G.,Kuijer, P. Paul F.M.,Willems, J. (Han) H.B.M.,Sluiter, Judith K.,Frings-Dresen, Monique H.W. Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute 2012 Safety and health at work Vol.3 No.2
Objectives: To describe the time perspective of return to work and the factors that facilitate and hinder return to work in a group of survivors of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods: Retrospective semi-structured telephone survey 2 to 3 years after hospitalization with 84 employed Dutch ACS-patients from one academic medical hospital. Results: Fifty-eight percent of patients returned to work within 3 months, whereas at least 88% returned to work once within 2 years. Two years after hospitalization, 12% of ACS patients had not returned to work at all, and 24% were working, but not at pre-ACS levels. For all ACS-patients, the most mentioned categories of facilitating factors to return to work were having no complaints and not having signs or symptoms of heart disease. Physical incapacity, co-morbidity, and mental incapacity were the top 3 categories of hindering factors against returning to work. Conclusion: Within 2 years, 36% of the patients had not returned to work at their pre-ACS levels. Disease factors, functional capacity, environmental factors, and personal factors were listed as affecting subjects' work ability level.
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
