American Journal of Industrial Medicine



[pic]

American Journal of Industrial Medicine

January 2009 Volume 52, Issue 1

|Impact of implementing the washington state ergonomics rule on employer reported risk factors and hazard reduction activity |

|Michael Foley, MA 1 *, Barbara Silverstein, PhD, MPH, CPE 1, Nayak Polissar, PhD 2, Blazej Neradilek, MS 2 |

|1Safety and Health Assessment and Research for Prevention (SHARP) Program, Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, |

|Olympia, Washington |

|2The Mountain-Whisper-Light-Statistical Consulting, Seattle, Washington |

|email: Michael Foley (folm235@lni.) |

|Abstract |

| |

|Background |

|In Washington State an ergonomics rule was adopted in 2000 that focused on primary prevention. The implementation process |

|followed a 6-year phase-in schedule where employers came into compliance based upon their size and industry. In late 2003 the |

|rule was repealed by an industry-funded voter initiative. Evaluating the implementation of this rule offers a unique opportunity |

|to observe the general deterrent effect of a new public health regulation and to study how employers and workers responded to new|

|requirements. |

| |

|Methods |

|Weighted survey regression methods were used to analyze the results from three employer surveys covering more than 5,000 |

|workplaces administered in 2001, 2003, and 2005. These were compared to a baseline employer survey conducted in 1998 before the |

|rule was promulgated. Questions covered the following topics: WMSDs experienced at the workplace; levels of employee exposure to |

|musculoskeletal hazards; steps being taken, if any, to address these hazards; results of these steps; and sources of ergonomic |

|information/assistance used. |

| |

|Results |

|From 1998 to 2003 there was a reduction in reported exposures among workplaces in the highest hazard industries. Following the |

|rule's repeal, however, hazard exposures increased. While more workplaces reported taking steps to reduce exposures between 1998 |

|and 2001, this gain was reversed in 2003 and 2005. Employers who took steps reported positive results in injury and absenteeism |

|reduction. Large workplaces in the high hazard industries were more active in taking steps and used a wide variety of resources |

|to address ergonomics issues. Small employers relied more on trade associations and the state. Am. J. Ind. Med. 52:1-16, 2009. © |

|2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc. |

[pic] American Journal of Industrial Medicine, January 2009

|Psychosocial factors and shoulder symptom development among workers |

|Caroline K. Smith, MPH 1 *, Barbara A. Silverstein, PhD, MPH, CPE 1, Z. Joyce Fan, PhD 1, Stephen Bao, PhD, CPE 1, Peter W. |

|Johnson, PhD 2 |

|Abstract |

| |

|Background |

|Shoulder injuries are a common cause of pain and discomfort. Many work-related factors have been associated with the onset of |

|shoulder symptoms. The psychosocial concepts in the demand-control model have been studied in association with musculoskeletal |

|symptoms but with heterogeneous findings. The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between the psychosocial |

|concepts of the demand-control model and the incidence of shoulder symptoms in a working population. |

| |

|Methods |

|After following 424 subjects for approximately 1 year, 85 incident cases were identified from self-reported data. Cox |

|proportional hazards modeling was used to assess the associations between shoulder symptoms and demand-control model quadrants. |

| |

|Results |

|Cases were more likely to be female and report other upper extremity symptoms at baseline (P  ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download