The prevalence of workers with demanding physical working conditions in the European work force remains high, and occupational physical exposures are considered important risk factors for ...musculoskeletal disorders (MSD), a major burden for both workers and society. Exposures to physical workloads are therefore part of the European nationwide surveys to monitor working conditions and health. An interesting question is to what extent the same domains, dimensions and items referring to the physical workloads are covered in the surveys. The purpose of this paper is to determine 1) which domains and dimensions of the physical workloads are monitored in surveys at the national level and the EU level and 2) the degree of European consensus among these surveys regarding coverage of individual domains and dimensions.
Items on physical workloads used in one European wide/Spanish and five other European nationwide work environment surveys were classified into the domains and dimensions they cover, using a taxonomy agreed upon among all participating partners.
The taxonomy reveals that there is a modest overlap between the domains covered in the surveys, but when considering dimensions, the results indicate a lower agreement. The phrasing of items and answering categories differs between the surveys. Among the domains, the three domains covered by all surveys are "lifting, holding & carrying of loads/pushing & pulling of loads", "awkward body postures" and "vibrations". The three domains covered less well, that is only by three surveys or less, are "physical work effort", "working sitting", and "mixed exposure".
This is the fırst thorough overview to evaluate the coverage of domains and dimensions of self-reported physical workloads in a selection of European nationwide surveys. We hope the overview will provide input to the revisions and updates of the individual countries' surveys in order to enhance coverage of relevant domains and dimensions in all surveys and to increase the informational value of the surveys.
Aim and objectives
To describe intensive care unit (ICU) nurses’ physical work activity behavioural patterns over 12 hr using dual accelerometry, following a job demands–recovery framework.
...Background
Limited studies utilised accelerometry to objectively analyse nurses’ physical workloads. Little is known about intensive care nurses’ physical activity patterns during a 12‐hr shift.
Design
A cross‐sectional study was conducted with intensive care nurses from four units in Auckland, New Zealand.
Methods
Each participant wore two Axivity AX3 accelerometers to measure physical activity during a 12‐hr day or night shift. An online survey captured participants’ demographic information. R software (version 3.6.1) and SPSS version 26 were utilised for data analysis. The STROBE was followed.
Results
A total of 102 nurses were included in this study. A high level of light intensity activity behaviours (standing, dynamic standing, walking) was observed throughout the day shifts, with no higher intensity behaviours identified. Activity levels were highest at the beginning of shifts and followed a consistent pattern, with an additional peak around midday for day shifts and at the end of the shift for night shifts. Observable differences were seen between day and night shifts with a greater prevalence of sitting and lying during night shifts. Standing, dynamic standing, sitting, lying and walking were significant factors in the differences of the physical work behaviours between the day shift nurses and the night shift nurses. Significant differences in dynamic standing and lying were found between ICUs.
Conclusions
Intensive care nurses’ physical work activity involved a large amount of standing and dynamic standing during a 12‐hr shift. The overall physical workload during a 12‐hr day shift was significantly higher than that during a 12‐hr night shift.
Relevance to clinical practice
Results may help managers attain a better understanding of nurses’ physical workloads during a 12‐hr shift.
A potential risk factor for prostate cancer is occupational physical activity. The occupational aetiology of prostate cancer remains unclear. The purpose of this research was to examine associations ...between the level of exposure to various measures of physical activity at work and the risk of Prostate Cancer.
Using the Finnish Job Exposure Matrix and the occupational history of 1,436 cases and 1,349 matched controls from an Australian case control study; we investigated five related exposure variables considered to be risk factors by comparing odds ratios.
Modestly increasing odds ratios were detected with increasing levels of workload but there was no difference in this trend between moderate and high grade tumours. In regard to occupational physical workload no statistically significant association was observed overall but an increasing trend with level of exposure was observed for high grade compared with moderate grade tumours.
Both workload and physical workload merit further investigation, particularly for the latter in relation to grade of tumour.
PDF
