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.
Bias (Epidemiology) ; Cohort Studies ; Knee* ; Lifting ; Occupational Diseases ; Occupational Exposure* ; Odds Ratio ; Osteoarthritis* ; Osteoarthritis, Knee

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.
Back Pain ; Consensus ; Evidence-Based Practice ; Humans ; Lifting* ; Low Back Pain* ; Moving and Lifting Patients ; National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (U.S.) ; Netherlands ; Occupational Health ; Risk Assessment ; Risk Reduction Behavior ; Social Control, Formal

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.
Acute Coronary Syndrome ; Heart Diseases ; Hospitalization ; Humans ; Retrospective Studies ; Return to Work ; Survivors ; Telephone