Conventional and innovative office concepts can be described according to three dimensions: (1) the office location (e.g. telework office versus conventional office); (2) the office lay-out (e.g. open lay-out versus cellular office); and (3) the office use (e.g. fixed versus shared workplaces). This review examined how these three office dimensions affect the office worker's job demands, job resources, short- and long-term reactions. Using search terms related to the office concept (dimensions), a systematic literature search starting from 1972 was conducted in seven databases. Subsequently, based on the quality of the studies and the consistency of the findings, the level of evidence for the observed findings was assessed. Out of 1091 hits 49 relevant studies were identified. Results provide strong evidence that working in open workplaces reduces privacy and job satisfaction. Limited evidence is available that working in open workplaces intensifies cognitive workload and worsens interpersonal relations; close distance between workstations intensifies cognitive workload and reduces privacy; and desk-sharing improves communication. Due to a lack of studies no evidence was obtained for an effect of the three office dimensions on long-term reactions. The results suggest that ergonomists involved in office innovation could play a meaningful role in safeguarding the worker's job demands, job resources and well-being. Attention should be paid, in particular, to effects of workplace openness by providing acoustic and visual protection.

Background People today are living longer and want to remain active. While obesity is becoming an epidemic, the number of patients suffering from osteoarthritis (OA) is expected to grow exponentially in the coming decades. Patients with OA of the knee are progressively being restricted in their activities. Since a knee arthroplasty (KA) is a well accepted, cost-effective intervention to relieve pain, restore function and improve health-related quality of life, indications are expanding to younger and more active patients. However, evidence concerning return to sports (RTS) and physical activity (PA) after KA is sparse. Objectives Our aim was to systematically summarise the available literature concerning the extent to which patients can RTS and be physically active after total (TKA) and unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA), as well as the time it takes. Methods PRISMA guidelines were followed and our study protocol was published online at PROSPERO under registration number CRD42014009370. Based on the keywords (and synonyms of) ‘arthroplasty’, ‘sports’ and ‘recovery of function’, the databases MEDLINE, Embase and SPORTDiscus up to January 5, 2015 were searched. Articles concerning TKA or UKA patients who recovered their sporting capacity, or intended to, were included and were rated by outcomes of our interest. Methodological quality was assessed using Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) and data extraction was performed using a standardised extraction form, both conducted by two independent investigators. Results Out of 1115 hits, 18 original studies were included. According to QUIPS, three studies had a low risk of bias. Overall RTS varied from 36 to 89 % after TKA and from 75 to >100 % after UKA. The meta-analysis revealed that participation in sports seems more likely after UKA than after TKA, with mean numbers of sports per patient postoperatively of 1.1–4.6 after UKA and 0.2–1.0 after TKA. PA level was higher after UKA than after TKA, but a trend towards lower-impact sports was shown after both TKA and UKA. Mean time to RTS after TKA and UKA was 13 and 12 weeks, respectively, concerning low-impact types of sports in more than 90 % of cases. Conclusions Low- and higher-impact sports after both TKA and UKA are possible, but it is clear that more patients RTS (including higher-impact types of sports) after UKA than after TKA. However, the overall quality of included studies was limited, mainly because confounding factors were inadequately taken into account in most studies.

The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to examine which work-related risk factors are associated with specific soft tissue shoulder disorders. We searched the electronic databases of Medline and Embase for articles published between 2009 and 24 March 2016 and included the references of a systematic review performed for the period before 2009. Primary cross-sectional and longitudinal studies were included when outcome data were described in terms of clinically assessed soft tissue shoulder disorders and at least two levels of work-related exposure were mentioned (exposed vs less or non-exposed). Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed study quality. For longitudinal studies, we performed meta-analyses and used GRADE (Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) to assess the evidence for the associations between risk factors and the onset of shoulder disorders. Twenty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. In total, 16 300 patients with specific soft tissue shoulder disorders from a population of 2 413 722 workers from Denmark, Finland, France, Germany and Poland were included in the meta-analysis of one case–control and six prospective cohort studies. This meta-analysis revealed moderate evidence for associations between shoulder disorders and arm-hand elevation (OR=1.9, 95% CI 1.47 to 2.47) and shoulder load (OR=2.0, 95% CI 1.90 to 2.10) and low to very low evidence for hand force exertion (OR=1.5, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.87), hand-arm vibration (OR=1.3, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.77), psychosocial job demands (OR=1.1, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.25) and working together with temporary workers (OR=2.2, 95% CI 1.2 to 4.2). Low-quality evidence for no associations was found for arm repetition, social support, decision latitude, job control and job security. Moderate evidence was found that arm-hand elevation and shoulder load double the risk of specific shoulder disorders. Low to very-low-quality evidence was found for an association between hand force exertion, hand-arm vibration, psychosocial job demands and working together with temporary workers and the incidence of specific shoulder disorders.

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large network of experts. Evidence from mechanistic and human data suggests that occupational exposure to ergonomic (or physical) risk factors may cause osteoarthritis and other musculoskeletal diseases (excluding rheumatoid arthritis, gout, and back and neck pain). In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of occupational exposure to physical ergonomic risk factors for estimating the number of disability-adjusted life years from these diseases that are attributable to exposure to this risk factor, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the prevalence of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors for osteoarthritis and other musculoskeletal diseases. We searched electronic bibliographic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and CISDOC. We also searched electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-searched reference list of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consulted additional experts. We included working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but excluded children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. The exposure was defined as any occupational exposure to one or more of: force exertion, demanding posture, repetitive movement, hand-arm vibration, kneeling or squatting, lifting, and/or climbing. We included all study types with an estimate of the prevalence of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors. At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. We combined prevalence estimates using random-effect meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using the ROB-SPEO tool and QoE-SPEO approach developed specifically for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. Five studies (three cross-sectional studies and two cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising 150,895 participants (81,613 females) in 36 countries in two WHO regions (Africa, Europe). The exposure was generally assessed with questionnaire data about self-reported exposure. Estimates of the prevalence of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors are presented for all five included studies, disaggregated by country, sex, 5-year age group, industrial sector or occupational group where feasible. The pooled prevalence of any occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors was 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.69 to 0.84, 3 studies, 148,433 participants, 35 countries in the WHO Europe region, I² 100%, low quality of evidence). Subgroup analyses found no statistically significant differences in exposure by sex but differences by age group, occupation and country. No evidence was found for publication bias. We assessed this body evidence to be of low quality, based on serious concerns for risk of bias due to exposure assessment only being based on self-report and for indirectness due to evidence from two WHO regions only. Our systematic review and meta-analysis found that occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors is highly prevalent. The current body of evidence is, however, limited, especially by risk of bias and indirectness. Producing estimates for the burden of disease attributable to occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors appears evidence-based, and the pooled effect estimates presented in this systematic review may perhaps be used as input data for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. Protocol identifier:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.09.053. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018102631.

Objectives To determine whether advice and training on working techniques and lifting equipment prevent back pain in jobs that involve heavy lifting. Data sources Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, Cochrane Back Group’s specialised register, CINAHL, Nioshtic, CISdoc, Science Citation Index, and PsychLIT were searched up to September-November 2005. Review methods The primary search focused on randomised controlled trials and the secondary search on cohort studies with a concurrent control group. Interventions aimed to modify techniques for lifting and handling heavy objects or patients and including measurements for back pain, consequent disability, or sick leave as the main outcome were considered for the review. Two authors independently assessed eligibility of the studies and methodological quality of those included. For data synthesis, we summarised the results of studies comparing similar interventions. We used odds ratios and effect sizes to combine the results in a meta-analysis. Finally, we compared the conclusions of the primary and secondary analyses. Results Six randomised trials and five cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. Two randomised trials and all cohort studies were labelled as high quality. Eight studies looked at lifting and moving patients, and three studies were conducted among baggage handlers or postal workers. Those in control groups received no intervention or minimal training, physical exercise, or use of back belts. None of the comparisons in randomised trials (17 720 participants) yielded significant differences. In the secondary analysis, none of the cohort studies (772 participants) had significant results, which supports the results of the randomised trials. Conclusions There is no evidence to support use of advice or training in working techniques with or without lifting equipment for preventing back pain or consequent disability. The findings challenge current widespread practice of advising workers on correct lifting technique.

The objective of this study was to quantify the mechanical load on the low back and shoulders during pushing and pulling in combination with three task constraints: the use of one or two hands, three cart weights, and two handle heights. The second objective was to explore the relation between the initial and sustained exerted forces and the mechanical load on the low back and shoulders. Detailed biomechanical models of the low back and shoulder joint were used to estimate mechanical loading. Using generalized estimating equations (GEE) the effects were quantified for exerted push/pull forces, net moments at the low back and shoulders, compressive and shear forces at the low back, and compressive forces at the glenohumeral joint. The results of this study appeared to be useful to estimate ergonomics consequences of interventions in the working constraints during pushing and pulling. Cart weight as well as handle height had a considerable effect on the mechanical load and it is recommended to maintain low cart weights and to push or pull at shoulder height. Initial and sustained exerted forces were not highly correlated with the mechanical load at the low back and shoulders within the studied range of the exerted forces.