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 We searched electronic bibliographic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and CISDOC.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.

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 data suggests that occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors may cause selected other musculoskeletal diseases, other than back or neck pain (MSD) or osteoarthritis of hip or knee (OA). In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of parameters for estimating the number of disability-adjusted life years from MSD or OA that are attributable to occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors (force exertion, demanding posture, repetitiveness, hand-arm vibration, lifting, kneeling and/or squatting, and climbing) on MSD and OA (two outcomes: prevalence and incidence). We developed and published a protocol, applying the Navigation Guide as an organizing systematic review framework where feasible. We searched electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including the International Trials Register, 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. We included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the effect of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors (any exposure to force exertion, demanding posture, repetitiveness, hand-arm vibration, lifting, kneeling and/or squatting, and climbing ≥ 2 h/day) compared with no or low exposure to the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (<2 h/day) on the prevalence or incidence of MSD or OA. 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. Missing data were requested from principal study authors. We combined odds ratios using random-effect meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using Navigation Guide tools adapted to this project. In total eight studies (4 cohort studies and 4 case control studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 2,378,729 participants (1,157,943 females and 1,220,786 males) in 6 countries in 3 WHO regions (Europe, Eastern Mediterranean and Western Pacific). The exposure was measured using self-reports in most studies and with a job exposure matrix in one study and outcome was generally assessed with physician diagnostic records or administrative health data. Across included studies, risk of bias was generally moderate. Compared with no or low exposure (<2 h per day), any occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors increased the risk of acquiring MSD (odds ratio (OR) 1.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14 to 2.72, 4 studies, 2,376,592 participants, I2 70%); and increased the risk of acquiring OA of knee or hip (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.42 to 3.40, 3 studies, 1,354 participants, I2 13%); Subgroup analysis for MSD found evidence for differences by sex, but indicated a difference in study type, where OR was higher among study participants in a case control study compared to study participants in cohort studies. Overall, for both outcomes, the main body of evidence was assessed as being of low quality. Occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors increased the risk of acquiring MSD and of acquiring OA of knee or hip. We judged the body of human evidence on the relationship between exposure to occupational ergonomic factors and MSD as "limited evidence of harmfulness" and the relationship between exposure to occupational ergonomic factors and OA also as "limited evidence of harmfulness". These relative risks might perhaps be suitable as input data for WHO/ILO modelling of work-related burden of disease and injury. Protocol identifier: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.09.053 PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018102631.

Health interventions often do not reach blue-collar workers. Citizen science engages target groups in the design and execution of health interventions, but has not yet been applied in an occupational setting. This preliminary study determines barriers and facilitators and feasible elements for citizen science to improve the health of blue-collar workers. The study was conducted in a terminal and construction company by performing semi-structured interviews and focus groups with employees, company management and experts. Interviews and focus groups were analyzed using thematic content analysis and the elements were pilot tested. Workers considered work pressure, work location and several personal factors as barriers for citizen science at the worksite, and (lack of) social support and (negative) social culture both as barriers and facilitators. Citizen science to improve health at the worksite may include three elements: (1) knowledge and skills, (2) social support and social culture, and (3) awareness about lifestyle behaviors. Strategies to implement these elements may be company specific. This study provides relevant indications on feasible elements and strategies for citizen science to improve health at the worksite. Further studies on the feasibility of citizen science in other settings, including a larger and more heterogeneous sample of blue-collar workers, are necessary.

Blue-collar workers have, on average, poorer health than white-collar workers. Existing worksite health promotion programs (WHPPs) are often not successful among blue-collar workers. This study evaluates the effect of the Citizen Science-based WHPP on the targeted lifestyle behaviors among construction workers. The data of 114 participants were retrieved from questionnaires before (T0) and after (T1) the WHPP. Outcome measures were mean and categorical changes in daily fruit and vegetable intake and weekly leisure time physical exercise. Changes were tested using Wilcoxon signed rank tests and McNemar tests. No statistically significant changes were found between T0 and T1. In total, 73.7% of the participants felt involved in the WHPP. Changes in the outcome measures were not significantly different between subgroups based on age, nor in subgroups based on feelings of involvedness. The low intensity of the developed program could be an explanation for this lack of significant change. Future studies using the Citizen Science approach in an occupational setting should aim at developing a more intensified program and should test its effectiveness by comparing changes in a (randomized) controlled trial.

Workers’ health surveillance (WHS) is an important preventive activity aimed at prevention of work-related diseases. However, WHS is not regularly implemented in some EU-countries. As occupational physicians (OPs) have to play an important role in implementation of WHS, this study aimed to develop an intervention to support OPs in implementation of WHS. The behavior change wheel framework (BCW) was used to develop the intervention. First, the problem was defined, and target behavior was selected by using results from a survey study among OPs. Subsequently, change objectives in target behavior were specified. Finally, appropriate intervention functions, behavior change techniques, and modes of delivery were identified to develop the intervention. Target behaviors were (1) OPs initiate WHS, and (2) OPs conduct preventive consultations with workers. OPs’ capabilities, and experienced opportunities were identified as change objectives. Intervention functions (education, training, enablement) and behavior change techniques (information about consequences, demonstration, instructions, behavioral practice, feedback on behavior, goal setting, action planning, reviewing goals) were selected to develop the intervention, delivered by face-to-face group training and e-learning. The proposed intervention consists of training and e-learning to support OPs in implementing WHS. Feasibility and effect of the intervention will be evaluated in future studies.

Although workers’ health surveillance is an important preventive activity, it is not regularly performed. In addition to the occupational physician, the management of occupational health services can also be involved in the performance of workers’ health surveillance. The present study investigated the view and policy of the managements of occupational health services on the performance of workers’ health surveillance by occupational physicians. Semi-structured face-to-face interviews about the mission, view, and policy of the occupational health services with respect to workers’ health surveillance were conducted with eighteen randomly selected board members of occupational health services in the Netherlands. The results were transcribed verbatim and were analysed using MAXQDA software to form themes and categories. The first theme found was the view of the management of occupational health services. Categories found were mission statements of occupational health services and the attitude of the management of occupational health services towards workers’ health surveillance. Three types of mission statements were mentioned by the board members: keeping workers at work, improving the health of workers, or helping the employer with sick-leave management. Both positive and negative attitudes towards workers’ health surveillance appeared from the interviews. Some board members mentioned that workers’ health surveillance can improve workers’ health, and creates awareness about workers’ health. Other board members mentioned that performing workers’ health surveillance is eliciting problems, and that employers do not have a positive attitude towards workers’ health surveillance. The second theme was the policy on performing workers’ health surveillance. Categories found were the policy on performing workers’ health surveillance towards companies, and the policy on performing workers’ health surveillance towards professionals. Some occupational health services recommend workers’ health surveillance to all companies. However, in general workers’ health surveillance was only performed at request of companies, and no instructions or training programmes for occupational physicians were provided. Although some of the mentioned views on workers’ health surveillance are positive, the policy of occupational health services on workers’ health surveillance does, so far, in general, not stimulate occupational physicians or employers to perform or organize workers’ health surveillance.