| Title |
Theoretical impact of simulated workplace-based primary prevention of carpal tunnel syndrome in a French region
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12889-018-5328-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yves Roquelaure, Natacha Fouquet, Emilie Chazelle, Alexis Descatha, Bradley Evanoff, Julie Bodin, Audrey Petit |
| Abstract |
Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most common nerve entrapment neuropathy in the working-age population. The reduction of CTS incidence in the workforce is a priority for policy makers due to the human, social and economic costs. To assess the theoretical impact of workplace-based primary interventions designed to reduce exposure to personal and/or work-related risk factors for CTS. Surgical CTS were assessed using regional hospital discharge records for persons aged 20-59 in 2009. Using work-related attributable fractions (AFEs), we estimated the number of work-related CTS (WR-CTS) in high-risk jobs. We simulated three theoretical scenarios of workplace-based primary prevention for jobs at risk: a mono-component work-centered intervention reducing the incidence of WR-CTS arbitrarily by 10% (10%-WI), and multicomponent global interventions reducing the incidence of all surgical CTS by 5% and 10% by targeting personal and work risk factors. A limited proportion of CTS were work-related in the region's population. WR-CTS were concentrated in nine jobs at high risk of CTS, amounting to 1603 [1137-2212] CTS, of which 906 [450-1522] were WR-CTS. The 10%-WI, 5%-GI and 10%-GI hypothetically prevented 90 [46-153], 81 [58-111] and 159 [114-223] CTS, respectively. The 10%-GI had the greatest impact regardless of the job. The impact of the 10%-WI interventions was high only in jobs at highest risk and AFEs (e.g. food industry jobs). The 10%-WI and 5%-GI had a similar impact for moderate-risk jobs (e.g. healthcare jobs). The impact of simulated workplace-based interventions suggests that prevention efforts to reduce exposure to work-related risk factors should focus on high-risk jobs. Reducing CTS rates will also require integrated strategies to reduce personal risk factors, particularly in jobs with low levels of work-related risk of CTS. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 33% |
| France | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 58 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 14% |
| Researcher | 6 | 10% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Unknown | 20 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 17% |
| Engineering | 4 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Unknown | 21 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 April 2019.
All research outputs
#13,237,706
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#9,247
of 15,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,801
of 328,966 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#234
of 310 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,005 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,966 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 310 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.