↓ Skip to main content

Systematic Review of the Role of Occupational Health and Safety Interventions in the Prevention of Upper Extremity Musculoskeletal Symptoms, Signs, Disorders, Injuries, Claims and Lost Time

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, November 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
118 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
362 Mendeley
Title
Systematic Review of the Role of Occupational Health and Safety Interventions in the Prevention of Upper Extremity Musculoskeletal Symptoms, Signs, Disorders, Injuries, Claims and Lost Time
Published in
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, November 2009
DOI 10.1007/s10926-009-9211-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carol A. Kennedy, Benjamin C. Amick III, Jack T. Dennerlein, Shelley Brewer, Starly Catli, Renee Williams, Consol Serra, Fred Gerr, Emma Irvin, Quenby Mahood, Al Franzblau, Dwayne Van Eerd, Bradley Evanoff, David Rempel

Abstract

Little is known about the most effective occupational health and safety (OHS) interventions to reduce upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) and injuries. A systematic review used a best evidence synthesis approach to address the question: "do occupational health and safety interventions have an effect on upper extremity musculoskeletal symptoms, signs, disorders, injuries, claims and lost time?" The search identified 36 studies of sufficient methodological quality to be included in data extraction and evidence synthesis. Overall, a mixed level of evidence was found for OHS interventions. Levels of evidence for interventions associated with positive effects were: Moderate evidence for arm supports; and Limited evidence for ergonomics training plus workstation adjustments, new chair and rest breaks. Levels of evidence for interventions associated with "no effect" were: Strong evidence for workstation adjustment alone; Moderate evidence for biofeedback training and job stress management training; and Limited evidence for cognitive behavioral training. No interventions were associated with "negative effects". It is difficult to make strong evidenced-based recommendations about what practitioners should do to prevent or manage upper extremity MSDs. There is a paucity of high quality OHS interventions evaluating upper extremity MSDs and none focused on traumatic injury outcomes or workplace mandated pre-placement screening exams. We recommend that worksites not engage in OHS activities that include only workstation adjustments. However, when combined with ergonomics training, there is limited evidence that workstation adjustments are beneficial. A practice to consider is using arm supports to reduce upper extremity MSDs.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 362 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 348 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 71 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 53 15%
Student > Bachelor 36 10%
Researcher 32 9%
Other 24 7%
Other 79 22%
Unknown 67 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 80 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 51 14%
Engineering 29 8%
Social Sciences 21 6%
Psychology 20 6%
Other 77 21%
Unknown 84 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 10 December 2021.
All research outputs
#2,342,539
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation
#69
of 680 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,763
of 110,782 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation
#2
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 680 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
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 110,782 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.