PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 7696775

Whose back is it?

Abstract

This is a question that every nurse should consider as it could be a major factor in their nursing career. Indeed if training needs and education at all levels of the National Health Service are not reviewed and brought up to date, nursing could be heading for serious difficulties in the near future. Fortunately for nursing, the European Community has decided to bring manual lifting and handling to the forefront by issuing directives which they hope will 'harmonise health and safety standards throughout the European Community such that competitive advantage cannot be gained by lowering costs as a direct result of lowering standards'. The most important of these as far as nursing is concerned is Directive 90/269, especially articles three to four which state employers have 'an existing duty to prepare and revise as necessary and bring to the attention of their employees, a written Health and Safety Policy'. It also expects employers to provide equipment which will allow workers to avoid manual handling and to ensure that a full assessment of all manual lifting tasks is carried out prior to their commencement, whether there is a risk of injury or not to the employee.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

I MacFarlane. 1995. Whose back is it?. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7696775/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

[Back pain].

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Back Pain↗

The Boeing prospective study and beyond.

STUDY DESIGN: The Boeing prospective study was reviewed. The Boeing prospective study, comprising two articles, was a large field study that explored why workers would or would not report occupational back pain problems. OBJECTIVES: The most immediate objective was to determine the extent to which conclusions drawn from the Boeing prospective study withstand critical examination. The ultimate purpose of this review was to develop guidelines for field studies of back pain in industry. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: For more than a century, researchers have noted great variability among individuals in the reporting of back pain, but the explanations posed for this variability have been inconsistent. Because findings gain credibility roughly to the extent that they bear on the world outside the laboratory, field studies in particular hold great potential for clarifying the underlying explanation for individual variability in back pain reporting. The Boeing prospective study was a large and ambitious field study that examined this issue. METHODS: The Boeing prospective study was examined through the lens of research conducted since it was published. The review used both the methodological and substantive literature. RESULTS: The Boeing prospective study, based on a minority of workers originally solicited to participate in it (33-41%), accounted for 7% of the variation in why workers would or would not report a back pain problem. A number of issues that may have biased its results toward the null are examined. CONCLUSIONS: The highlighting of the Boeing prospective study's limitations may be instructive not so much to criticize this one particular study but, rather, to anticipate problems that in general may be encountered in field studies of back pain in industry. Looking beyond the Boeing prospective study, the following guidelines for the conduct of such studies may be proposed: 1) Study designs should be based on explanations from which testable hypotheses may be derived; 2) Subgroups within the more general category of "back pain" should be delineated; 3) Both occupational exposures and psychosocial factors should be entered into the analysis; 4) Factors not apparent at the workplace should be considered; 5. Abstracts of articles should be carefully crafted.

Back Pain↗

The impact of psychosocial 'markers' on the outcome of rehabilitation.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to identify substantial psychosocial events--'psychosocial markers' (PMs) in the clients files and to correlate the PMs to the outcome of the rehabilitation, in order to find out whether this information had any impact on the outcome of vocational rehabilitation (VR). METHOD: Three-hundred and seventy-two individuals were included, being an object of a VR measure during 1993-1994. All were impaired by either disc hernia back pain syndrome or other diseases of the loco-motor system. The PM was defined as any psychosocial loaded information of the person's life situation, not immediately related to the original set of medical problems. RESULTS: Twenty-seven PMs were identified among men and 36 for women. Alcohol related problems dominated for men and private life related problems for women. Only approximately 25% of the PM concerned work related matters. After 3 years the OR (odds ratio) for full disability pension was 2.6 (n.s.) for men with the PM and 4.3 (p < 0.05) for women. The outcome was independent of background factors such as unemployment, blue-collar work and low education. CONCLUSIONS: The PM was found to be an important and independent factor to impact the outcome of rehabilitation in women.

Back Pain↗