Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 14728544

Rigorously assessing whether the data backs the back school.

David T Vinh·Craig W Johnson·Cynthia L Phelps
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A rigorous between-subjects methodology employing independent random samples and having broad clinical applicability was designed and implemented to evaluate the effectiveness of back safety and patient transfer training interventions for both hospital nurses and nursing assistants. Effects upon self-efficacy, cognitive, and affective measures are assessed for each of three back safety procedures. The design solves the problem of obtaining randomly assigned independent controls where all experimental subjects must participate in the training interventions.

Explore related subjects

Back InjuriesHumansInservice TrainingLiftingNursing AssistantsNursing Staff, HospitalSafety ManagementTransportation of PatientsClinical TrialJournal ArticleRandomized Controlled Trial

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

David T Vinh, Craig W Johnson, Cynthia L Phelps. 2003. Rigorously assessing whether the data backs the back school.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14728544/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Comparing the results of five lifting analysis tools.

The objective of this study was to compare the results of the NIOSH, ACGIH TLV, Snook, 3DSSPP and WA L&I lifting assessment instruments when applied to a uniform task (lifting and lowering milk cases with capacities of 15 and 23l). To enable comparisons between the various lifting assessment instruments, the outputs of each method were converted to an exposure index similar to the NIOSH Lifting Index. All instruments showed higher exposures associated with lifting the 23l cases versus the 15l cases. The NIOSH, ACGIH TLV and Snook methods were similar in their results with respect to the pattern of exposure over various height levels and the differences in exposures associated with lifting 15 and 23l cases. However, the WA L&I and 3DSSPP predicted substantially lower exposures. The reasons for instrument differences are presented so that practitioners can better select the methods they need and interpret the results appropriately.

Back Injuries↗
PubMed2006

Changing trends in US injury profiles: revisiting non-fatal occupational injury statistics.

The purpose of this paper is to review the current trends in non-fatal injury profiles of workers in the United States. It is generally accepted that occupational injury and illness rates are affected by many factors, such as the amount and quality of training, employee turnover rates, work experience, extent of mechanization and automation, job-related parameters, and worker gender. In the last decade, not only have the technologies used in the workplace changed significantly, there has been a greater awareness among employers and employees as to the importance of containing work injuries. Additionally, the extent of outsourcing for labor-intensive jobs has increased dramatically owing to cheaper labor costs in places such as China and Mexico. These changes have affected the manufacturing sector of US industry more than any other sector. How these changes have influenced the injury and illness profiles of the American worker is of considerable interest given the increased attention paid to work-workplace design, injury hazard control, and ergonomics in general. In this paper, we compare the injury and illness profiles of US workers separated by nearly a decade. The trends from early 1990s are compared to those from early 2000s. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics were used to compile the injury statistics. The results of our comparison show that while the absolute numbers of work-related injuries and illnesses have declined over the last 10 years, the basic trends associated with different factors remain almost unchanged. The reasons for this decline are discussed in this paper.

Back Injuries↗
PubMed2006

Work-related injuries of doctors of chiropractic in the United States.

PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to determine the prevalence and types of work-related injuries among a nationwide sample of chiropractors and to identify factors associated with these injuries. METHODS: Using a survey, 1000 randomly selected doctors of chiropractic in the United States were asked to record their 3 most serious injuries. Details were obtained about the type of injury, area of the body affected, activity performed at that time, year of practice when the injury had occurred, if the doctor had needed to take time off from work, and what they had changed as a result of the injury. RESULTS: A total of 422 responses were obtained (42.2%), yielding 397 usable surveys. One hundred fifty-nine chiropractors (40.1%) reported experiencing a total of 252 injuries while working. Most injuries were classified as soft tissue injuries and occurred while either performing (66.7%) or positioning (11.1%) a patient for manipulation. Body parts most commonly injured were the wrist/hand/finger (42.9%), shoulder (25.8%), and low back (24.6%). The anatomic areas of the patient being manipulated in which the doctor was injured were the lumbosacral (37.1%) and thoracic spine (21.6%). Shoulder (P < .001) and low back (P < .001) injuries were significantly more likely to have been caused by adjustments of the lumbosacral spine with the patient in the side-lying position. Most commonly, injuries occurred in the first to fifth year of practice (37.3%). Of note, 5.4% of injuries reported occurred while attending chiropractic college. CONCLUSION: A high prevalence of upper extremity injuries was reported in the group surveyed. These injuries were most often related to side-posture manipulation to the lumbar spine. Because most injuries occurred early on in the career and required a change in technique, greater efforts toward injury prevention education should be aimed toward chiropractic students.

Back Injuries↗