4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Annual incidence of non-specific low back pain as an occupational disease attributed to whole-body vibration according to the National Dutch Register 2005-2012

Journal

ERGONOMICS
Volume 58, Issue 7, Pages 1232-1238

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00140139.2014.915991

Keywords

low back pain; whole-body vibration; occupational disease; incidence; prevention

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Non-specific low back pain (nLBP) is the second most important reason for sick leave in the Netherlands, and more than 50% of the workers on sick leave attribute these complaints to their work. To stimulate recognition and prevention, an occupational disease (OD) registration-guideline was implemented for the assessment of the work-relatedness of nLBP in the Netherlands in 2005. The aim of this study is to present the annual incidence of nLBP as an OD and specifically for whole-body vibration (WBV) including patient characteristics such as age, sick leave and actions initiated by the occupational physician (OP). The data were retrieved from the National Dutch Register for 2005-2012. Each year about 118 OPs reported 509 cases (SD 139) of nLBP as an OD in a Dutch working population of 7.5 million workers (8% of all annual reported ODs). Less than 1% of these cases were attributed to WBV: 94% were men, 45% were between 51 and 60 years and 35% were on sick leave for more than 2 weeks. Most initiated actions were ergonomic interventions (35%). Practitioner Summary: The number of notified cases of nLPB as an occupational disease attributed to whole-body vibration is low with less than 1% of all cases in the Netherlands. An explanation is that other work-related risk factors for nLBP such as lifting are more frequently occurring, more visible and have a higher attributable risk than WBV. However, continuing attention for WBV remains warranted given a higher percentage of cases with sick leave of more than 2 weeks.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available