@article{ref1,
title="The prevalence of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden  of Disease and Injury",
journal="Environment international",
year="2021",
author="Proper, Karin I. and Oakman, Jodi and Nygård, Clas-Håkan and Morgan, Rebecca L. and Descatha, Alexis and Daams, Joost G. and Colosio, Claudio and van der Molen, Henk F. and Masci, Federica and Mandić-Rajčević, Stefan and Pega, Frank and Hulshof, Carel T. J. and Kuijer, Paul P. F. M. and Kc, Prakash and Frings-Dresen, Monique H. W. and Solovieva, Svetlana and Neupane, Subas",
volume="146",
number="",
pages="e106157-e106157",
abstract="BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of  disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large  network of experts. Evidence from mechanistic and human data suggests that  occupational exposure to ergonomic (or physical) risk factors may cause  osteoarthritis and other musculoskeletal diseases (excluding rheumatoid arthritis,  gout, and back and neck pain). In this paper, we present a systematic review and  meta-analysis of the prevalence of occupational exposure to physical ergonomic risk  factors for estimating the number of disability-adjusted life years from these  diseases that are attributable to exposure to this risk factor, for the development  of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. <br><br>OBJECTIVES: We aimed to systematically review and  meta-analyse estimates of the prevalence of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk  factors for osteoarthritis and other musculoskeletal diseases. DATA SOURCES: We  searched electronic bibliographic databases for potentially relevant records from  published and unpublished studies, including Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and CISDOC. We  also searched electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and  organizational websites; hand-searched reference list of previous systematic reviews  and included study records; and consulted additional experts. STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND  CRITERIA: We included working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal  economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but excluded children (<15 years) and  unpaid domestic workers. The exposure was defined as any occupational exposure to  one or more of: force exertion, demanding posture, repetitive movement, hand-arm  vibration, kneeling or squatting, lifting, and/or climbing. We included all study  types with an estimate of the prevalence of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk  factors. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: At least two review authors  independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a  first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage,  followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. We combined prevalence  estimates using random-effect meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the  risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using the ROB-SPEO tool and QoE-SPEO  approach developed specifically for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. <br><br>RESULTS: Five  studies (three cross-sectional studies and two cohort studies) met the inclusion  criteria, comprising 150,895 participants (81,613 females) in 36 countries in two  WHO regions (Africa, Europe). The exposure was generally assessed with questionnaire  data about self-reported exposure. Estimates of the prevalence of occupational  exposure to ergonomic risk factors are presented for all five included studies,  disaggregated by country, sex, 5-year age group, industrial sector or occupational  group where feasible. The pooled prevalence of any occupational exposure to  ergonomic risk factors was 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.69 to 0.84, 3 studies,  148,433 participants, 35 countries in the WHO Europe region, I(2) 100%, low quality  of evidence). Subgroup analyses found no statistically significant differences in  exposure by sex but differences by age group, occupation and country. No evidence  was found for publication bias. We assessed this body evidence to be of low quality,  based on serious concerns for risk of bias due to exposure assessment only being  based on self-report and for indirectness due to evidence from two WHO regions only. <br><br>CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review and meta-analysis found that occupational  exposure to ergonomic risk factors is highly prevalent. The current body of evidence  is, however, limited, especially by risk of bias and indirectness. Producing  estimates for the burden of disease attributable to occupational exposure to  ergonomic risk factors appears evidence-based, and the pooled effect estimates  presented in this systematic review may perhaps be used as input data for the  WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. Protocol  identifier:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.09.053. PROSPERO registration  number: CRD42018102631.<p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="0160-4120",
doi="10.1016/j.envint.2020.106157",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106157"
}