No abstract

Farmers are at high risk of having low back disorders (LBDs). Agriculture employs half the global workforce, but it is unclear whether all farming populations are represented equitably in the LBD literature. This systematic review quantifies the number and quality of research studies by geographical region, agricultural commodity, and farmer characteristics. MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL, Scopus, and Embase databases were searched using conceptual groups of search terms: "farming" and "LBD." Screening and extraction were performed by two researchers in parallel, then reconciled through discussion. Extracted study characteristics included location of study; commodity produced; worker sex, ethnicity, and migration status; type of employment; and study quality. These were compared with agricultural employment statistics from the International Labour Organization and World Bank. From 125 articles, roughly half (67) did not specify the employment context of the participants in terms of migration status or subsistence versus commercial farming. Although in many regions worldwide women make up the bulk of the workforce, only a minority of low back disorder studies focus on women. Despite the predominance of the agricultural workforce in developing nations, 91% of included studies were conducted in developed nations. There was no significant difference in study quality by geographic region. The nature of the world's agricultural workforce is poorly represented by the literature when it comes to LBD research. If developing nations, female sex, and migrant work are related to increased vulnerability, then these groups need more representation to achieve equitable occupational health study.

BACKGROUND: Waste management is a growing industry worldwide. Working conditions may entail risk factors for musculoskeletal disorders, and especially low back disorders (LBD). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review on: (i) the prevalence of LBD; and (ii) risk factors for LBD among waste collection workers. METHOD: A search was conducted in three electronic databases: Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and Global Health ePublications. Data were extracted on study design, sampling strategy, geographical region, LBD prevalence, and risk factors. Data were reported narratively. RESULTS: Thirteen full-text articles met the study criteria. Using a range of definitions for LBD, the included articles reported a 12-month prevalence of 'LBD' between 16 to 74%, although none of the included studies quantified relationships between risk factors and LBD. None of the studies met all 9 risk of bias criteria. No articles investigated the association of risk factors and LBD, but even in absence this evidence authors of included studies suggested physical risk factors for LBD among waste workers: awkward posture, repetitive motion, and work duration. CONCLUSION: In light of these risks and future growth in this industry, the lack of high quality studies and investigation of risk factors highlight the need for more research in this sector which will support future LBD prevention efforts.

Intensification of modern swine production has led to many new technologies, including needleless injectors. Although needleless injectors may increase productivity (by reducing injection time) and reduce needlestick injuries, the effect on risk for musculoskeletal disorders is not clear. This project will compare conventional needles with needleless injectors in terms of cost, productivity, injury rates, biomechanical exposures, and worker preference. Muscle activity (EMG) and hand/wrist posture will be measured on swine workers performing injection tasks with both injection methods. Video recordings during the exposure assessments will compare the duration and productivity for each injection method using time-and-motion methods. Injury claim data from up to 60 pig barns will be analyzed for needlestick and musculoskeletal injuries before/after needleless injector adoption. Workers and managers will be asked about what they like and dislike about each method and what helps and hinders successful implementation. The information above will be input into a cost-benefit model to determine the incremental effects of needleless injectors in terms of occupational health, worker preference, and the financial “bottom line” of the farm. Findings will be relevant to the swine industry and are intended to be transferable to other new technologies in animal production.

Aims: To compare clinical oral findings and salivary changes in diabetic and non-diabetic patients.Material and methods: This comparative cross-sectional study was conducted at the Endocrinology Clinic of Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospital Complex (OAUTHC), Ile Ife (Cases), the controls were volunteers among staffs and students of the hospital community. Participants were interviewed and examined. Saliva was collected using spitting method and salivary flow rate was determined using volumetric method. Salivary PH, Urea, Creatinine and glucose concentration was determined using Randox BT29 4QY kit.Results: Total of 100 diabetics and 100 non-diabetics, mean age 54.81+12.23 yr, participated. History of toothache and gum bleeding was significantly more frequent among diabetic subjects, p=0.001 and 0.001 respectively. Salivary flow rate is significantly lower among diabetics 0.32+0.13 ml/min), flow rate was also lower among female. Salivary glucose, urea and creatinine were significantly higher among diabetics while their urine is more acidic. Older age group showed higher concentration of salivary glucose, urea, creatinine, and reduced pH than in younger population. Data analysis was done using STATA 13 statistical software. Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare continuous variables between diabetics and non diabetes Conclusion: Oral problems and saliva alterations are significantly higher among diabetics especially among male participants of older age groups.Clinical significance: The significant association between prevalence of oral lesions among diabetes as well as significant qualitative changes in saliva of diabetes is a potential noninvasive tool of monitoring diabetes and could enhance the multidisciplinary management approach in its management.