1977
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-842x.1977.tb01093.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Work–related hand and lower–arm injuries in New Zealand, 1979 to 1988

Abstract: The aim of this study was to describe the epidemiology of work-related hand and lower-arm injuries in New Zealand. Nonfatal hand and lower-arm injuries were identified from New Zealand's national database of hospital admissions for the period 1979 to 1988. Thirty-seven per cent (9714) of all such injuries (26 228) were work-related. Piercing and cutting instruments (38.5 per cent) and machinery (37.2 per cent) were the two most common agents of work-related hand and lower-arm injury. Specific occupations in wh… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2010
2010

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The high risks found in the construction industry were expected and are in agreement with previously published results [25][26][27] . The high risk of injury to the upper extremities among slaughterhouse workers (mostly due to lacerations) has been known for a long time [28][29][30][31][32] . Preventive measures have been taken, and protective gloves and covers for the lower arm for meat workers have been in use for a long time 29) .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The high risks found in the construction industry were expected and are in agreement with previously published results [25][26][27] . The high risk of injury to the upper extremities among slaughterhouse workers (mostly due to lacerations) has been known for a long time [28][29][30][31][32] . Preventive measures have been taken, and protective gloves and covers for the lower arm for meat workers have been in use for a long time 29) .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As discussed above, the majority of crushing objects were machineries presumably familiar to the operators rather than unexpected extrinsic objects, which was a common finding in many studies. 18 It signified the presence of a potential problematic operation process, which might be the result of ageing and malfunctioning hardware, less routine and rushing work patterns, 19 or a lack of guidance or supervision. Employers should be responsible for recognising and ameliorating these issues promptly.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%