Purchase individual online access for 1 year to this journal.
Price: EUR 250.00
Impact Factor 2019: 1.009
WORK: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation is an interdisciplinary, international journal which publishes high quality peer-reviewed manuscripts covering the entire scope of the occupation of work. The journal's subtitle has been deliberately laid out: The first goal is the prevention of illness, injury, and disability. When this goal is not achievable, the attention focuses on assessment to design client-centered intervention, rehabilitation, treatment, or controls that use scientific evidence to support best practice.
WORK occasionally publishes thematic issues, but in general, issues cover a wide range of topics such as ergonomic considerations with children, youth and students, the challenges facing an aging workforce, workplace violence, injury management, performing artists, ergonomic product evaluations, and the awareness of the political, cultural, and environmental determinants of health related to work.
Dr. Karen Jacobs, the founding editor, and her editorial board especially encourage the publication of research studies, clinical practice, case study reports, as well as personal narratives and critical reflections of lived work experiences (autoethnographic/autobiographic scholarship),
Sounding Board commentaries and
Speaking of Research articles which provide the foundation for better understanding research to facilitate knowledge dissemination.
Narrative Reflections on Occupational Transitions, a new column, is for persons who have successfully transitioned into, between, or out of occupations to tell their stories in a narrative form. With an internationally renowned editorial board,
WORK maintains high standards in the evaluation and publication of manuscripts. All manuscripts are reviewed expeditiously and published in a timely manner.
WORK prides itself on being an author-friendly journal.
WORK celebrates its 25th anniversary in 2015.
*WORK is affiliated with the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists (CAOT)* *WORK is endorsed by the International Ergonomics Association (IEA)* *WORK gives out the yearly Cheryl Bennett Best Paper Award*
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Manual materials handling (MMH) tasks are common. They are considered major contributors of musculoskeletal injuries and are the sources of financial burden for industries in terms of lost work days and worker compensation costs. One-handed carrying is common and could result in arm fatigue. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to establish predictive models for one-handed carrying strength considering weight handed and handedness conditions. METHODS: Twenty male subjects were recruited for the study. The subject carried a weight of 6 or 12 kg using either dominant or non-dominant hand lasting a time period of 0,…0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, or 4 minutes. RESULTS: The results showed that handedness (p < 0.0001), weight (p < 0.05), and time period (p < 0.0001) were all significant factors affecting single arm carrying strength. Predictive models of single arm carrying strength were established under handedness and weight conditions. The MADs of these models ranged from 0.39 to 2.19 kgf. CONCLUSION: The exponential function based predictive models may be adopted to describe the single arm carrying strength with reasonable predictive errors. The trend of the carrying strength after carrying a load for a certain period may be employed to describe muscular fatigue for sustained carrying tasks.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: The British Army has over 100 career employment groups to which recruits may apply. The Infantry is one of these career employment groups; it accounts for 25% of the overall strength. It is of concern that Infantry recruit attrition within the first 12 weeks of training remains consistently above 30% . Poor selection methods that lead to the enlistment of unsuitable recruits have negative financial and personal consequences, but little is known about the personal experiences of those who fail. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this research was to understand why infantry recruits choose to leave and explore…the personal experiences of those that fail. METHODS: This study draws on qualitative data from the second phase of a larger mixed method study. The foci of this paper are the findings directly related to the responses of recruits in exit interviews and their Commanding Officers’ training reports. An exploratory qualitative, inductive method was used to generate insights, explanations and potential solutions to training attrition. RESULTS: What the data describes is a journey of extreme situational demands that the recruits experience throughout their transition from civilian life to service in the British Infantry. It is the cumulative effect of the stressors, combined with the recruit being dislocated from their established support network, which appears to be the catalyst for failure among recruits. CONCLUSION: There are clearly defined areas where either further research or changes to current practice may provide a better understanding of, and ultimately reduce, the current attrition rates experienced by the Infantry Training Centre.
Keywords: Work place stress, work environment, recruitment, qualitative analysis, British Army, military, training attrition
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Risk factors among Emergency Medical Service (EMS) workers are difficult to characterize and inconsistencies remain about their main health problems. OBJECTIVES: To identify main work-related health problems among EMS workers in the United States; identify risk factors at the organizational, task, and exposure level; identify prevention strategies; examine these issues between participants (EMS workers and supervisors). METHODS: Two types of qualitative research methods based on grounded theory were used: in-depth interviews with emergency medical technicians/paramedics (EMS workers) and focus groups (EMS workers and supervisors). RESULTS: Most participants reported similar health problems (musculoskeletal injuries)…and the task related to these injuries, patient handling. Participants also reported similar physical exposures (ascending stairs with patients and patient weight). For organization/psychosocial factors, participants agreed that fitness, wages, breaks, and shift scheduling were linked with injuries, but overall, perceptions about these issues differed more than physical exposures. Lack of trust between EMS workers and supervisors were recurrent concerns among workers. However, not all organizational/psychosocial factors differed. EMS workers and supervisors agreed pre-employment screening could reduce injuries. Participants identified micro- and macro-level prevention opportunities. CONCLUSIONS: The grounded theory approach identified workers’ main health problems, and the organizational factors and exposures linked with them. Perceptions about work organization/psychosocial exposures appeared more diverse than physical exposures. Prevention among all participants focused on mechanized equipment, but EMS workers also wanted more organizational support.