Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31412839›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2019

Implementing sensor technology applications for workplace health promotion: a needs assessment among workers with physically demanding work.

Sander Mathijn Spook, Wendy Koolhaas, Ute Bültmann, Sandra Brouwer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sander Mathijn SpookDepartment of Health Sciences, Community and Occupational Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, P.O. Box 196, FA10, room 620, 9700 AD, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Wendy KoolhaasDepartment of Health Sciences, Community and Occupational Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, P.O. Box 196, FA10, room 620, 9700 AD, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Ute BültmannDepartment of Health Sciences, Community and Occupational Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, P.O. Box 196, FA10, room 620, 9700 AD, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Sandra BrouwerDepartment of Health Sciences, Community and Occupational Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, P.O. Box 196, FA10, room 620, 9700 AD, Groningen, the Netherlands. Sandra.brouwer@umcg.nl.

Funding

This study is part-financed by the European Regional Development Fund, the province and municipality of Groningen, and the province of Drenthe T-3036
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWorkers with physically demanding work may be at risk for injury, illness or other adverse health outcomes due to exposure to different occupational hazards, especially at higher age. Sensor technology applications may be useful in the workplace to unobtrusively measure and monitor work exposures and provide workers with real-time feedback or access to data on demand. Many aspects might impede the implementation of sensor technology applications in the workplace, which should be taken into consideration for a successful implementation. Moreover, needs and preferences of workers regarding the use of sensor technology applications during work performance need to be identified. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify worker needs and preferences regarding the use of sensor technology applications in the workplace.

methodsFour on-site focus group sessions were conducted in four different companies among workers with physically demanding work (n = 30). Semi-structured interview schedules were used to identify which work exposures should be measured, by which kind of sensor technology applications, under which (pre)conditions, how to motivate long-term use of sensor technology applications, and which type of feedback is preferred. For data analysis, a content-analysis with an inductive approach was performed.

resultsParticipants mentioned that they want to use wearable sensor technology applications to measure and monitor physical job demands, occupational heat stress, noise and fatigue. Factors associated with quality, comfort and perceived ease of use were identified as potential barriers for implementation in the workplace. Long-term motivation was attributed to the ability to manage and monitor work exposures, positive feedback and data ownership. Participants indicated a need to both receive real-time feedback and access to data on demand.

conclusionsSensor technology applications may support workers with physically demanding work to measure and monitor their work exposures. Potential barriers for implementation such as privacy aspects and quality, comfort and perceived ease of use of sensor technology applications need to be well considered to ensure successful implementation of sensor technology applications in the workplace.

Indexed as

Occupational HealthAdultFocus GroupsHealth PromotionHumansMaleMiddle AgedMonitoring, AmbulatoryNeeds AssessmentPhysical ExertionWearable Electronic DevicesWorkAgeing workforceFocus groupsNeeds assessmentOccupational hazardsPhysically demanding workSensor technology applicationsSustainable employabilityWork exposuresWorkplace health promotion

Identifiers

PMID31412839
PMCPMC6693286

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.