ArticleSafety and health at work2020
A Taxonomy of the Common Tasks and the Development of a Risk Index for Physical Load Assessment in Nursing Job.
Article in Safety and health at work, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Smart assistants: service robots in action].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Potential of Assistive Robots in Clinical Nursing: An Observational Study of Nurses' Transportation Tasks in Rural Clinics of Bavaria, Germany.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNursing service is a nonroutine work with an excessive physical load and diverse tasks. This study derived representative common tasks based on the frequently occurring tasks with a high physical load in the nursing workers' daily work and developed indicators to evaluate the work risk by reflecting the characteristics of nonroutine work.
methodsCommon tasks were classified through the following stages: literature review, first focus group interview (FGI) with experts, first classification of common tasks, second FGI with hospital health managers, a survey of nursing service workers, and the final classification of common tasks for each task type. To develop an objective risk index for physical load assessment, we investigated the frequency and duration of the derived common tasks via survey.
resultsNursing common tasks were categorized into six task types and 56 subtasks. To evaluate the risks of various tasks in nonroutine works, three frequencies and three working time levels were defined by examining the task frequency and working hours. Exposure time was defined to reflect the characteristics of a nonroutine job. The final risk assessment was the product of the exposure time level and job intensity level. From this, four risk action levels were derived.
conclusionThis study has the advantage of solving the problem of focusing on some tasks in evaluating the physical load. It was meaningful in that a new risk assessment index based on exposure time was proposed based on the development of an evaluation scale for frequency and time by reflecting the characteristics of nonroutine work.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.