ArticleJournal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England)2024
Vocational rehabilitative decisions after symptoms and findings consistent with hand-arm vibration syndrome in the Swedish surveillance system - a mixed-method design.
Article in Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Understanding avoidance of medical surveillance for hand-arm vibrations in Sweden: a mixed-methods approach.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
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
backgroundEU workers exposed to hand-arm vibration should be offered health surveillance to detect early symptoms, and findings, of Hand-Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS). To execute the mandatory vocational rehabilitation, the employer needs to be aware of injuries found in the medical check-up. We aimed to analyse: 1) How physicians graded the neurosensory component of HAVS on the Stockholm Workshop Scale (SWS), compared to semi-objective findings. 2) What vocational rehabilitative decisions (VRD) were taken by physicians after examinations. 3) Whether the VRDs differed in relation to the SWS-grading.
methodsData came from 660 medical records - all examinations performed during twelve consecutive months in one large Swedish occupational healthcare company. 572 individuals had data on the SWS from the physician. For the qualitative analysis, we used the inductive-iterative immersion-crystallization method.
results60% of the examined workers had symptoms and 32% had semi-objective findings consistent with HAVS. The physicians' SWS gradings were underestimated in 59% of the cases with semi-objective findings. The VRDs were classified, relative to communication with the employer, as: "Adequate" (57%), when no injury was present, communication had already taken place, was planned, or was no longer needed in the absence of further exposure, "Semi-adequate" (18%), if no plan for communication was yet established or only communicated through a document with a shorter time until next check-up, and "Inadequate"(25%), when patients refused (20%), or physicians failed to communicate with the employer, despite findings (80%). Underestimated SWS-gradings of HAVS were significantly associated with more "Inadequate" VRDs in the group with semi-objective findings.
conclusionsOccupational physicians underestimate the number of individuals with SWS 2-3 compared with semi-objective findings and regularly fail to communicate to the employer despite findings of HAVS. The underestimation of SWS-grading, followed by inadequate VRDs, excludes many workers from the employer's mandatory protective measures which may lead to aggravation of an untreatable injury in the affected individual and development of HAVS in their similarly exposed colleagues.
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.