ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Understanding avoidance of medical surveillance for hand-arm vibrations in Sweden: a mixed-methods approach.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Introduction: Hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS) is a chronic disease to vessels and nerves caused by vibrations. In Sweden, the medical check-up for vibrations (MCV) implements the EU surveillance system to detect early cases. No earlier research has shown participation in MCVs, nor why MCVs is avoided. We aimed to improve the understanding on avoidance of MCVs among vibration-exposed workers. Methods: We used a mixed method. Participation was estimated from sales data registries from the three largest occupational health services (OHS) in Sweden, comprising 50% of the market share. Exposure figures for the quantitative estimates came from both public data and exposure-data from a meta-analysis. The qualitative aim was explored through strategic telephone interviews with 26 workers with known symptoms of HAVS using hermeneutical methods. Results: MCV-participation has increased five-fold from 2016-2022. In 2020-2022, 11,643 MCVs were performed in the three OHS, giving a national estimate of 22,000 MCVs. We estimated the number of exposed workers to be 218,000 by exposure, and 400,000 by statistical sources only. MCVs were mainly avoided because they are not offered by employers despite being mandatory, and due to fear of the socio-economic consequences of a HAVS diagnosis. Other reasons included bullying, inconvenience, perceived lack of necessity, and limited awareness. Discussion: Only 5%-10% of exposed Swedish workers attend an MCV despite its importance. A cohesive and transparent process is proposed to increase the low participation rate to avoid the common, chronic, and debilitating injuries from HAVS.
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.