Is There an Economic Case for Training Intervention in the Manual Material Handling Sector of Developing Countries?

Lahiri, Supriya; Tempesti, Tommaso; Gangopadhyay, Somnath

doi:10.1097/jom.0000000000000603

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The remaining 4 studies (4%) all used ad hoc approaches that (41, 45-48, 51, 56-58, 60, 62, 64, 66, 68, 70, 72-75, 79, 81, 83, 84, 87-90, 92, 93, 95, 97, 98, 100-102, 105, 107-110, 113, 117-125) North-America 34 (39, 40, 43, 44, 50, 52-55, 59, 61, 63, 65, 69, 71, 76, 80, 82, 85, 86, 91, 94, 96, 99, 103, 106, 111, 112, 114-116, 126- (39, 41, 42, 44, 45,49,50,(52)(53)(54)(55)59,60,67,68,70,71,76,77,82,87,95,115, 128) Inferred: 19 (40, 43, 46,57,61,63,65,80,86,91,92,94,96,103,111,116,(125)(126)(127)56,62,64,66,69,72,73,75,78,79,81,(83)(84)(85)…”

Section: Productivity Estimation Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Measure for reduced productivity at work/ while working 31 (39, 41-44, 56, 60-65, 69, 70, 72, 77, 82, 87, 89, 94, 95, 98, 103, 104, 114, 115, 118, 119, 123, 124, 128) Source presenteeism Employee survey 18 (41, 44,56,62,64,69,72,82,87,89,94,95,98,104,115,118,119, 123) Simulated / assumptions 7 (39, 43, 44,103,114,124, 128) Previous studies 6 (42,60,61,63,65,70) Firm data 1 (115) Employer survey 1 (77) Survey/instrument presenteeism 56,62,69,82,94,95,118,119,123) Days (unspecified) 49 (39, 40, 42, 46,49,(51)(52)(53)(54)58,60,62,64,66,71,72,74,75,(77)(78)…”

Section: Presenteeismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Steel et al 39-42, 45-49, 51-54, 56-58, 60-75, 77-91, 93-128) Source absenteeism Firm data 26 (45, 46, 54, 57, 67-69, 71, 85, 86, 88, 91, 95, 96, 100, 101, 105, 107, 110, 114-116, 119, 125-127 (39, 42,49,51,56,57,62,64,66,72,78,79,81,82,87,89,94,102,104,109,113,117,118,(121)(122)(123)) Previous studies 10 (52, 53, 60, 61, 63, 83, 84, 99, 111, 120) Insurance data 9 (47, 48, 58, 60, 74, 75, 80, 112, 124 39, 42,49,56,72,79,81,82,102,104,109,117 11 (41, 56, 62, 93, 100, 107, 118, 119, 121-123) Estimated by the author 1 (88) The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development 1 (108)…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A generic national or regional price weight was used in 13 studies (19%), 9 (13%) used a worker-specific weight, 3 (4%) the industry or company average, and 1 (1%) a job average with age differentiation. Variations -such as using the mean annual salary per staff member in the NHSL (47), the study group average (75, 100), or the national average (41, 45,48,56,60,62,64,(66)(67)(68)(69)(70)72,(83)(84)(85)87,89,93,95,97,99,103,107,(118)(119)(120)(121)(122)(123)(124) 47,63,65,74,(77)(78)(79)81,82,87,(100)(101)(102)108,109,112,114,117,(126)(127)(128) (48, 52, 53, 58, 65-67, 69,...…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Productivity estimation in economic evaluations of occupational health and safety interventions: a systematic review

Steel¹,

Godderis²,

Luyten³

2018

Scand J Work Environ Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Productivity estimation is a key factor in demonstrating the cost-effectiveness of occupational health and safety (OHS). However, the studies analysed in this systematic review lack standardization, exclude important factors, and the precision, validity and reliability of estimates widely differs. Researchers should be aware of how the method and precision of estimating productivity affects results, and, ultimately, the economic attractiveness of OHS. Key terms: absenteeism; cost-effectiveness; economic evaluation; friction cost; human capital; indirect cost; measurement; methodology; occupational health; occupational health and safety; presenteeism; productivity estimation; review; systematic review; valuation; work This article in PubMed: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29405241 Additional materialPlease note that there is additional material available belonging to this article on the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health -website. Scand J Work Environ Health -online first 1Review Productivity estimation in economic evaluations of occupational health and safety interventions: a systematic review by Jonas Steel, MSc, 1 Lode Godderis, MD,2,3 Jeroen Luyten, PhD 1,4 Steel J, Godderis L, Luyten J. Productivity estimation in economic evaluations of occupational health and safety interventions: a systematic review. Scand J Work Environ Health -online first. doi:10.5271/sjweh.3715Objectives Occupational health and safety (OHS) interventions' effect on worker productivity is an essential, but complex element of the value of these programs. The trustworthiness of economic evaluation studies, aiming to provide guidance to decision-makers in the field of OHS, depends at least partly on how accurately productivity changes are measured. We aim to review the methods used to estimate productivity changes in recently published economic evaluations of OHS interventions. MethodsWe performed systematic searches of economic evaluations of OHS programs published between 2007 and 2017 and reviewed these studies' methods to quantify the programs' impact on worker productivity ResultsOf the 90 identified studies, 44 used a human capital approach, 17 a friction cost approach, 13 stated productivity in natural units (eg, a cost-per-absence-day-avoided), 7 made use of compensation expenses, 4 used output-based methods, 4 an "ad hoc" approach, and 1 study did not state its method. Different approaches were combined in 19 studies. Within these methods, we observed a wide diversity in their precise implementation, especially regarding the measurement and valuation of absenteeism and presenteeism.Conclusions Productivity is a key element of the economic attractiveness of investing in OHS. Economic evaluation studies of OHS would benefit from more methodological standardization in their approach to quantifying productivity change. Future research should better account for the methodological uncertainty that occurs in estimating it in order to demonstrate the impact that particular choices and approaches to productivity estimation ca...

show abstract

Section: Productivity Estimation Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Presenteeismmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Productivity estimation in economic evaluations of occupational health and safety interventions: a systematic review

Steel¹,

Godderis²,

Luyten³

2018

Scand J Work Environ Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, this approach can be unjustifiably expensive and/or practically infeasible. Automation costs can be even higher in developing countries where MMH tasks are more prevalent as human power remains a dominant procedure to perform occupational tasks [4][5][6]. Load carriage is a common occupational task and can be defined as any situation in which an additional load is added to the body [7], and can be seen as a mix of both lifting and pushing or pulling tasks [8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and Investigation of a Wearable Aid for a Load Carriage Task

Alabdulkarim

Farhan

Ramadan

2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anterior load carriage tasks are common and can lead to musculoskeletal disorders such as lower back pain. The objectives of this study were to develop a wearable carriage aid and examine its effectiveness on physical demands while considering the potential moderating influence of the carried load. The study consisted of two within-subject factors: device and load. For the former, two levels were tested: with and without the device worn. For the latter, two loads were examined: 15 and 30% of each individual’s body mass. Sixteen participants walked on a treadmill for five minutes at a constant speed for each condition. Physical demands were quantified using objective (EMG-based) and subjective (discomfort) measures. Wearing the device reduced static and median anterior deltoid, trapezius, and biceps brachii muscle activations. Increasing the carried load increased most physical demand measures. Two significant Device × Load interactions were observed; for the anterior deltoid and trapezius median activation measures, the influence of increasing load was lower when the device was worn. While slightly increasing perceived discomfort in the lower back, wearing the device reduced shoulder, neck, and hand/wrist discomfort. While the study demonstrated a potential for the device, future work is required under more realistic and diverse testing conditions.

show abstract

Economic Studies on Non-Communicable Diseases and Injuries in India: A Systematic Review

Gupta

Roy

2018

Appl Health Econ Health Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The results indicate the lack of engagement of economists generally and health economists in particular in research on NCDI in India. Demand from health policy makers for evidence-based decision making appears to be lacking, which in turn solidifies the divergence between economics and health policy, and highlights the need to prioritize scarce resources based on evidence regarding what works. Capacity building in health economics needs focus, and the government's support in this is recommended.

show abstract

Is There an Economic Case for Training Intervention in the Manual Material Handling Sector of Developing Countries?

Abstract: Workplace ergonomic training is cost-effective and should be implemented wherein other engineering-control interventions are precluded due to infrastructural constraints.

Cited by 4 publications

References 22 publications

Productivity estimation in economic evaluations of occupational health and safety interventions: a systematic review

Productivity estimation in economic evaluations of occupational health and safety interventions: a systematic review

Development and Investigation of a Wearable Aid for a Load Carriage Task

Economic Studies on Non-Communicable Diseases and Injuries in India: A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About