[Working and health conditions and preventive measures in a random sample of 5000 workers in the Veneto Region examined by telephone interview].
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: A survey was carried out in 2000 by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions in a random sample of workers from 15 countries of the European Union in order to obtain information on occupational exposure, health problems and preventive measures taken at the workplaces. OBJECTIVES: To obtain similar information in workers in the Veneto Region and compare the results with those of the third European Survey on Working Conditions (ESWC). The results of the survey on Veneto Region workers were further analyzed, investigating the distribution by risk factors in each work sector, and the association between risk factors and reported health problems. METHODS: The ESWC questionnaire was adapted to the requirements of a telephone interview and a sample of 5000 workers (size based on the budget) between 15 and 64 years of age was randomly extracted from the regional list of telephone subscribers. The questionnaire was administered by trained interviewers. No statistical tests were used in the comparison between ESWC and Veneto Region results due to the lack of a priori hypotheses. Odds ratio (OR) was calculated in estimating the association between risk factors and symptoms; and p-value for OR trend across the increasing level of exposure was also obtained. RESULTS: Workers reported to be exposed for more than a quarter of their work time to: vibrations (20%), noise (19%), dusts, fumes vapours, chemicals (18%), repetitive hand/arm movements (50%), tiring/painful positions (46%); working at very high speed or tight deadlines (60%). 54.4% of the subjects reported working with computers. Taking as a reference the third ESWC in 2000, among Veneto Region workers in 2005 exposure was lower as regards physical, chemical and ergonomic risk factors, and similar as regards working at very high speed. The more frequently reported work-related health problems were: stress (26.9%), backache (17.8%), overall fatigue (11.9%), muscular pains in upper limbs (6.8%), headache (6.1%), sight problems (5.4%), anxiety (5.5%), muscular pain in lower limbs (4.3%), irritability (4.0%), hearing problems (2.3%). Except for stress, all symptoms/health problems were two-three times more frequently reported in the ESWC than in the Veneto Region survey where, conversely, the number of persons with at least one new sick- leave spell was higher. Lastly, there was no difference as regards preventive measures taken at the workplace: information on risks (78.2%), wearing personal protective equipment (28.7%), training paid by employer (28.7%). Among the Veneto Region workers, the most often reported risk factors were exposure to physical and chemical risk factors in industry/agriculture, and shift-work and working at very high speed in the services. The most commonly adopted preventive measures were information on risks and wearing of personal protective equipment in industry, and training in services. Moreover, among the Veneto Region workers, a significant exposure-dependent increase was reported for respiratory problems, allergies, dermatitis, hearing loss, accidents, back pain, pain in the upper and lower limbs, and headache. The risk of stress, anxiety, sleeping problems, stomach pain and headache increased when skills were not adequate to cope with job demand. In contrast, the perception of improved health conditions increased with increasing skill discretion, decision authority, social support (which are dimensions of control of job demand), but not with information on risk, training, or use of personal protective equipment. CONCLUSIONS: Data from the present survey provide useful insights on working and health conditions of workers in the Veneto Region, revealing problems that were subsequently investigated using other sources of information, as reported in the studies published elsewhere in this volume.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».