Exploring psychological impact of hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS) is an occupational disease associated with long-term exposure to power tools leading to hand-transmitted vibration exposure. Prior research has focussed on physical manifestations with little known about the psychological impacts of HAVS. AIMS: To examine if HAVS severity and/or functional impairment is associated with psychological outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study collecting data through a survey and retrospective chart review of workers being assessed for HAVS at an occupational medicine clinic. We collected information on demographics, work conditions, disease characteristics and physical and psychological outcomes as measured through validated instruments (SF-12, QuickDASH, GAD-2, PHQ-2). Descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses were followed by multivariable models to explore associations between mental health outcomes and predictor variables. RESULTS: Participants (N = 94; 56% response rate) were male with a mean age of 48.2 years. The majority (62%) worked in the mining sector, and 27% of participants reported feeling depressed and 35% reported showing little interest in or pleasure in doing things, while 28% reported clinically significant anxiety symptoms. In multivariable models, the QuickDASH, a measure of upper-extremity function and disability, was the only significant predictor of psychological outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Workers with HAVS have poorer mental health and physical functioning outcomes in comparison to the general population. Employers should consider tailored policies and interventions to address the mental health of workers with HAVS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".