Search

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate work climate factors and structural job aspects as predictors of workplace violence, with particular attention to the relative influence of both sets of factors., Methods: Telephone survey data collected by a large midwestern insurance company were analyzed. Interviewers asked 598 full-time workers about their work climate, structural job aspects, and subject and workplace demographics, all of which were used as predictor variables in regression analyses. The participants were also asked about incidents of threats, harassment, physical attacks, and fear of becoming a victim of workplace violence, all of which were used as outcome measures., Results: Separate logistic regressions were carried out for each of the outcome measures. The study identified a variety of factors which appear to place workers at risk of nonfatal occupational violence. Work climate variables, such as co-worker support and work group harmony, were predictive of threats, harassment, and fear of becoming a victim of violence. Structural aspects of the job, such as work schedule, were also significant in predicting threats and fear of becoming a victim of violence, but they were not predictive of harassment., Conclusions: This is the first study which suggests that both work climate and structural aspects of work may be important in promoting workplace violence. This finding suggests that intervention strategies should consider organizational and climate issues in addition to basic security measures.

Concerns have arisen that the keyboard is a causal factor in the development of work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WRMDs) among video display terminal (VDT) operators. A number of alternative keyboard designs have been developed with altered geometry in an effort to improve comfort in keyboard operation. However, few data are available to substantiate whether these new keyboard designs are actually effective in reducing discomfort and musculoskeletal problems in users. The purpose of this study was to provide data on the efficacy of certain alternative keyboard design features (e.g. splitting the keyboard in half, and laterally inclining the keyboard halves) in reducing fatigue and musculoskeletal discomfort among keyboard operators. The study also explored the effects of these design features on performance. Fifty subjects performed a text-entry task for one day on a standard keyboard, then were assigned to one of five keyboard conditions for an evaluation period of two days (i.e. 10 subjects/condition). Outcome measures included performance (i.e. keystrokes/h, errors/h) and self-report measures of discomfort and fatigue. The results indicated an initial decline in productivity when subjects began typing on two of the alternative keyboards, but these productivity losses were recovered within the two-day evaluation period. The results also indicated no significant differences between keyboard conditions in discomfort and fatigue. These results suggest a minimal impact of the keyboard design features examined in this study on productivity, comfort and fatigue, at least after two days of exposure.

During nasal breathing, heat and humidity are exchanged over a 160 cm(2) area of mucous membrane. This capacity is not sufficient for airway comfort during cold air breathing. Similarly, airway discomfort and constriction may be experienced during exercise-induced mouth breathing in marginally cold temperatures. In asthmatics and sensitive persons such airway discomfort rapidly transforms to broncho-constriction and related breathing problems. The Lungplus mouth-held breathing aid contains a coil of corrugated aluminium foil that provides a heat and moisture exchange area of 1200 cm(2) (Model 1) with a minimal breathing resistance. The present experiment was designed to quantify improved airway comfort using the device. Ninety-one subjects were exposed to each of three rooms with average air temperatures of +20, +3 and -15 degrees C, with a corresponding relative humidity of 50, 70 and 90%. For each condition, subjects gave subjective numerical assessments of the airway sensation during nose, mouth and Lungplus breathing, respectively. At each room temperature, mouth breathing resulted in a less comfortable airway rating than did breathing through the nose, which in turn resulted in a less comfortable rating than the Lungplus breathing condition.