List of Online-first articles on the SJWEH website http://www.sjweh.fi/list_onlinefirst_rss.php en-US SJWEH 1 lodo@ttl.fi (Lisa O\'Donoghue-Lindy) risto@toivonen.biz (Risto Toivonen) http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4299 http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4299 Fri, 17 Apr 2026 16:49:24 +0200 Review by Bonde JP, Skaaby S, Flachs EM, Dollard M, Keyes K, Rosengren A, Mehlum IS, Mikkelsen S. doi:10.5271/sjweh.4298]]> http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4298 http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4298 Thu, 16 Apr 2026 17:42:01 +0200 Original article by Haukka E, Heikkilä K, Pentti J, Vahtera J, Chungkham HS, Zaninotto P, Kivimäki M, Ervasti J, Stenholm S. doi:10.5271/sjweh.4291]]> http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4291 http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4291 Wed, 15 Apr 2026 15:49:12 +0200 Original article by Nabe-Nielsen K, Aagaard A, Larsen AD, Nielsen HB, Hansen J, Hansen ÅM, Kolstad HA, Vestergaard JM, Garde AH. doi:10.5271/sjweh.4304]]> http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4304 http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4304 Mon, 13 Apr 2026 17:35:15 +0200 Editorial Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health on MSD, it became clear that the first three questions have been sufficiently addressed to move forward (1). We have strong evidence on mechanisms as to how work-related MSD can develop and how they impact the lives of workers and society. In addition, there is an array of biopsychosocial risk factors for which we have evidence regarding the strength of their association with MSD. And, despite their limitations, we have various interview, questionnaire, observational and device-based approaches to determine exposures when assessing the work-relatedness of MSD. Yet, there is a scarcity of good and well-implemented interventions to prevent work-related MSD. The CoWork (Copenhagen Work-related) musculoskeletal health model, as presented in this issue of the Journal (3), comes at an opportune time as it addresses the final three questions in Wells’ editorial (2). The authors of the CoWork musculoskeletal health model propose a paradigm shift (3). In short, the CoWork musculoskeletal health model suggests going from work-related biomechanical risk reduction only to adopting a biopsychosocial model for musculoskeletal health promotion at work. Musculoskeletal health is promoted using five integrated elements: (i) a health-oriented approach, (ii) a just-right work-related factor conceptualization, (iii) the Organizational, Management, Group, !ndividual (OMG!) workplace framework, (iv) an intervention guidance, and (v) a health economics perspective. The model provides guidance for all relevant actors – researchers, policymakers, practitioners, employers, and workers – to promote musculoskeletal health at the workplace. We commend the authors for coming up with the model! What we like most about the CoWork musculoskeletal health model is that it explicitly addresses the positive health benefits of physical activity at work while not neglecting the negative effects by using ‘the just right principle’ (not too much and not too little). Practical examples of this positive benefit and the `just right` principle are based on the authors’ studies on the benefits of micro-exercises (or exercise snacks) (4) and on interventions from the Goldilocks principle (5). In addition, we believe that the focus on supporting the good (musculoskeletal health) instead of preventing the bad (MSD) is probably more motivating for decision- and policy-makers to implement health-enhancing measures. To bring the CoWork musculoskeletal health model forward in science and practice, we make a call for action based on the following three considerations. A musculoskeletal health definition and measurement tool for better tailoring and evaluation First, although musculoskeletal health is not a completely new concept (1), as far as we are aware, no agreed-upon definition and measurement tool exists. Such a definition and measurement tool are essential to assess the personal features of a worker to tailor a CoWork musculoskeletal health intervention. A good measurement tool is also needed to evaluate the effectiveness of CoWork musculoskeletal health interventions. The CoWork musculoskeletal health authors propose the following definition: "Work-related musculoskeletal health is a state of physical, mental, and social well-being of the locomotor (musculoskeletal) system in relation to work." This definition not just captures the musculoskeletal system but also incorporates important factors like fatigue, fitness, and functioning that play an important role in musculoskeletal health. Yet, reaching an international consensus on the definition of musculoskeletal health is essential – ideally involving all stakeholders – for example through a Delphi study. Next, a measurement tool that captures work-related musculoskeletal health can be developed, preferably based on current instruments to make comparisons with existing findings possible. A community of professionals for better intervention implementation Second, the CoWork musculoskeletal health model is specifically designed for both research and practice. This brings up the question: ‘What specific competencies are needed for a professional to deliver a CoWork musculoskeletal health intervention?’ As the CoWork musculoskeletal health model is comprehensive and complex, incorporating elements of the full biopsychosocial perspective, effective implementation requires a truly multidisciplinary professional team. Therefore, a training program seems essential to build a community of CoWork musculoskeletal health professionals. A successful blueprint for such a program might be the internationally renowned Work Disability Prevention Canadian Institutes of Health Research Strategic Training Program (6). Key features of this program include participation from around the world, community building through yearly consecutive two-week training sessions, multidisciplinary developers of the training program acting as mentors, recognized guest speakers from around the world, e-courses, and, of course, the active involvement of stakeholders like employers, unions, and workers’ compensation boards. In Europe, perhaps the Marie-Sklodowska Curie actions might provide financial support for such a program, given the proposed excellence in research and innovation for doctoral and postdoctoral training. This would also contribute to community building and establishing a strong research field. Making it work: combining health promotion and risk factor prevention for blue-collar workers Finally, promoting work-related musculoskeletal health by stimulating health-enhancing factors such as physical activity can be effective, but this is easier said than done (7,8). We know from the literature that the effectiveness of workplace health promotion is moderate at best (9). The ‘just-right’ work, as advocated in the CoWork paper, is mostly supported by the implementation of exercise snacks (4), while there is limited evidence on the effectiveness of the Goldilocks principle yet (5). Also, interventions on reducing physical workload have shown limited effectiveness (10). Although these interventions show slender effectiveness as standalone measures to either promote health or reduce workload, combining effective elements from these two groups of interventions could be the way forward. This is also theoretically plausible as work, health, and lifestyle are strongly intertwined. As an example, we may not be able to improve health-enhancing physical activity after work without actually doing something about work, since it is known that physical work demands prevent workers from being active during their leisure time (11). The latter is particularly important for workers who should theoretically have the most potential to benefit from the CoWork musculoskeletal health model, namely blue-collar workers in physically demanding jobs. Yet, worksite health promotion and improvement programs among blue-collar workers do not often live up to their potential (9,12). This is despite the fact that work itself accounts for a large part of the musculoskeletal health of blue-collar workers in physically demanding jobs. For example, the population attributable fraction (PAF) of physical work demands show that they account for 7–10% of low-back pain and 15–25% of lateral epicondylitis among the Dutch workforce (13). Among Dutch blue-collar floor layers, the PAF ranges from 35% for knee osteoarthritis to 55% for lumbosacral radicular syndrome (14). Therefore, we ask CoWorkers to ensure that blue-collar workers are well served in CoWork musculoskeletal health interventions, since there is a large potential for such interventions to reduce health inequalities. In addition, research on health promotion – though not always focused on the workplace – shows that interventions are most effective when they move beyond individual-level programs to address the system drivers of unhealthy behaviors (15–17). This literature demonstrates that a systems approach helps explain why unhealthy patterns persist by highlighting issues such as coordination, learning processes, and structural barriers that interventions must address to achieve meaningful impact. Evidence shows that multilevel strategies that reshape organizational culture and job design – and do so with environmental support – could produce more durable lifestyle improvements (15–17). As such, a multifaceted approach that simultaneously stimulates the good (health enhancing work factors) and prevents the bad (strenuous physical work demands) is likely to be most effective. Sundstrup and colleagues (18) presented inspiring examples regarding combining ergonomics, physical exercise programs, and multifaceted strategies at the workplace. In summary, the CoWork musculoskeletal health model has the potential to facilitate research and practice across disciplines and make a difference for workers’ musculoskeletal health. To do so, a clear definition of musculoskeletal health – along with reliable and validated measurement instruments and an engaged community of professionals – is essential for the successful implementation, testing, and advancement of the model. Thereby, the model might contribute to a better understanding of how to effectively promote, initiate, develop, implement, and evaluate interventions to enhance musculoskeletal health, including, of course, prevention of MSD. By doing so, we are confident that the final three questions of Wells’s editorial will be sufficiently addressed in forthcoming decades. References 1. Kuijer PPFM, van der Wilk S, Evanoff B, Viikari-Juntura E, Coenen P. What have we learned about risk assessment and interventions to prevent work-related musculoskeletal disorders and support work participation? Scand J Work Environ Health. 2024 Jul 1;50(5):317-328. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4172 2. Wells R. Why have we not solved the MSD problem? Work. 2009;34(1):117-21. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2009-0937 3. Holtermann A, Sørensen OH, Jacobsen SS, Lindberg L, Andersen LL. Beyond risk reduction of work-related musculoskeletal disorders: The CoWork musculoskeletal health model. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2025 Dec 2:4262. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4262 4. Andersen LL, Sørensen OH, Calatayud J, López-Bueno R. Societal impact of micro-exercise for work-related musculoskeletal disorders: The case of Denmark. Societal Impacts. 2025;5:100102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socimp.2025.100102 5. Schmidt KG, Lerche AF, Christensen MR, Rasmussen CL, Straker L, Mathiassen SE et al. Effectiveness of a Goldilocks Work intervention in childcare workers - A cluster-randomized controlled trial. Scand J Work Environ Health 2024 Apr;50(3):197-207. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4145 6. Loisel P, Hong QN, Imbeau D, Lippel K, Guzman J, Maceachen E, Corbière M, Santos BR, Anema JR. The Work Disability Prevention CIHR Strategic Training Program: program performance after 5 years of implementation. J Occup Rehabil. 2009 Mar;19(1):1-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-008-9160-1 7. Proper KI, van Oostrom SH. The effectiveness of workplace health promotion interventions on physical and mental health outcomes - a systematic review of reviews. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2019 Nov 1;45(6):546-559. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3833 8. Javanmardi S, Rappelt L, Zangenberg S, Heinke L, Baumgart C, Niederer D, Freiwald J. Effectiveness of workplace health promotion programs for industrial workers: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2025 Jan 15;25(1):168. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-21365-8 9. Robroek SJ, Coenen P, Oude Hengel KM. Decades of workplace health promotion research: marginal gains or a bright future ahead. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2021 Nov 1;47(8):561-564. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3995 10. Foster NE, Anema JR, Cherkin D, Chou R, Cohen SP, Gross DP, Ferreira PH, Fritz JM, Koes BW, Peul W, Turner JA, Maher CG; Lancet Low Back Pain Series Working Group. Prevention and treatment of low back pain: evidence, challenges, and promising directions. Lancet. 2018 Jun 9;391(10137):2368-2383. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30489-6 11. Beenackers MA, Kamphuis CB, Giskes K, Brug J, Kunst AE, Burdorf A, van Lenthe FJ. Socioeconomic inequalities in occupational, leisure-time, and transport related physical activity among European adults: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012 Sep 19;9:116. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-9-116 12. van der Put AC, Mandemakers JJ, de Wit JBF, van der Lippe T. Worksite health promotion and social inequalities in health. SSM Popul Health. 2020 Jan 17;10:100543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2020.100543 13. van der Molen HF, Hulshof CT, Kuijer PPF. How to improve the assessment of the impact of occupational diseases at a national level? The Netherlands as an example. Occup Environ Med. 2019 Jan;76(1):30-32. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2018-105387 14. Kuijer PPFM, van der Molen HF, Visser S. A health-impact assessment of an ergonomic measure to reduce the risk of work-related lower back pain, lumbosacral radicular syndrome and knee osteoarthritis among floor layers in The Netherlands. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Mar 6;20(5):4672. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20054672 15. Crielaard L, Nicolaou M, Brown AD, Dijkstra SC, Ter Ellen F, Elsenburg LK, Luna Pinzon A, Waterlander WE, Stronks K. Systems approaches in public health: beyond mapping the causes. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2025 Jun 12;22(1):74. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-025-01766-z 16. Ali N, Ellis B, Woolf A, Hamilton S, Fenton KA. Developing partnerships and a whole-system approach for the prevention of musculoskeletal conditions in England. Public Health Panorama 2018;4:407-414. https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/324935 17. Hagenaars LL, Schmidt LA, Groeniger JO, Bekker MPM, Ter Ellen F, de Leeuw E, van Lenthe FJ, Oude Hengel KM, Stronks K. Why we struggle to make progress in obesity prevention and how we might overcome policy inertia: Lessons from the complexity and political sciences. Obes Rev. 2024 May;25(5):e13705. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.13705 18. Sundstrup E, Workplace-based prevention of musculoskeletal disorders: effective interventions and future potentials. PREMUS 2025: 12th International Scientific Conference on the Prevention of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders, PREMUS 2025: 12th International Scientific Conference on the Prevention of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders | Publisso. by Kuijer PPFM, Coenen P. doi:10.5271/sjweh.4295]]> http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4295 http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4295 Fri, 10 Apr 2026 00:23:00 +0200 Original article by Holme AN, Moen LV, Sallinen M, Nilsen KB, Boccara CN, Phillips AJK, Haugen F, Matre D. doi:10.5271/sjweh.4290]]> http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4290 http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4290 Thu, 09 Apr 2026 23:35:32 +0200 Original article by Shen Q-M, Li Z-Y, Tan Y-T, Gao L-F, Liu D-K, Li H-L, Yang W-S, Xiang Y-B. doi:10.5271/sjweh.4300]]> http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4300 http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4300 Wed, 08 Apr 2026 11:52:17 +0200 Editorial References 1. Health at a Glance 2025: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD; 2025. 2. Cattaneo A, Vitali A, Regazzoni D, Rizzi C. The burden of informal family caregiving in Europe, 2000-2050: a microsimulation modelling study. Lancet Reg Health - Eur. 2025;53:101295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2025.101295 3. Mikkola TM, Kautiainen H, Mänty M, von Bonsdorff MB, Koponen H, Kröger T, Eriksson JG. Use of antidepressants among Finnish family caregivers: a nationwide register-based study. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2021;56(12):2209-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-021-02049-1 4. Koyanagi A, DeVylder JE, Stubbs B, Carvalho AF, Veronese N, Haro JM, Santini ZI. Depression, sleep problems, and perceived stress among informal caregivers in 58 low-, middle-, and high-income countries: A cross-sectional analysis of community-based surveys. J Psych Res. 2018;96:115-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2017.10.001 5. Kaschowitz J, Brandt M. Health effects of informal caregiving across Europe: A longitudinal approach. Soc Sci Med. 2017;173:72-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.11.036 6. Mikkola TM, Mänty M, Kautiainen H, von Bonsdorff MB, Haanpää M, Koponen H, et al. Work incapacity among family caregivers: a record linkage study. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2022;76(6):580-5. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2021-217901 7. Lacey RE, Xue B, Di Gessa G, Lu W, McMunn A. Mental and physical health changes around transitions into unpaid caregiving in the UK: a longitudinal, propensity score analysis. Lancet Pub Health. 2024;9(1):e16-e25. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(23)00206-2 8. Lee S, Colditz GA, Berkman LF, Kawachi I. Caregiving and risk of coronary heart disease in U.S. women: a prospective study. Am J Prev Med. 2003;24(2):113-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00582-2 9. Park SS. Caregivers’ Mental Health and Somatic Symptoms During COVID-19. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2021;76(4):e235-e40. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbaa121 10. Tseliou F, Rosato M, Maguire A, Wright D, O’Reilly D. Variation of Caregiver Health and Mortality Risks by Age: A Census-Based Record Linkage Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2018;187(7):1401-10. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwx384 11. Mikkola TM, Kautiainen H, Mänty M, von Bonsdorff MB, Kröger T, Eriksson JG. Age-dependency in mortality of family caregivers: a nationwide register-based study. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2021;33(7):1971-80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-020-01728-4 12. Buyck JF, Ankri J, Dugravot A, Bonnaud S, Nabi H, Kivimäki M, Singh-Manoux A. Informal caregiving and the risk for coronary heart disease: the Whitehall II study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2013;68(10):1316-23. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glt025 13. Mortensen J, Clark AJ, Lange T, Andersen GS, Goldberg M, Ramlau-Hansen CH, et al. Informal caregiving as a risk factor for type 2 diabetes in individuals with favourable and unfavourable psychosocial work environments: A longitudinal multi-cohort study. Diabetes Metab. 2018;44(1):38-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabet.2017.04.001 14. Josten EJC, Verbakel E, De Boer AH. A longitudinal study on the consequences of the take-up of informal care on work hours, labour market exit and workplace absenteeism due to illness. Ageing Soc. 2024;44(3):495-518. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X22000204 15. Ciccarelli N, Van Soest A. Informal Caregiving, Employment Status and Work Hours of the 50+ Population in Europe. Economist (Leiden). 2018;166(3):363-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10645-018-9323-1 16. Vos EE, van der Beek AJ, de Bruin SR, Proper KI. Effects of a workplace participatory approach to support working caregivers in balancing work, private life and informal care: a randomized controlled trial. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2025(3):181-90. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4208 17. Virtanen M, Myllyntausta S, Ervasti J, Oksanen T, Salo P, Pentti J, et al. Shift work, work time control, and informal caregiving as risk factors for sleep disturbances in an ageing municipal workforce. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2021(3):181-90. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3937 18. Bijnsdorp FM, van der Beek AJ, Broese van Groenou MI, Proper KI, van den Heuvel SG, Boot CR. Associations of combining paid work and family care with gender-specific differences in depressive symptoms among older workers and the role of work characteristics. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2022;48(3):190-9. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4014 19. Mortensen J, Dich N, Lange T, Alexanderson K, Goldberg M, Head J, et al. Job strain and informal caregiving as predictors of long-term sickness absence: A longitudinal multi-cohort study. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2017;43(1):5-14. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3587 20. European Commission: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion and London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), Informal care in Europe – Exploring formalisation, availability and quality, Publications Office, 2018. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2767/78836 21. Is the Last Mile the Longest? Economic Gains from Gender Equality in Nordic Countries, Gender Equality at Work. Paris: OECD; 2018. 22. Rostgaard T, Jacobsen F, Kröger T, Peterson E. Revisiting the Nordic long-term care model for older people-still equal? Eur J Ageing. 2022;19(2):201-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-022-00703-4 23. Virtanen M, Oksanen T, Pentti J, Ervasti J, Head J, Stenholm S, et al. Occupational class and working beyond the retirement age: a cohort study. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2017;43(5):426-35. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3645 by Ervasti J, Mikkola TM. doi:10.5271/sjweh.4288]]> http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4288 http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4288 Mon, 06 Apr 2026 17:58:13 +0200 Original article by Frost AD, Forsman M, Brusaca LA, Holtermann A, Andersen LL, Søgaard K, Gupta N. doi:10.5271/sjweh.4292]]> http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4292 http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4292 Mon, 06 Apr 2026 16:25:03 +0200 Original article by Ciliacus R, Porru F, Burdorf A, Schuring M. doi:10.5271/sjweh.4285]]> http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4285 http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4285 Thu, 02 Apr 2026 15:22:20 +0200 Original article by Sivaraj LB, Macpherson RA, McLeod CB. doi:10.5271/sjweh.4293]]> http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4293 http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4293 Thu, 02 Apr 2026 13:09:35 +0200 Letter to the Editor The author declares no conflicts of interest. References 1. Park H, Lee J, Park Y, Sim J, Yoon JH, Yun B. Association between job insecurity and cardiovascular diseases in workers with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Scand J Work Environ Health 2026 Feb. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4272. [Epub ahead of print]. 2. Kivimäki M, Nyberg ST, Batty GD, Fransson EI, Heikkilä K, Alfredsson L et al.; IPD-Work Consortium. Job strain as a risk factor for coronary heart disease: a collaborative meta-analysis of individual participant data. Lancet 2012 Oct;380(9852):1491–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60994-5. 3. Virtanen M, Nyberg ST, Batty GD, Jokela M, Heikkilä K, Fransson EI et al.; IPD-Work Consortium. Perceived job insecurity as a risk factor for incident coronary heart disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2013 Aug;347:f4746. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f4746. 4. Marmot M, Friel S, Bell R, Houweling TA, Taylor S; Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Lancet 2008 Nov;372(9650):1661–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61690-6. 5. Rao Kondapally Seshasai S, Kaptoge S, Thompson A, Di Angelantonio E, Gao P, Sarwar N et al.; Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration. Diabetes mellitus, fasting glucose, and risk of cause-specific death. N Engl J Med 2011 Mar;364(9):829–41. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1008862. 6. Benach J, Vives A, Amable M, Vanroelen C, Tarafa G, Muntaner C. Precarious employment: understanding an emerging social determinant of health. Annu Rev Public Health 2014;35:229–53. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182500. 7. Quinlan M, Mayhew C, Bohle P. The global expansion of precarious employment, work disorganization, and consequences for occupational health: a review of recent research. Int J Health Serv 2001;31(2):335–414. https://doi.org/10.2190/607H-TTV0-QCN6-YLT4. by Suarez JSP. doi:10.5271/sjweh.4282]]> http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4282 http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4282 Thu, 02 Apr 2026 12:27:16 +0200 Review 2=86.0%; 95% PI 10.2–73.4). Prevalence of AOO varied by: (i) data sources (registry/compensation: 50.1% versus clinic: 32.0%; P=0.015); (ii) study size (>80 participants: 43.4% versus ≤80: 27.9%; P=0.033); (iii) baseline forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) (≤85% predicted: 38.2% versus >85% predicted: 13.8%; P=0.008); and (iv) exposure duration before symptom onset (>7.1 years: 35.7% versus ≤7.1 years: 15.7%; P=0.015). Heterogeneity across studies was substantial and several subgroups included fewer than five studies. Conclusions More than one-third of workers with OA experience an AOO. The findings highlight the need for harmonized outcome definitions and for interventions integrating early referral, exposure control, and structured return-to-work programs to avoid AOO. by Damerau LS, Helm MW, Pieter J, Velasco Garrido M, Harth V, Hoven H, Preisser AM. doi:10.5271/sjweh.4287]]> http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4287 http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4287 Tue, 31 Mar 2026 13:44:50 +0200 Original article by Lu H, Jin Y, Huang C, Lin L, Zhang X, Wang W, Lian Y. doi:10.5271/sjweh.4284]]> http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4284 http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4284 Tue, 17 Mar 2026 20:21:39 +0200 Original article by Madeline V, Galvin A, De Graaf L, Engelhardt J, Lebailly P, Baldi I. doi:10.5271/sjweh.4286]]> http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4286 http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4286 Mon, 16 Mar 2026 23:38:45 +0200 Original article by Hadžibajramović E, Dahlqvist I, Jonsdottir IH, De Witte H. doi:10.5271/sjweh.4279]]> http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4279 http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4279 Sun, 08 Mar 2026 18:30:26 +0200 Original article by Salonen L, Falkstedt D, Pan K-Y, Albin M, Mehlum IS, Undem K, Leinonen T, Solovieva S. doi:10.5271/sjweh.4280]]> http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4280 http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4280 Mon, 02 Mar 2026 13:24:50 +0200 Commentary by Guseva Canu I, van der Molen HF. doi:10.5271/sjweh.4281]]> http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4281 http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4281 Thu, 26 Feb 2026 23:09:55 +0200 Original article by Ma J, Pingcuo Y, Jin X, Wang J, Wang H, Lan Y. doi:10.5271/sjweh.4278]]> http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4278 http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4278 Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:50:51 +0200 Original article 24 hours/week) and supplementary (≤24 hours/week) gig workers. Methods Survey data from 397 Belgian gig workers were used to construct a multidimensional, gig-specific measure of PE (the Employment Precariousness Scale for gig work: ‘EPRES-gw’). Structural equation modeling was applied to test mediation by IQW dimensions and examine differences between main and supplementary gig workers. Results PE was positively associated with poor mental well-being among main but not supplementary workers. Among main gig workers, the relationship was mediated by high work intensity, physical demands, and low social support. For supplementary workers, low autonomy mediated the association. Conclusion PE is particularly relevant for the mental well-being of main gig workers. The role of IQW is important, though the key dimensions differ by time spent in in gig work. These findings highlight the need for policy interventions and research addressing both employment rights and IQW-related psychosocial risks, with approaches tailored to the distinct challenges of main versus supplementary gig workers. by Vandevenne E, Vanroelen C, Stas L, Gevaert J. doi:10.5271/sjweh.4277]]> http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4277 http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4277 Fri, 06 Feb 2026 13:09:31 +0200 Review by Nilsen W, Nordberg T, Lescoeur K, Ingelsrud MH, Egeland C. doi:10.5271/sjweh.4272]]> http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4272 http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4272 Mon, 02 Feb 2026 15:32:08 +0200 Original article by Park H, Lee J, Park Y, Sim J, Yoon J-H, Yun B. doi:10.5271/sjweh.4275]]> http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4275 http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4275 Mon, 26 Jan 2026 12:38:10 +0200 Original article by Torén K, Olin A-C, Åberg M, Cummings KJ, Schiöler L, Blanc PD. doi:10.5271/sjweh.4269]]> http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4269 http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4269 Sun, 04 Jan 2026 21:55:34 +0200 Original article by Akerstrom M, Wahlström J, Reineholm C, Jonsdottir IH. doi:10.5271/sjweh.4262]]> http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4262 http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4262 Tue, 02 Dec 2025 17:49:39 +0200 Discussion paper by Holtermann A, Sørensen OH, Jacobsen SS, Lindberg L, Andersen LL. doi:10.5271/sjweh.4260]]> http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4260 http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=4260 Sun, 23 Nov 2025 22:12:00 +0200 Original article by Skovlund SV, Wester CT, Kyriakidis S, Brusaca LA, Andersen LL, Sundstrup E, Rasmussen CDN]]>