Cold exposure and musculoskeletal conditions; A scoping review.

Background: Musculoskeletal conditions are major contributors to years lived with disability. Cold exposure can be a risk factor, but any conclusion is obscure. Aim: The aim of the present scoping review was to identify the existing evidence of an association between cold exposure and musculoskeletal conditions. The aim also included to consider pain in different regions and their assessment, as well as different measures of cold exposure, effect sizes, and to assess the feasibility of future systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Eligibility criteria: The studies must have: an epidemiological design, defined cold exposure to come prior to the health outcome, defined exposure and outcome(s), existence of effect estimate(s) or data that made it possible to calculate such an estimate. Further, studies were required to be in English language and published in peer-reviewed journals. Studies that had a specific goal of studying cold exposure as an aggravator of already existing health problems were excluded. Sources: We searched Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions(R), and Embase Classic + Embase for original studies. Charting method: The included studies were reviewed for study population, measurement of exposure and outcome, and effect size. Each publication was assessed for risk of bias. Results: The included studies were heterogeneous in populations, measures of cold exposure and musculoskeletal conditions. Most studies used self-reported data. They were mostly cross-sectional studies, only two were prospective and one was a case-control study. Associations were found for different cold exposures and regional musculoskeletal conditions, but the heterogeneity and lack of studies impeded valid synthesis of risk magnitude, or meta-analyses. Conclusion: The studies identified in this review indicate that cold exposure increases the risk of musculoskeletal conditions. However, there is a need for studies that better assess temporality between exposure and outcome. Future studies should also include better exposure assessment, including both objective measurements and measures of subjective experience of cold exposure. The heterogeneity in measurement of exposure and outcome impeded any meta-analysis.

To tolerate weather and to tolerate pain: two sides of the same coin? The Tromsø Study 7.

ABSTRACT: It is a common belief that weather affects pain. Therefore, we hypothesized that weather can affect pain tolerance. This study used data from over 18,000 subjects aged 40 years or older from the general population, who participated in the Tromsø Study 7. They underwent a one-time assessment of cuff algometry pressure pain tolerance (PPT) and cold pain tolerance (CPT), tested with a cold pressor test. The results showed a clear seasonal variation in CPT. The rate of withdrawal in the cold pressor test was up to 75% higher in months in the warmer parts of the year compared with January 2016. There was no seasonal variation in PPT. The study not only found a nonrandom short-term variation in PPT but also indications of such a variation in CPT. The intrinsic timescale of this short-term variation in PPT was 5.1 days (95% % confidence interval 4.0-7.2), which is similar to the observed timescales of meteorological variables. Pressure pain tolerance and CPT correlated with meteorological variables, and these correlations changed over time. Finally, temperature and barometric pressure predicted future values of PPT. These findings suggest that weather has a causal and dynamic effect on pain tolerance, which supports the common belief that weather affects pain.

Is working in a cold environment associated with musculoskeletal complaints 7-8 years later? A longitudinal analysis from the Tromsø Study.

OBJECTIVE: Exposure to a cold environment at work is associated with a higher prevalence of musculoskeletal pain and chronic pain in cross-sectional studies. This study aims to determine the association between working in a cold environment ≥ 25% of the time and musculoskeletal complaints (MSC) 7-8 years later. METHODS: We followed participants from the sixth survey (Tromsø 6, 2007-2008) to the seventh survey (Tromsø 7, 2015-2016) of the Tromsø Study. Analyses included 2347 men and women aged 32-60 years who were not retired and not receiving full-time disability benefits in Tromsø 6. Three different binary outcomes were investigated in Tromsø 7: any MSC, severe MSC, and MSC in ≥ 3 anatomical regions. We excluded participants with severe MSC, MSC in ≥ 3 regions, or missing values in Tromsø 6. The association between working in a cold environment and future MSC were examined using Poisson regression and adjusted for age, sex, number of moderate MSC, education, physical activity at work, smoking status, body mass index, and self-reported health in Tromsø 6. RESULTS: 258 participants reported to work in a cold environment ≥ 25% of the time in Tromsø 6. They had an increased risk of having any MSC in Tromsø 7 (incidence rate ratio 1.15; 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.29). There was no significantly increased risk of severe MSC or MSC in ≥ 3 regions. CONCLUSION: Working in a cold environment was associated with future MSC, but not with future severe MSC or future MSC in ≥ 3 regions.

Working in a cold environment, feeling cold at work and chronic pain: a cross-sectional analysis of the Tromsø Study.

AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate if working in a cold environment and feeling cold at work are associated with chronic pain (ie, lasting ≥3 months). METHODS: We used data from the sixth survey (2007-2008) of the Tromsø Study. Analyses included 6533 men and women aged 30-67 years who were not retired, not receiving full-time disability benefits and had no missing values. Associations between working in a cold environment, feeling cold at work and self-reported chronic pain were examined with logistic regression adjusted for age, sex, education, body mass index, insomnia, physical activity at work, leisure time physical activity and smoking. RESULTS: 779 participants reported working in a cold environment ≥25% of the time. This exposure was positively associated with pain at ≥3 sites (OR 1.57; 95% CI 1.23 to 2.01) and with neck, shoulder and leg pain, but not with pain at 1-2 sites. Feeling cold sometimes or often at work was associated with pain at ≥3 sites (OR 1.58; 95% CI 1.22 to 2.07 and OR 3.90; 95% CI 2.04 to 7.45, respectively). Feeling cold often at work was significantly and positively associated with pain at all sites except the hand, foot, stomach and head. CONCLUSION: Working in a cold environment was significantly associated with chronic pain. The observed association was strongest for pain at musculoskeletal sites and for those who often felt cold at work.

Low back pain among mineworkers in relation to driving, cold environment and ergonomics.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to study the association between low back pain (LBP) and exposure to low temperature, wet clothes, heavy lifting and jobs that involve whole body vibration (WBV) in a population of miners. METHODS: Health and personal data were collected in a population study by a questionnaire. A total of 3530 workers from four mines participated in the study. RESULTS: 51% of the workers reported LBP within the last 12 months. The adjusted odds ratio for LBP was above unity for working with wet clothes (1.82), working in cold conditions (1.52), lifting heavy (1.54), having worked as a driver previously (1.79) and driving Toro400 (2.61) or train (1.69). CONCLUSION: Wet clothing, cold working conditions, heavy lifting, previous work as a driver and driving certain vehicles were associated with LBP, but vehicles with WBV levels above action value were not. For better prevention of LBP, improved cabin conditions and clothing should be emphasised. PRACTITIONER SUMMARY: To address risk factors for low back pain (LBP) in miners, a population study measured exposures and LBP. Cold work conditions, wet clothes and awkward postures appeared to be more strongly associated with LBP than exposure to whole body vibration from driving heavy vehicles. Prevention strategies must focus more on clothing and ergonomics.

How occupational health is assessed in mine workers in Murmansk Oblast.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to describe how work exposure and occupational health is assessed for mine workers in Murmansk Oblast, Russia. STUDY DESIGN: A descriptive study based on current practice, laws and available literature. METHODS: The information and data were obtained from scientific publications, reports, regional and federal statistics, legal documents, through personal visits and on-site inspections. RESULTS: Several institutions are involved in these assessments, but all mine workers have been examined by specialists at one institution, which helps to ensure that the work is of stable quality and adds reliability value to the numbers. Workplace risks are assigned hazard grades, which influence the frequency of periodic medical examinations and salary levels. The examinations are aimed to diagnose latent or manifest occupational disease. This may lead to relocation to a workplace with lower exposure levels, free medical treatment, compensation and a lower pension age. CONCLUSIONS: Regulations and systems to protect the health of mine workers have more emphasis on control and repair than on prevention. Since relocation can lower the salary, some workers may under-report medical problems. To what degree this happens is unknown. The mining enterprises pay the medical service provider for periodic medical examinations, which could potentially weaken their independent role. This framework is important to understand when studying and assessing the health of working populations in the circumpolar region.