[Brain damage caused by exposure to organic solvents; diagnostics and disease course of chronic solvent-induced encephalopathy]. / Hersenschade door blootstelling aan oplosmiddelen; diagnostiek en beloop van chronische toxische encefalopathie.

Since 1997 more than 3,000 patients have been referred to one of the two Dutch Solvent Teams with health problems that may have been caused by long-term occupational exposure to organic solvents. A diagnosis of 'chronic solvent-induced encephalopathy' was made in approximately 500 patients. The diagnostics of this disease is based on five elements: (a) symptoms in line with the diagnosis; (b) relevant exposure to an organic solvent with neurotoxic effects; (c) a clear temporal relationship between the onset of symptoms and exposure to a solvent with neurotoxic effects; (d) exclusion of other causes for the symptoms; and (e) impairment on neuropsychological assessment. Exposure to organic solvents can cause chronic health effects, which may even persist years after exposure has ceased. In general, no more serious deterioration of health is observed after exposure has ceased.

Comparing the use of an online expert health network against common information sources to answer health questions.

BACKGROUND: Many workers have questions about occupational safety and health (OSH). It is unknown whether workers are able to find correct, evidence-based answers to OSH questions when they use common information sources, such as websites, or whether they would benefit from using an easily accessible, free-of-charge online network of OSH experts providing advice. OBJECTIVE: To assess the rate of correct, evidence-based answers to OSH questions in a group of workers who used an online network of OSH experts (intervention group) compared with a group of workers who used common information sources (control group). METHODS: In a quasi-experimental study, workers in the intervention and control groups were randomly offered 2 questions from a pool of 16 standardized OSH questions. Both questions were sent by mail to all participants, who had 3 weeks to answer them. The intervention group was instructed to use only the online network ArboAntwoord, a network of about 80 OSH experts, to solve the questions. The control group was instructed that they could use all information sources available to them. To assess answer correctness as the main study outcome, 16 standardized correct model answers were constructed with the help of reviewers who performed literature searches. Subsequently, the answers provided by all participants in the intervention (n = 94 answers) and control groups (n = 124 answers) were blinded and compared with the correct model answers on the degree of correctness. RESULTS: Of the 94 answers given by participants in the intervention group, 58 were correct (62%), compared with 24 of the 124 answers (19%) in the control group, who mainly used informational websites found via Google. The difference between the 2 groups was significant (rate difference = 43%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 30%-54%). Additional analysis showed that the rate of correct main conclusions of the answers was 85 of 94 answers (90%) in the intervention group and 75 of 124 answers (61%) in the control group (rate difference = 29%, 95% CI 19%-40%). Remarkably, we could not identify differences between workers who provided correct answers and workers who did not on how they experienced the credibility, completeness, and applicability of the information found (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Workers are often unable to find correct answers to OSH questions when using common information sources, generally informational websites. Because workers frequently misjudge the quality of the information they find, other strategies are required to assist workers in finding correct answers. Expert advice provided through an online expert network can be effective for this purpose. As many people experience difficulties in finding correct answers to their health questions, expert networks may be an attractive new source of information for health fields in general.

Revealing barriers and facilitators to use a new genetic test: comparison of three user involvement methods.

We compared three common user involvement methods in revealing barriers and facilitators from intended users that might influence their use of a new genetic test. The study was part of the development of a new genetic test on the susceptibility to hand eczema for nurses. Eighty student nurses participated in five focus groups (n = 33), 15 interviews (n = 15) or questionnaires (n = 32). For each method, data were collected until saturation. We compared the mean number of items and relevant remarks that could influence the use of the genetic test obtained per method, divided by the number of participants in that method. Thematic content analysis was performed using MAXQDA software. The focus groups revealed 30 unique items compared to 29 in the interviews and 21 in the questionnaires. The interviews produced more items and relevant remarks per participant (1.9 and 8.4 pp) than focus groups (0.9 and 4.8 pp) or questionnaires (0.7 and 2.3 pp). All three involvement methods revealed relevant barriers and facilitators to use a new genetic test. Focus groups and interviews revealed substantially more items than questionnaires. Furthermore, this study suggests a preference for the use of interviews because the number of items per participant was higher than for focus groups and questionnaires. This conclusion may be valid for other genetic tests as well.

Can online networks provide quality answers to questions about occupational safety and health?

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether experts can provide high-quality answers to occupational safety and health (OSH) questions in online Question & Answer (Q&A) networks. METHODS: The authors evaluated the quality of answers provided by qualified experts in two Dutch online networks: ArboAntwoord and the Helpdesk of the Netherlands Center for Occupational Diseases. A random sample of 594 answers was independently evaluated by two raters using nine answer quality criteria. An additional criterion, the agreement of answers with the best available evidence, was explored by peer review of a sample of 42 answers. Reviewers performed an evidence search in Medline. RESULTS: The median answer quality score of ArboAntwoord (N=295) and the Netherlands Center for Occupational Diseases Helpdesk (N=299) was 8 of 9 (IQR 2). The inter-rater reliability of the first nine quality criteria was high (κ 0.82-0.90, p<0.05). A question answered by two or more experts had a greater probability of a high-quality score than questions answered by one expert (OR 4.9, 95% CI 2.7 to 9.0). Answers most often scored insufficient on the use of evidence to underpin the answer (36% and 38% for the networks, respectively) and on conciseness (35% and 31%, respectively). Peer review demonstrated that 43%-72% of the answers in both online networks were in complete agreement with the best available evidence. CONCLUSIONS: OSH experts are able to provide quality answers in online OSH Q&A networks. Our answer quality appraisal instrument was feasible and provided information on how to improve answer quality.

Review on the validity of self-report to assess work-related diseases.

PURPOSE: Self-report is an efficient and accepted means of assessing population characteristics, risk factors, and diseases. Little is known on the validity of self-reported work-related illness as an indicator of the presence of a work-related disease. This study reviews the evidence on (1) the validity of workers' self-reported illness and (2) on the validity of workers' self-assessed work relatedness of an illness. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in four databases (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and OSH-Update). Two reviewers independently performed the article selection and data extraction. The methodological quality of the studies was evaluated, levels of agreement and predictive values were rated against predefined criteria, and sources of heterogeneity were explored. RESULTS: In 32 studies, workers' self-reports of health conditions were compared with the "reference standard" of expert opinion. We found that agreement was mainly low to moderate. Self-assessed work relatedness of a health condition was examined in only four studies, showing low-to-moderate agreement with expert assessment. The health condition, type of questionnaire, and the case definitions for both self-report and reference standards influence the results of validation studies. CONCLUSIONS: Workers' self-reported illness may provide valuable information on the presence of disease, although the generalizability of the findings is limited primarily to musculoskeletal and skin disorders. For case finding in a population at risk, e.g., an active workers' health surveillance program, a sensitive symptom questionnaire with a follow-up by a medical examination may be the best choice. Evidence on the validity of self-assessed work relatedness of a health condition is scarce. Adding well-developed questions to a specific medical diagnosis exploring the relationship between symptoms and work may be a good strategy.

Do Dutch workers seek and find information on occupational safety and health?

BACKGROUND: Currently, little is known about workers' occupational safety and health (OSH) information-seeking behavior. METHODS: We assessed whether Dutch workers have (OSH) questions, what motivates them to seek information or advice to solve these questions, and whether workers actually find the information they are looking for. A random sample of 888 workers from a large business panel were sent an online questionnaire. In total, 535 workers, likely parallel to the Dutch working population, returned the questionnaire (response rate 60%). RESULTS: In the last year, 380 of the 535 respondents (71%) had at least one OSH question. In total, 159 of the 380 respondents (42%) with an OSH question actively searched for information or advice. In a logistic regression analysis, three factors were identified to influence workers' information seeking: cognitions about personal benefits or costs of solving the question (OR = 2.8, 95% CI: 1.8-4.5), emotions that accompany the question (OR = 1.8, 95% CI: 1.1-3.0), and encouragement by the social environment (OR = 1.8, 95% CI: 1.0-3.0). In total, 50% of the respondents seeking information indicated they could not find (all) the information they sought. The barrier most often mentioned (47%) was the poor applicability of the information. CONCLUSIONS: Although most workers have OSH questions, only 40% seek information or advice to answer their questions. Moreover, many OSH questions remain unanswered by common information facilities. This study provides input on how to develop campaigns and new facilities that may induce workers to seek information and that offer more applicable information.

An online expert network for high quality information on occupational safety and health: cross-sectional study of user satisfaction and impact.

BACKGROUND: Many people have difficulties finding information on health questions, including occupational safety and health (OSH) issues. One solution to alleviate these difficulties could be to offer questioners free-of-charge, online access to a network of OSH experts who provide tailored, high-quality information. The aim of this study was to assess whether network quality, respectively information quality, as perceived by the questioners, is associated with questioners' overall satisfaction and to explore the impact of the information received on questioners' knowledge, work and work functioning. METHODS: We evaluated the experiences of OSH questioners with the online network ArboAntwoord.com over a two-year period. In this network, approximately 80 qualified experts are available to answer OSH questions. By means of a questionnaire, we assessed questioners' overall satisfaction with the network, whether the network was user-friendly, easily accessible and easy to handle and whether the information provided was complete, applicable and received in a timely manner. The impact of the information on questioners' knowledge, work or work functioning was explored with seven questions. In the study period, 460 unique OSH questioners asked 851 OSH questions. In total, 205 of the 460 questioners completed the questionnaire (response rate 45%). RESULTS: Of the responders, 71% were satisfied with the ArboAntwoord network. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that the applicability of the information had a positive influence on the questioners' overall satisfaction (OR = 16.0, 95% CI: 7.0-36.4). Also, user friendliness of the network (OR = 3.3, 95% CI: 1.3-8.6) and completeness of the information provided (OR = 3.0, 95% CI: 1.3-6.8) were positively related to the questioners' satisfaction. For 74% of the questioners, the information helped to increase their knowledge and understanding. Overall, 25% of the questioners indicated that the received information improved their work, work functioning or health. CONCLUSIONS: A free-of-charge, online expert network in the field of OSH can be a useful strategy to provide OSH questioners with applicable, complete and timely information that may help improve safety and health at work. This study provides more insight in how to satisfy network questioners and about the potential impact of provided information on OSH.

An online network tool for quality information to answer questions about occupational safety and health: usability and applicability.

BACKGROUND: Common information facilities do not always provide the quality information needed to answer questions on health or health-related issues, such as Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) matters. Barriers may be the accessibility, quantity and readability of information. Online Question & Answer (Q&A) network tools, which link questioners directly to experts can overcome some of these barriers. When designing and testing online tools, assessing the usability and applicability is essential. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to assess the usability and applicability of a new online Q&A network tool for answers on OSH questions. METHODS: We applied a cross-sectional usability test design. Eight occupational health experts and twelve potential questioners from the working population (workers) were purposively selected to include a variety of computer- and internet-experiences. During the test, participants were first observed while executing eight tasks that entailed important features of the tool. In addition, they were interviewed. Through task observations and interviews we assessed applicability, usability (effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction) and facilitators and barriers in use. RESULTS: Most features were usable, though several could be improved. Most tasks were executed effectively. Some tasks, for example searching stored questions in categories, were not executed efficiently and participants were less satisfied with the corresponding features. Participants' recommendations led to improvements. The tool was found mostly applicable for additional information, to observe new OSH trends and to improve contact between OSH experts and workers. Hosting and support by a trustworthy professional organization, effective implementation campaigns, timely answering and anonymity were seen as important use requirements. CONCLUSIONS: This network tool is a promising new strategy for offering company workers high quality information to answer OSH questions. Q&A network tools can be an addition to existing information facilities in the field of OSH, but also to other healthcare fields struggling with how to answer questions from people in practice with high quality information. In the near future, we will focus on the use of the tool and its effects on information and knowledge dissemination.

Information and feedback to improve occupational physicians' reporting of occupational diseases: a randomised controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To assess the effectiveness of supplying occupational physicians (OPs) with targeted and stage-matched information or with feedback on reporting occupational diseases to the national registry in the Netherlands. METHODS: In a randomized controlled design, 1076 OPs were divided into three groups based on previous reporting behaviour: precontemplators not considering reporting, contemplators considering reporting and actioners reporting occupational diseases. Precontemplators and contemplators were randomly assigned to receive stage-matched, stage-mismatched or general information. Actioners were randomly assigned to receive personalized or standardized feedback upon notification. Outcome measures were the number of OPs reporting and the number of reported occupational diseases in a 180-day period before and after the intervention. RESULTS: Precontemplators were significantly more male and self-employed compared to contemplators and actioners. There was no significant effect of stage-matched information versus stage-mismatched or general information on the percentage of reporting OPs and on the mean number of notifications in each group. Receiving any information affected reporting more in contemplators than in precontemplators. The mean number of notifications in actioners increased more after personalized feedback than after standardized feedback, but the difference was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the concept that contemplators are more susceptible to receiving information but could not confirm an effect of stage-matching this information on reporting occupational diseases to the national registry.