Scholarlink

Background <p>Occupational medical prevention examination for “work with display screen equipment” is one of the most common preventive measures, considering approximately 18&#xa0;million screen workstations and an average examination interval of three years, resulting in around 4&#xa0;million potential cases. This requires significant personnel and financial resources. The aim of the pilot project was to assess the feasibility of a benefit analysis for employees.</p> Method <p>From April 2021 to September 2022, 200 participants in an intervention group and 47 in a control group were surveyed. The study utilized three Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) questionnaires in the areas of near vision, neck complaints, and workplace ergonomics—before, one month after, and six months after the preventive intervention: the NAVQ (Near Activity Visual Questionnaire), the Nordic Neck Questionnaire, and a questionnaire from the BG HM (Berufsgenossenschaft Holz und Metall) to assess the design of the computer workstation. The intervention group received the preventive offering before the first survey, consisting of a medical and occupational history, a consultation, and an eye test. The control group received only the questionnaires, without a medical and occupational history, consultation, or eye test, to assess changes in near vision, neck complaints, and workplace ergonomics over time without any intervention.</p> Results <p>In the area of near vision, no significant changes over time were reported. During the initial examination of the intervention group, 19% of all participants undergoing such a preventive assessment for the first time were recommended some form of visual correction or an adjustment of their existing correction. For neck complaints, a significant increase over time was reported in the intervention group compared to the control group. In the intervention group, workplace ergonomics improved at both follow-up assessments (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.01), while in the control group, an improvement was observed between the first and third assessments (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.01).</p> Conclusion <p>The results of this study suggest that the advisory aspect of the occupational medical prevention examination for “work with display screen equipment” under the Occupational Medical Prevention Ordinance (ArbMedVV), as well as an independent workplace analysis, can have positive effects on employees. The high proportion (15%) of recommended vision corrections among first-time participants also highlights the importance of the eye test as an essential part of at least the initial occupational medical prevention.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Evaluation der arbeitsmedizinischen Vorsorge „Tätigkeiten an Bildschirmgeräten“ nach Verordnung zur arbeitsmedizinischen Vorsorge (ArbMedVV)

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月9日

查看全文
  • Christoph Schmitz,
  • André Esser,
  • Thomas Kraus

摘要

Background

Occupational medical prevention examination for “work with display screen equipment” is one of the most common preventive measures, considering approximately 18 million screen workstations and an average examination interval of three years, resulting in around 4 million potential cases. This requires significant personnel and financial resources. The aim of the pilot project was to assess the feasibility of a benefit analysis for employees.

Method

From April 2021 to September 2022, 200 participants in an intervention group and 47 in a control group were surveyed. The study utilized three Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) questionnaires in the areas of near vision, neck complaints, and workplace ergonomics—before, one month after, and six months after the preventive intervention: the NAVQ (Near Activity Visual Questionnaire), the Nordic Neck Questionnaire, and a questionnaire from the BG HM (Berufsgenossenschaft Holz und Metall) to assess the design of the computer workstation. The intervention group received the preventive offering before the first survey, consisting of a medical and occupational history, a consultation, and an eye test. The control group received only the questionnaires, without a medical and occupational history, consultation, or eye test, to assess changes in near vision, neck complaints, and workplace ergonomics over time without any intervention.

Results

In the area of near vision, no significant changes over time were reported. During the initial examination of the intervention group, 19% of all participants undergoing such a preventive assessment for the first time were recommended some form of visual correction or an adjustment of their existing correction. For neck complaints, a significant increase over time was reported in the intervention group compared to the control group. In the intervention group, workplace ergonomics improved at both follow-up assessments (p < 0.01), while in the control group, an improvement was observed between the first and third assessments (p < 0.01).

Conclusion

The results of this study suggest that the advisory aspect of the occupational medical prevention examination for “work with display screen equipment” under the Occupational Medical Prevention Ordinance (ArbMedVV), as well as an independent workplace analysis, can have positive effects on employees. The high proportion (15%) of recommended vision corrections among first-time participants also highlights the importance of the eye test as an essential part of at least the initial occupational medical prevention.