UNASSIGNED: There is variability in the information available for patients after carpal tunnel release (CTR). We aimed to establish (i) what advice should be provided regarding return to driving after CTR; (ii) how work activities should be categorised and defined in relation to CTR, and when patients should be recommended to return to these activities; (iii) what wound care and rehabilitation advice should be provided after CTR.
UNASSIGNED: We developed consensus recommendations from an expert panel of hand surgeons, primary care surgeons and hand therapists using an electronic Delphi process. Participants were recruited from clinical organisations using pre-defined criteria. Delphi questionnaires included open text and tick-box responses. Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and summary feedback was provided after each round.
UNASSIGNED: There were 33 panellists (21 surgeons and 12 hand therapists), of which 27 (82%) completed all rounds. Expected return to driving was agreed as 5-14 days. Expected timescales were also agreed for return to seven selected occupational activities. Post-operative advice focused on using and moving the hand, rather than specific rehabilitation. While consensus was reached for most items, there were important areas of disagreement, including divergent views on driving with sutures in situ and the need to inform car insurers.
UNASSIGNED: Recommendations from this study expand on existing advice by including functional descriptors for occupational activities and guidance timescales generated through a formal consensus process. Areas where consensus was not reached warrant further exploration to assess whether different practices impact clinical and functional outcomes for patients.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1161932.].

Virtual reality (VR) can induce side effects known as virtual reality-induced symptoms and effects (VRISE). To address this concern, we identify a literature-based listing of these factors thought to influence VRISE with a focus on office work use. Using those, we recommend guidelines for VRISE amelioration intended for virtual environment creators and users. We identify five VRISE risks, focusing on short-term symptoms with their short-term effects. Three overall factor categories are considered: individual, hardware, and software. Over 90 factors may influence VRISE frequency and severity. We identify guidelines for each factor to help reduce VR side effects. To better reflect our confidence in those guidelines, we graded each with a level of evidence rating. Common factors occasionally influence different forms of VRISE. This can lead to confusion in the literature. General guidelines for using VR at work involve worker adaptation, such as limiting immersion times to between 20 and 30 min. These regimens involve taking regular breaks. Extra care is required for workers with special needs, neurodiversity, and gerontechnological concerns. In addition to following our guidelines, stakeholders should be aware that current head-mounted displays and virtual environments can continue to induce VRISE. While no single existing method fully alleviates VRISE, workers\' health and safety must be monitored and safeguarded when VR is used at work.

To reduce the prevalence of youth injuries and fatalities in agricultural settings, safety professionals considered developing a guideline-focused intervention for how and when youth should conduct farm chores. In 1996, the process to create guidelines started, which then expanded to include professionals from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. This team used a consensus driven approach to develop the guidelines and launch the North American Guidelines for Children\'s Agricultural Tasks. By 2015, research related to the published guidelines indicated a need to incorporate new empirical evidence and develop dissemination plans based on new technologies. The process for updating the guidelines was supported by a 16-person steering committee and used content experts and technical advisors. The process yielded updated and new guidelines, now called Agricultural Youth Work Guidelines. This report responds to request for further details on the development and update of the guidelines and describes the genesis of the guidelines as an intervention, the process for creating guidelines, recognition of the need to update guidelines based on research, and the process for updating guidelines to assist in others engaged in similar types of interventions.

The COVID-19 pandemic has required close examination of workforce-related stressors that over decades have contributed to widespread burnout, negative health outcomes, including mental health outcomes, and the loss of the well-educated professionals who are the future of the nursing profession. In the United States and globally, evidence points to factors known to diminish well-being, including inequities, issues of minority status, persistent discrimination, and demanding work environments. The American Academy of Nursing (AAN), dedicated to organizational excellence, nursing leadership and evidence-based policy, develops statements reflecting its mission and those of its nursing affiliates and corporate member, The American Nurses Association. Within nursing, despite the efforts of its members toward advancement, professional fulfillment is often constrained by the systems in which nurses practice and workplace factors over which they have little control. Action by key organizations to initiate changes at systems levels in workplace safety, to increase professional mobility, and propel policies that increase access to health care resources could improve nurse well-being. This paper proposes recommendations from the AAN Expert Panels on Building Health Care System Excellence, Psychiatric Mental Health and Substance Use, and Global Health Expert Panels for the American Academy of Nursing to leverage related policy in the arenas of government and professional/healthcare organizations. Transforming health care work environments and advancing nurse well-being and equity can be accomplished through key, innovative policy changes. These will be achieved through collaboration among associations, organizations, nonprofit groups, and with the public and the media.

In a series of three companion papers published in this Journal, we identify and validate the available thermal stress indicators (TSIs). In this third paper, we conducted field experiments across nine countries to evaluate the efficacy of 61 meteorology-based TSIs for assessing the physiological strain experienced by individuals working in the heat. We monitored 372 experi-enced and acclimatized workers during 893 full work shifts. We continuously assessed core body temperature, mean skin temperature, and heart rate data together with pre/post urine specific gravity and color. The TSIs were evaluated against 17 published criteria covering physiological parameters, practicality, cost effectiveness, and health guidance issues. Simple meteorological parameters explained only a fraction of the variance in physiological heat strain (R2 = 0.016 to 0.427; p < 0.001), reflecting the importance of adopting more sophisticated TSIs. Nearly all TSIs correlated with mean skin temperature (98%), mean body temperature (97%), and heart rate (92%), while 66% of TSIs correlated with the magnitude of dehydration and 59% correlated with core body temperature (r = 0.031 to 0.602; p < 0.05). When evaluated against the 17 published criteria, the TSIs scored from 4.7 to 55.4% (max score = 100%). The indoor (55.4%) and outdoor (55.1%) Wet-Bulb Globe Temperature and the Universal Thermal Climate Index (51.7%) scored higher compared to other TSIs (4.7 to 42.0%). Therefore, these three TSIs have the highest potential to assess the physiological strain experienced by individuals working in the heat.

The Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Work-related Mental Health Conditions in General Practice (the Guideline) was published in 2019. The objective of this trial is to implement the Guideline in general practice.
Implementing work-related Mental health conditions in general PRacticE is a hybrid III, parallel cluster randomised controlled trial undertaken in Australia. Its primary aim is to assess the effectiveness of a complex intervention on the implementation of the Guideline in general practice. Secondary aims are to assess patient health and work outcomes, to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the trial, and to develop a plan for sustainability.
A total of 86 GP clusters will be randomly allocated either to the intervention arm, where they will receive a complex intervention comprising academic detailing, enrolment in a community of practice and resources, or to the control arm, where they will not receive the intervention. GP guideline concordance will be assessed at baseline and 9 months using virtual simulated patient scenarios. Patients who meet the eligibility criteria (>18years, employed, and receiving care from a participating GP for a suspected or confirmed work-related mental health condition) will be invited to complete surveys about their health and work participation and provide access to their health service use data. Data on health service use and work participation compensation claim data will be combined with measures of guideline concordance and patient outcomes to inform an economic evaluation. A realist evaluation will be conducted to inform the development of a plan for sustainability.
We anticipate that GPs who receive the intervention will have higher guideline concordance than GPs in the control group. We also anticipate that higher concordance will translate to better health and return-to-work outcomes for patients, as well as cost-savings to society.
The trial builds on a body of work defining the role of GPs in compensable injury, exploring their concerns, and developing evidence-based guidelines to address them. Implementation of these guidelines has the potential to deliver improvements in GP care, patient health, and return-to-work outcomes.
ACTRN12620001163998 , November 2020.

It is widely accepted that psychosocial prognostic factors should be addressed by clinicians in their assessment and management of patient suffering from low back pain (LBP). On the other hand, an overview is missing how these factors are addressed in clinical LBP guidelines. Therefore, our objective was to summarize and compare recommendations regarding the assessment and management of psychosocial prognostic factors for LBP chronicity, as reported in clinical LBP guidelines. We performed a systematic search of clinical LBP guidelines (PROSPERO registration number 154730). This search consisted of a combination of previously published systematic review articles and a new systematic search in medical or guideline-related databases. From the included guidelines, we extracted recommendations regarding the assessment and management of LBP which addressed psychosocial prognostic factors (ie, psychological factors [\"yellow flags\"], perceptions about the relationship between work and health, [\"blue flags\"], system or contextual obstacles [\"black flags\") and psychiatric symptoms [\"orange flags\"]). In addition, we evaluated the level or quality of evidence of these recommendations. In total, we included 15 guidelines. Psychosocial prognostic factors were addressed in 13 of 15 guidelines regarding their assessment and in 14 of 15 guidelines regarding their management. Recommendations addressing psychosocial factors almost exclusively concerned \"yellow\" or \"black flags,\" and varied widely across guidelines. The supporting evidence was generally of very low quality. We conclude that in general, clinical LBP guidelines do not provide clinicians with clear instructions about how to incorporate psychosocial factors in LBP care and should be optimized in this respect. More specifically, clinical guidelines vary widely in whether and how they address psychosocial factors, and recommendations regarding these factors generally require better evidence support. This emphasizes a need for a stronger evidence-base underlying the role of psychosocial risk factors within LBP care, and a need for uniformity in methodology and terminology across guidelines. PERSPECTIVE: This systematic review summarized clinical guidelines on low back pain (LBP) on how they addressed the identification and management of psychosocial factors. This review revealed a large amount of variety across guidelines in whether and how psychosocial factors were addressed. Moreover, recommendations generally lacked details and were based on low quality evidence.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend early referral for exercise for hip pain. It is unclear if this occurs in the Australian workers\' compensation environment.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate referral for exercise in workers with a compensable hip claim.
METHODS: Retrospective audit of closed compensation files for workers with hip pain was performed. Exercise commencement was indicated by billing codes for physiotherapy or exercise specific consultations. Time to exercise commencement was calculated. Associations were analysed between time to exercise commencement with claim duration and diagnostic category.
RESULTS: Exercise management occurred for 33/44 cases. Median time to commence exercise for those cases that had exercise was 14 days post-injury, with 33% commencing beyond 4 weeks. Longer time to commence exercise was associated with a longer claim duration (Spearman\'s rho = 0.70). Workers with a diagnosis of hip joint pain had a longer time to exercise commencement (median 49.5 days) compared to those with a diagnosis of lateral hip pain (median 14 days) or non-specific hip pain (median 4.5 days).
CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate practice behaviours in the workers\' compensation environment for the management of hip pain with exercise. Further investigation is warranted to see if improved adherence to guideline recommendations improves outcomes for people with compensable hip pain.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, there has been renewed focus on primary healthcare (PHC). PHC revitalisation is one of the mechanisms to emphasise health promotion and prevention. However, it is not always clear who should lead health promotion activities. In some countries, health promotion practitioners provide health promotion; in others, community health workers (CHWs) are responsible. South Africa, like other countries, has embarked on reforms to strengthen PHC, including a nationwide CHW programme - resulting in an unclear role for pre-existing health promoters. This paper examined the tension between these two cadres in two South African provinces in an era of primary health reform.
METHODS: We used a qualitative case study approach. Participants were recruited from the national, provincial, district and facility levels of the health system. Thirty-seven face-to-face in-depth interviews were conducted with 16 health promotion managers, 12 health promoters and 13 facility managers during a 3-month period (November 2017 to February 2018). Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Both inductive and deductive thematic content analysis approaches were used, supported by MAXQDA software.
RESULTS: Two South African policy documents, one on PHC reform and the other on health promotion, were introduced and implemented without clear guidelines on how health promoter job descriptions should be altered in the context of CHWs. The introduction of CHWs triggered anxiety and uncertainty among some health promoters. However, despite considerable role overlap and the absence of formal re-orientation processes to re-align their roles, some health promoters have carved out a role for themselves, supporting CHWs (for example, providing up-to-date health information, jointly discussing how to assist with health problems in the community, providing advice and household-visit support).
CONCLUSIONS: This paper adds to recent literature on the current wave of PHC reforms. It describes how health promoters are \'working it out\' on the ground, when the policy or process do not provide adequate guidance or structure. Lessons learnt on how these two cadres could work together are important, especially given the shortage of human resources for health in low- and middle-income settings. This is a missed opportunity, researchers and policy-makers need to think more about how to feed experience/tacit knowledge up the system.