Search

Background: Research to date has mainly focused on burn injuries treated in secondary care. This study aims to provide knowledge on the epidemiology of burn injuries in primary care, to give directions for burn prevention. Methods: Data were derived from routine electronic health records of general practices and their out-of-hours service organisations in the Netherlands that participated in the Nivel Primary Care Database 2010–2015. We studied risk factors and trends. Results: The average burn injury prevalence rate was 4.40 (95% CI 4.27–4.53) per 1000 person-years in daytime general practice care and 1.47 (95% CI 1.46–1.49) per 1000 inhabitants in out-of-hours care. Children of 0−4 years old, especially boys, and young adult women had a higher risk. Burn injury risk was higher during the summer months and around New Year’s Eve. Living in low socioeconomic and strongly urbanised neighbourhoods was associated with a higher risk of burn injury than living in other neighbourhoods. Conclusion: Dutch general practitioners have a large share in burn care and therefore can play a significant role in burn prevention. Prevention may be most effective in the summer and around New Year’s Eve, and specific attention seems to be warranted for low socioeconomic groups and strongly urbanised neighbourhoods.

Objectives: Many current jobs are characterized by sedentary behaviour (SB) and lack of physical activity (PA). Interventions addressing SB and PA at the workplace may benefit workers’ health. The present review is the first to focus on the effectiveness of interventions implemented during productive work with the intention to change workers’ SB and/or PA while working. Methods: Scopus was searched for articles published from 1992 until March 12, 2015. Relevant studies were evaluated using the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies and summarized in a best-evidence synthesis. Results: 40 studies describing 41 interventions were included and organized into three categories: alternative workstations (20), interventions promoting stair use (11) and personalized behavioural interventions (10). Strong evidence was found for alternative workstations leading to positive effects on overall SB, while evidence was conflicting for effects on SB and PA at work, overall PA, and work performance. Evidence was moderate for alternative workstations to have no effect on hemodynamics and cardiorespiratory fitness. Stair use promotion interventions were found to increase PA at work, while personalized behavioural interventions increased overall PA; both with moderate evidence. Personalized behavioural interventions were found to have no effect on anthropometric measures (moderate evidence). Regarding work performance and lipid and metabolic profiles, evidence was either conflicting or insufficient. Conclusions: Current evidence supports that introduction of alternative workstations may have positive effects on overall PA and SB, likely without reducing work performance, while the long-term health effects of all three reviewed categories of interventions remain to be established., Forskningsfinansiär: Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, sit-stand var