[gn_column size=”1-3″ last=”0″ style=”0″]
[/gn_column][gn_column size=”2-3″ last=”1″ style=”0″]Three recent large-scale studies have shown how effective screening can be in matching work task and worker capacity, thus lowering the rate and severity of injury, and costs.
1. The study by Harbin and Olson in 2005 followed 2,842 new employees of a large food production plant. They were screened using a protocol based on the work demands, though this information was used only for the purposes of the study, with the workers hired under the usual pre-existing criteria.
Among employees who passed the screening, over time 3% of these had low back injuries. Among those who did not pass the screening, 33% incurred low back injuries ie. low back injuries were eleven times more common in this group.
2. In Rosenblum and Shankar’s 2006 study, 503 industrial workers were screened to match the physical demands of their prospective jobs and then followed up over 33 months, and compared to 1423 unscreened workers. Those not screened were 2.4 times more likely to suffer an injury to the knees, shoulders or back and the cost of their claims was 4.3 times higher.
3. In 2008, Anderson and Briggs published the results of a study of workers applying for physically active warehouse jobs. The applicants were screened using a pre-employment functional assessment based on the demands of the particular job. Injury experience and work history were then monitored over a two-year period. Those who had passed the screening test had a 41% lower injury rate and a 21% higher retention rate in the job.
These studies reinforce the body of literature which shows that screening results in:
[gn_list style=”arrow”]- fewer injuries
- fewer lost work days
- lower total costs and
- lower average costs per claim