OBJECTIVE: Given the unpopularity of the current hard hat, the general perception of workers concerning its use and its measurements are the determining factors in the development of a new hard hat.
METHOD: A cross-sectional study was conducted in which 132 male oil palm harvesters between 19 and 60 years of age were selected from among the employees of the same oil palm harvesting company. A set of questionnaires was developed to collect their socio-demographic information as well as their perceptions of comfort and the prevalence of head injury. In addition, a set of measuring instruments, including Martin's anthropometry set, was used for head measurement and data collection in respect of the current hard hat. In this research, six respondents were randomly selected to attend an interview session for qualitative assessment.RESULTSBased on the questionnaires, the unpopularity in the use of the hard hat was largely influenced by factors related to poor design, in general, and, specifically, poor ventilation (64%), load (67% ), and physical discomfort (42% ). The measurements of the anthropometric parameters and the dimensions of the hard hat also showed a significant mismatch.
CONCLUSION: The unpopularity of the current hard hat among oil palm harvesters stemmed from the discomfort from wearing, which showed that the development of a new hard hat could lead to better usage and the greater likelihood of wearing a hard hat throughout the working day.
INTRODUCTION: To investigate the longitudinal associations of bone mineral measures with antiepileptic drug (AED) use, including enzyme-inducing (EIAED) and non-enzyme-inducing (NEIAED) types, and other predictors of bone loss in a study of 48 same-sex twin/age-matched sibling pairs (40 female, 8 male) discordant for AED use.
METHODS: Using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), areal bone mineral density (aBMD) and content (BMC) at the hip regions, forearm, lumbar spine, and whole body were measured twice, at least 2 years apart. The mean within-pair difference (MWPD), MWPD%, and mean annual rate of aBMD change were adjusted for age, weight, and height. Predictors of bone loss were evaluated.
RESULTS: AED users, compared to non-users, at baseline and follow-up, respectively, had reduced aBMD at the total hip (MWPD% 3.8, 4.4%), femoral neck (4.7, 4.5%), and trochanter regions (4.1, 4.6%) (p 0.05) regions did not differ within pairs. Nevertheless, EIAED users had greater aBMD loss than non-users (n = 20 pairs) at the total hip (1.7 vs. 0.3%, p = 0.013) and whole body regions (0.7% loss vs. 0.1% BMD gain, p = 0.019), which was not found in NEIAED-discordant pairs (n = 16). AED use >20 years predicted higher aBMD loss at the forearm (p = 0.028), whole body (p = 0.010), and whole body BMC (p = 0.031).
CONCLUSIONS: AED users had reduced aBMD at the hip regions. Prolonged users and EIAED users had greater aBMD loss, predicting a higher risk of bone fragility. Further prospective studies of AED effects on bone microarchitecture are needed.