AIM: To compare the effects of LLLT and HILT as adjuncts to rehabilitation exercises (LL + EX and HL + EX) on clinical outcomes in KOA.
METHODS: Thirty-four adults with mild-to-moderate KOA were randomly allocated to either LL + EX or HL + EX (n = 17 each). Both groups underwent their respective intervention weekly for twelve weeks: LL + EX (400 mW, 830 nm, 10 to 12 J/cm2, and 400 J per session) or HL + EX (5 W, 1064 nm, 19 to 150 J/cm2, and 3190 J per session). The laser probe was placed vertically in contact with the knee and moved in a slow-scan manner on the antero-medial/lateral sides of the knee joint. Participants' Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), active knee flexion, and Timed Up-and-Go test (TUG) were assessed.
RESULTS: Post intervention, both groups showed improvements in their KOOS, NPRS, active knee flexion, and TUG scores compared to baseline (p < 0.01). The mean difference of change in KOOS, NPRS, and active knee flexion scores for the HL + EX group surpassed the minimal clinically important difference threshold. In contrast, the LL + EX group only demonstrated clinical significance for the NPRS scores.
CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating HILT as an adjunct to usual KOA rehabilitation led to significantly higher improvements in pain, physical function, and knee-related disability compared to LLLT applied in scanning mode.
METHODS: This quantitative research was conducted by distributing survey questionnaires randomly to five coal-fired power plants in Peninsular Malaysia. A total of 340 respondents were involved in this research. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) analysis was performed using SmartPLS to validate and examine the relationship of the proposed model.
RESULTS: The results validate the construct of hazard control and prevention consisting of planning, action, managing, and verifying, while the safety outcomes construct consists of occupational accidents, fatal accidents, near misses, and lost time injuries. The results indicate that hazard control and prevention significantly relate to safety compliance, safety participation, safety motivation, and safety knowledge. Moreover, safety outcomes were influenced negatively by hazard control and prevention through safety compliance.
CONCLUSION: The model provides a better understanding of the influence of hazard control and prevention on safety behavior and outcomes.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: The model can be used as guidance for practitioners and researchers in planning and implementing hazard control and prevention to improve health and safety in the workplace.