Most people with musculoskeletal problem suffer pain at multiple body sites. The most frequent form of multisite pain studied is chronic widespread pain (CWP). Focusing solely on CWP may exclude the commoner form of multisite pain which is less wide spread. Therefore, studies on multisite pain which do not consider the spatial distribution of pain can be beneficial to tackle the overall problem of musculoskeletal pain. Nevertheless, multisite pain has been defined differently in the studies among workers. The absence of uniformed definition will jeopardize the understanding of this musculoskeletal problem. A review was thus carried out to identify how multisite pain were defined, how they influenced the reported occurrence of multisite pain and whether the definition determined the physical work exposures assessed in previous studies among worker. A systematic review was initiated by the search of electronic databases for multisite pain. Articles were included and excluded based on the selection criteria. A final of nine full text articles were reviewed. It was found that the difference in the definitions lies mainly in the body sites considered and the pain characteristics. The characteristics of pain influenced the multisite pain prevalence more than the sites.It wasdifficult to conclude whether the definition used determined the physical work exposures since only five studies were involved and three of them had similar research team which may explained the usage of similar exposures. The findings from this review, however, could not be inferred due to the small number of studies involved.
Comparative cross sectional study was conducted to determine the prevalence of hearing impairment among workers in one of the airport in Malaysia and the factors associated with it. A total of 248 subjects comprising 175 from the exposed group and the remaining control group were sampled. The main tools used in this study were validated questionnaire on hearing assessment and pure tone audiometric test. Response rate was 94%. Both area and personal exposure monitoring have exceeded action level for 8 Hrs TWA in the exposed group but within normal limit in the control group. The prevalence of hearing impairment was 88% among the noise exposed group and 11% in the control group with prevalence odds ratio (POR) 3.569 (95%CI 1.210-10.53, p