4.6 Article

Neuropsychological performance in solvent-exposed vehicle collision repair workers in New Zealand

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 12, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189108

关键词

-

资金

  1. Health Research Council (HRC) of New Zealand [RM 14828]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To assess whether contemporary solvent exposures in the vehicle collision repair industry are associated with objectively measured neuropsychological performance in collision repair workers. Methods The RBANS battery and additional tests were administered to 47 vehicle collision repair and 51 comparison workers randomly selected from a previous questionnaire study. Results Collision repair workers performed lower on tests of attention (digit span backwards: -1.5, 95% CI -2.4, -0.5; digit span total: -1.7, CI -3.3, -0.0; coding: -6.1, CI -9.9, -2.8; total attention scale: -9.3, CI -15.9, -2.8) and the RBANS total scale (-5.1, CI -9.1, -1.2). Additional tests also showed deficits in visual attention and reaction time (Trails B: -11.5, CI -22.4, -0.5) and motor speed/dexterity (coin rotation dominant hand & non-dominant: -2.9, CI -5.3, -0.4 and -3.1, CI -5.6, -0.7 respectively). The strongest associations were observed in panel beaters. Applying dichotomised RBANS outcomes based on the lowest percentile scores of a normative comparison group showed strongly increased risks for attention (5th percentile: OR 20.1, 95% CI 1.5, 263.3; 10th percentile: 8.8, CI 1.7, 46.2; and 20th percentile: 5.1, CI 1.5, 17.6, respectively). Those employed in the industry for <= 17 years (the median work duration) generally had lower scores in the attention domain scale and RBANS total scale compared to those employed >17 years suggesting a healthy worker survivor bias, but trends were inconsistent for other domains. Conclusions This study has found significant deficits in cognitive performance in collision repair workers despite low current airborne exposures in New Zealand.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据