Would a “one‐handed” scientist lack rigor? How scientists discuss the work‐relatedness of musculoskeletal disorders in formal and informal communications

AbstractBackgroundWhen research results concerning occupational health are expressed ambiguously, compensation and prevention can be affected. This study examined the language used by scientists to discuss the relation between work and musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs).MethodsLanguage regarding work and MSDs in twenty articles from two peer‐reviewed journals was compared with that in 94 messages on MSDs posted by published scientists to an internet list.ResultsAlmost all the articles found some link between work and MSDs. However, few articles expressed belief in such a link unambiguously in the title or abstract, and language on links was often hard for a non‐health scientist to interpret. Language and methods gave excess weight to negative results. On the listserve, many scientists expressed unambiguous views on linkages between work and MSDs.ConclusionsScientists must express their opinions more forthrightly if they wish their results to be used to favour prevention and to foster access to workers' compensation. Am. J. Ind. Med. 51:173–185, 2008. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Would a “one‐handed” scientist lack rigor? How scientists discuss the work‐relatedness of musculoskeletal disorders in formal and informal communications Journal Articles