Patients could withdraw from the study at any moment. Study design We performed a follow-up study in a sample of consecutive cases notified to the NCvB with work-related upper extremity disorders. The notifications originated from a sentinel surveillance project carried out by the NCvB between 1 October 2003 and 1 July 2005 (Spreeuwers et al. 2008). Baseline measurements were made directly after notification and follow-up measurements after 3, 6 and 12 months. Before the study, we held an introductory meeting to instruct the participating occupational physicians. The

informed consent forms handed Selleck 4SC-202 out by the physicians were provided with a code corresponding to the notification of the case to the NCvB. This allowed us to link the questionnaires to the cases in our database of reported occupational diseases. As soon as we received an informed consent form, we sent the patient a questionnaire (T0). If the patient did not return the completed questionnaire within 4 weeks, we sent a reminder. After 3, 6 and 12 months (T1, T2 and T3), we sent follow-up questionnaires; if necessary, we sent a reminder 4 weeks

later. Measurements The questionnaires sent to the patients at T0, T1, T2 and T3 had the same content. The general part selective HDAC inhibitors of the questionnaire included questions about the patients’ personal situation (age, sex, marital status, number of children, level of education), occupation and number of working hours, co-morbidity, annual income (in euros), medical treatment (consultations, diagnostic examinations, hospital treatment, medication) and work interventions (adjustments in the workplace, personal aids, training, coaching, replacement). The relation between these determinants and the origin, course and consequences

of occupational click here diseases are presented in Fig. 1. Fig. 1 Determinants related to the origin, course and consequences of occupational diseases We used a visual analogue scale with a scale of 0-100 (0 = no complaints, 100 = very severe complaints) to rate the perceived severity of the work-related upper extremity disorder (Sokka 2005). We measured quality of life in two ways. First, general quality of life was assessed with the Dutch version of the 36-item Short-Form Health Tacrolimus (FK506) Survey (SF-36). The SF-36 consists of eight subscales: physical role functioning, emotional role functioning, social functioning, bodily pain, mental health, vitality, physical functioning and general health perception (Ware and Sherbourne 1992; Aaronson et al. 1998). Scores range from 0 to 100 (higher scores indicate better functioning). Reference data were derived from Aaronson et al. (1998). Second, quality of life was measured through visual analogue scales to rate the general quality of life and the level of current health on a scale of 0-100 (0 = completely unsatisfactory, 100 = completely satisfactory; Streiner and Norman 2003; De Boer et al. 2004).