Literature DB >> 27277561

Current considerations related to physiological differences between the sexes and physical employment standards.

Delia Roberts1, Deborah L Gebhardt2, Steven E Gaskill3, Tanja C Roy4, Marilyn A Sharp5.   

Abstract

The use of physical employment standards (PES) has helped ensure that workers have the physical attributes necessary to complete their jobs in a safe and efficient manner. However, PES used in the selection processes have not always reflected the critical physical requirements of the job tasks. Women generally have smaller anthropometric stature than men, less muscle mass, and therefore less strength, power, and endurance, particularly in the upper body. Nonetheless, these attributes in themselves are not valid grounds for exclusion from employment in physically demanding occupations. Selection standards based upon size or strength, irrespective of the job requirements, have resulted in the barring of capable women from physically demanding jobs, claims of gender bias, and costly litigations. To ensure all individuals are provided with equal access to employment, accurate characterization of the critical physical requirements of the job is paramount. This paper summarizes the existing research related to disparities between the sexes that contribute to sex differences in job performance in physically demanding occupations including physical and legal factors. Strategies for mitigating these differences in the setting of PES and the meeting of minimum employment standards are discussed. Where available, injury rates for women and men in physically demanding occupations are presented and the etiology considered. Finally, areas for further research are identified.

Entities:  

Keywords:  accident du travail; différences sexuelles; job-task performance; normes de sélection; normes physiques relatives à l’emploi; occupational injury; performance au travail; performance d’exécution des tâches; physical employment standards; physical screening; physical selection; selection standards; sex differences; sélection basée sur le physique; work performance; évaluation physique

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27277561     DOI: 10.1139/apnm-2015-0540

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Appl Physiol Nutr Metab        ISSN: 1715-5312            Impact factor:   2.665


  4 in total

1.  The impact of thoracic load carriage up to 45 kg on the cardiopulmonary response to exercise.

Authors:  Devin B Phillips; Cameron M Ehnes; Michael K Stickland; Stewart R Petersen
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2016-07-09       Impact factor: 3.078

2.  Chronic Pain in Spanish Wildland Firefighters.

Authors:  Fabio García-Heras; Jorge Gutiérrez-Arroyo; Patxi León-Guereño; Belén Carballo-Leyenda; Jose A Rodríguez-Marroyo
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-02-14       Impact factor: 4.241

3.  Physical Activity May Be Associated with Conditioned Pain Modulation in Women but Not Men among Healthy Individuals.

Authors:  Yukiko Shiro; Tatsunori Ikemoto; Yuta Terasawa; Young-Chang P Arai; Kazuhiro Hayashi; Takahiro Ushida; Takako Matsubara
Journal:  Pain Res Manag       Date:  2017-09-26       Impact factor: 3.037

4.  Activity Level and Body Mass Index as Predictors of Physical Workload During Working Career.

Authors:  Satu K Mänttäri; Juha A H Oksa; Jussi Virkkala; Julia A K Pietilä
Journal:  Saf Health Work       Date:  2019-09-09
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.