Workplace drug testing, different matrices different objectives

Drug testing is used by employers to detect drug use by employees or job candidates. It can identify recent use of alcohol, prescription drugs, and illicit drugs as a screening tool for potential health and safety and performance issues. Urine is the most commonly used sample for illicit drugs. It detects the use of a drug within the last few days and as such is evidence of recent use; but a positive test does not necessarily mean that the individual was impaired at the time of the test. Abstention from use for three days will often produce a negative test result. Analysis of hair provides a much longer window of detection, typically 1 to 3 months. Hence the likelihood of a falsely negative test using hair is very much less than with a urine test. Conversely, a negative hair test is a substantially stronger indicator of a non-drug user than a negative urine test. Oral fluid (saliva) is also easy to collect. Drugs remain in oral fluid for a similar time as in blood. The method is a good way of detecting current use and is more likely to reflect current impairment. It offers promise as a test in post-accident, for cause, and on-duty situations. Studies have shown that within the same industrial settings, hair testing can detect twice as many drug users as urine testing. Copyright (C) 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Health and fitness benefits of a resistance training intervention performed in the workplace

Zavanela, PM, Crewther, BT, Lodo, L, Florindo, AA, Miyabara, EH, and Aoki, MS. Health and fitness benefits of a resistance training intervention performed in the workplace. J Strength Cond Res 26(3): 811-817, 2012-This study examined the effects of a workplace-based resistance training intervention on different health-, fitness-, and work-related measures in untrained men (bus drivers). The subjects were recruited from a bus company and divided into a training (n = 48) and control (n = 48) groups after initial prescreening. The training group performed a 24-week resistance training program, whereas the control group maintained their normal daily activities. Each group was assessed for body composition, blood pressure (BP), pain incidence, muscular endurance, and flexibility before and after the 24-week period. Work absenteeism was also recorded during this period and after a 12-week follow-up phase. In general, no body composition changes were identified in either group. In the training group, a significant reduction in BP and pain incidence, along with improvements in muscle endurance and flexibility were seen after 24 weeks (p < 0.05). There were no changes in these parameters in the control group, and the between-group differences were all significant (p < 0.05). A reduction in worker absenteeism rate was also noted in the training (vs. control) group during both the interventional and follow-up periods (p < 0.05). In conclusion, it was found that a periodized resistance training intervention performed within the workplace improved different aspects of health and fitness in untrained men, thereby potentially providing other work-related benefits. Thus, both employers and employees may benefit from the setup, promotion, and support of a work-based physical activity program involving resistance training.