The attractiveness of the work is affected when production of handcrafted log houses moves indoors

Viewed from a historical perspective, a shift has occurred within the forestry and wood sector towards indoor work. In Sweden, the production of handcrafted log houses has now also begun to move indoors. With a point of departure in development processes within the log house sector involving working indoors, education, work attractiveness, between 2001-2005, the aim of this study was to compare indoor work with outdoor work, based on log house builders' experience of working on handcrafted log houses. Methods used in the interactive development project involving apprentices, experienced log house builders and researchers, were participation with continuous documentation of experiences and opinions; questions; interviews; and measurement of the work environment. The Attractive Work Model has been used in order to analyse perceptions and values. The changes, 15 out of 22 areas, were perceived both negatively and positively. Therefore, it can not be said that working on traditional, handcrafted log houses becomes more attractive if it is moved indoors. The majority wanted to work both outdoors and indoors, while most of the others only wanted to work outdoors. The results indicate that there is scope for developing more attractive work indoors by utilising experiences from log house builders and closely related activities such as the forestry and wood sector. Changes made within one area of work attractiveness affect other areas. Further research is needed both with regard to comparisons between indoor and outdoor work and regarding the interaction between the areas that are identified in the Attractive Work Model.

Self-assessment of the outcome of early medical abortion versus clinic follow-up in India : a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial

Background: The need for multiple clinical visits remains a barrier to women accessing safe legal medical abortion services. Alternatives to routine clinic follow-up visits have not been assessed in rural low-resource settings. We compared the effectiveness of standard clinic follow-up versus home assessment of outcome of medical abortion in a low-resource setting. Methods: This randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial was done in six health centres (three rural, three urban) in Rajasthan, India. Women seeking early medical abortion up to 9 weeks of gestation were randomly assigned (1:1) to either routine clinic follow-up or self-assessment at home. Randomisation was done with a computer-generated randomisation sequence, with a block size of six. The study was not blinded. Women in the home-assessment group were advised to use a pictorial instruction sheet and take a low-sensitivity urine pregnancy test at home, 10-14 days after intake of mifepristone, and were contacted by a home visit or telephone call to record the outcome of the abortion. The primary (non-inferiority) outcome was complete abortion without continuing pregnancy or need for surgical evacuation or additional mifepristone and misoprostol. The non-inferiority margin for the risk difference was 5%. All participants with a reported primary outcome and who followed the clinical protocol were included in the analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01827995. Findings: Between April 23, 2013, and May 15, 2014, 731 women were recruited and assigned to clinic follow-up (n=366) or home assessment (n=365), of whom 700 were analysed for the main outcomes (n=336 and n=364, respectively). Complete abortion without continuing pregnancy, surgical intervention, or additional mifepristone and misoprostol was reported in 313 (93%) of 336 women in the clinic follow-up group and 347 (95%) of 364 women in the home-assessment group (difference -2.2%, 95% CI -5.9 to 1.6). One case of haemorrhage occurred in each group (rate of adverse events 0.3% in each group); no other adverse events were noted. Interpretation Home assessment of medical abortion outcome with a low-sensitivity urine pregnancy test is non-inferior to clinic follow-up, and could be introduced instead of a clinic follow-up visit in a low-resource setting.