Occupational health and safety regulatory interventions to improve the work environment: An evidence and gap map of effectiveness studies

IF 4 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Anja Bondebjerg, Trine Filges, Jan Hyld Pejtersen, Malene Wallach Kildemoes, Hermann Burr, Peter Hasle, Emile Tompa, Elizabeth Bengtsen
{"title":"Occupational health and safety regulatory interventions to improve the work environment: An evidence and gap map of effectiveness studies","authors":"Anja Bondebjerg,&nbsp;Trine Filges,&nbsp;Jan Hyld Pejtersen,&nbsp;Malene Wallach Kildemoes,&nbsp;Hermann Burr,&nbsp;Peter Hasle,&nbsp;Emile Tompa,&nbsp;Elizabeth Bengtsen","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1371","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Unsafe and unhealthy working conditions lead to injuries and financial losses across the globe, resulting in a need for research into effective work environment interventions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>The objective of this evidence and gap map (EGM) is to provide an overview of existing systematic reviews and primary studies examining the effects of occupational health and safety regulatory interventions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Search Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Relevant studies are identified through searches in published and unpublished literature performed up to January 2023.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>\n \n <p>The population for this EGM is workers above the age of 15 and their workplaces within the OECD. We include randomised controlled trials, non-randomised studies with a comparison of two or more groups of participants, and systematic reviews of effects.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Data Collection and Analysis</h3>\n \n <p>The map has been populated based on information about interventions and outcomes, study design, OECD country, and publication status. We have performed critical appraisal of included systematic reviews using an adjusted version of the AMSTAR-2 tool.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main Results</h3>\n \n <p>The included studies for this report consist of six systematic reviews, 28 primary effect studies, and three on-going studies. The interactive map shows that the largest cluster of studies is located in the inspection activity domain, while the sickness absence outcome domain and the intervention categories for training initiatives and formulation of regulatory standards are only scarcely populated. Additionally, the AMSTAR-appraisal suggests a lack of rigorous systematic reviews and meta-analyses.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Authors’ Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>More research in the form of primary studies and rigorous systematic reviews is needed to provide stakeholders with better guidance as to what constitutes the most efficient regulatory approaches to improve the work environment.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"19 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.1371","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cl2.1371","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Unsafe and unhealthy working conditions lead to injuries and financial losses across the globe, resulting in a need for research into effective work environment interventions.

Objectives

The objective of this evidence and gap map (EGM) is to provide an overview of existing systematic reviews and primary studies examining the effects of occupational health and safety regulatory interventions.

Search Methods

Relevant studies are identified through searches in published and unpublished literature performed up to January 2023.

Selection Criteria

The population for this EGM is workers above the age of 15 and their workplaces within the OECD. We include randomised controlled trials, non-randomised studies with a comparison of two or more groups of participants, and systematic reviews of effects.

Data Collection and Analysis

The map has been populated based on information about interventions and outcomes, study design, OECD country, and publication status. We have performed critical appraisal of included systematic reviews using an adjusted version of the AMSTAR-2 tool.

Main Results

The included studies for this report consist of six systematic reviews, 28 primary effect studies, and three on-going studies. The interactive map shows that the largest cluster of studies is located in the inspection activity domain, while the sickness absence outcome domain and the intervention categories for training initiatives and formulation of regulatory standards are only scarcely populated. Additionally, the AMSTAR-appraisal suggests a lack of rigorous systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Authors’ Conclusions

More research in the form of primary studies and rigorous systematic reviews is needed to provide stakeholders with better guidance as to what constitutes the most efficient regulatory approaches to improve the work environment.

Abstract Image

改善工作环境的职业健康与安全监管干预措施:有效性研究的证据和差距图
背景 不安全和不健康的工作条件在全球范围内导致伤害和经济损失,因此需要对有效的工作环境干预措施进行研究。 目标 本证据和差距图(EGM)旨在概述现有的系统综述和主要研究,这些综述和研究探讨了职业健康和安全监管干预措施的效果。 检索方法 通过检索截至 2023 年 1 月已发表和未发表的文献来确定相关研究。 选择标准 本 EGM 的研究对象是经合组织(OECD)范围内 15 岁以上的劳动者及其工作场所。我们将随机对照试验、对两组或两组以上参与者进行比较的非随机研究以及对效果的系统回顾纳入其中。 数据收集与分析 地图是根据干预措施和结果、研究设计、经合组织国家和出版状态等信息绘制的。我们使用经过调整的 AMSTAR-2 工具对纳入的系统性综述进行了批判性评估。 主要结果 本报告纳入的研究包括 6 篇系统综述、28 项主要效果研究和 3 项正在进行的研究。交互式地图显示,最大的研究集群位于检查活动领域,而病假结果领域以及培训计划和制定监管标准的干预类别则几乎没有研究。此外,AMSTAR 评估表明,缺乏严格的系统综述和荟萃分析。 作者的结论 需要开展更多的初级研究和严格的系统审查,以便为利益相关者提供更好的指导,使其了解什么是改善工作环境的最有效监管方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Campbell Systematic Reviews
Campbell Systematic Reviews Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
21.90%
发文量
80
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信