Roman Pauli, Jessica Lang, Andreas Müller, Yacine Taibi, Thomas Kraus, Yannick Metzler
{"title":"社会心理风险评估中职业暴露限值的要求:我们知道什么,我们不知道什么,以及我们可以从其他学科中学到什么。","authors":"Roman Pauli, Jessica Lang, Andreas Müller, Yacine Taibi, Thomas Kraus, Yannick Metzler","doi":"10.5271/sjweh.4247","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This discussion paper aims to provide recommendations for the development of occupational exposure limits (OEL) for psychosocial hazards. By comparing the characteristics of non-psychosocial and psychosocial hazards at work as well as approaches to derive occupational limit values for both types of hazards, the paper summarizes conceptual requirements and methodological perspectives for OEL in psychosocial risk assessment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An interdisciplinary working group comprised of academics, active practitioners in company occupational health management and members of national committees advising policymakers conducted regular face-to-face and online meetings between October 2022 and August 2024 to draft a narrative review and discussion of the current state of research on OEL for psychosocial hazards within the fields of psychology, sociology and medicine.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The current field of research is in its early stages, indicated by individual efforts and a lack of joint decision-making. Existing approaches towards OEL focus on disease-level outcomes (eg, burnout, depression), which limits their effectiveness for primary prevention and identifying early warning signs of harm.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Based on the limited existing literature, we recommend (i) the use of outcome variables that enable detection of early stages of adverse effects aligned with the no-observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse effect level (LOAEL), (ii) standardization and harmonization of hitherto independent assessments of identical hazards, and (iii) policy-level actions to foster collaborative decision-making based on the full spectrum of scientific evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":21528,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Requirements for occupational exposure limits in psychosocial risk assessment: What we know, what we don't know and what we can learn from other disciplines.\",\"authors\":\"Roman Pauli, Jessica Lang, Andreas Müller, Yacine Taibi, Thomas Kraus, Yannick Metzler\",\"doi\":\"10.5271/sjweh.4247\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This discussion paper aims to provide recommendations for the development of occupational exposure limits (OEL) for psychosocial hazards. By comparing the characteristics of non-psychosocial and psychosocial hazards at work as well as approaches to derive occupational limit values for both types of hazards, the paper summarizes conceptual requirements and methodological perspectives for OEL in psychosocial risk assessment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An interdisciplinary working group comprised of academics, active practitioners in company occupational health management and members of national committees advising policymakers conducted regular face-to-face and online meetings between October 2022 and August 2024 to draft a narrative review and discussion of the current state of research on OEL for psychosocial hazards within the fields of psychology, sociology and medicine.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The current field of research is in its early stages, indicated by individual efforts and a lack of joint decision-making. Existing approaches towards OEL focus on disease-level outcomes (eg, burnout, depression), which limits their effectiveness for primary prevention and identifying early warning signs of harm.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Based on the limited existing literature, we recommend (i) the use of outcome variables that enable detection of early stages of adverse effects aligned with the no-observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse effect level (LOAEL), (ii) standardization and harmonization of hitherto independent assessments of identical hazards, and (iii) policy-level actions to foster collaborative decision-making based on the full spectrum of scientific evidence.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21528,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4247\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4247","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Requirements for occupational exposure limits in psychosocial risk assessment: What we know, what we don't know and what we can learn from other disciplines.
Objectives: This discussion paper aims to provide recommendations for the development of occupational exposure limits (OEL) for psychosocial hazards. By comparing the characteristics of non-psychosocial and psychosocial hazards at work as well as approaches to derive occupational limit values for both types of hazards, the paper summarizes conceptual requirements and methodological perspectives for OEL in psychosocial risk assessment.
Methods: An interdisciplinary working group comprised of academics, active practitioners in company occupational health management and members of national committees advising policymakers conducted regular face-to-face and online meetings between October 2022 and August 2024 to draft a narrative review and discussion of the current state of research on OEL for psychosocial hazards within the fields of psychology, sociology and medicine.
Results: The current field of research is in its early stages, indicated by individual efforts and a lack of joint decision-making. Existing approaches towards OEL focus on disease-level outcomes (eg, burnout, depression), which limits their effectiveness for primary prevention and identifying early warning signs of harm.
Conclusion: Based on the limited existing literature, we recommend (i) the use of outcome variables that enable detection of early stages of adverse effects aligned with the no-observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse effect level (LOAEL), (ii) standardization and harmonization of hitherto independent assessments of identical hazards, and (iii) policy-level actions to foster collaborative decision-making based on the full spectrum of scientific evidence.
期刊介绍:
The aim of the Journal is to promote research in the fields of occupational and environmental health and safety and to increase knowledge through the publication of original research articles, systematic reviews, and other information of high interest. Areas of interest include occupational and environmental epidemiology, occupational and environmental medicine, psychosocial factors at work, physical work load, physical activity work-related mental and musculoskeletal problems, aging, work ability and return to work, working hours and health, occupational hygiene and toxicology, work safety and injury epidemiology as well as occupational health services. In addition to observational studies, quasi-experimental and intervention studies are welcome as well as methodological papers, occupational cohort profiles, and studies associated with economic evaluation. The Journal also publishes short communications, case reports, commentaries, discussion papers, clinical questions, consensus reports, meeting reports, other reports, book reviews, news, and announcements (jobs, courses, events etc).