Qualitative Evidence in Occupational Health

MacEachen, Ellen; Kosny, Agnieszka

doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-2920-7_14

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies have reviewed the literature on the effects of regulatory enforcement tools such as workplace inspections, consultative activities, and awareness campaigns. Tompa (2007) performed a systematic review of insurance and regulatory mechanisms, which was followed up by two reviews published in 2016, focusing on the quantitative and the qualitative regulatory enforcement literature, respectively (MacEachen, 2016;Tompa, 2016). Findings from the 2007-review found evidence that first hand experience of citations and penalties (which can be defined as specific deterrence) reduced injuries, whereas there was limited evidence for the effects of first hand experience of inspection.…”

Section: The Problem Condition or Issuementioning

confidence: 99%

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

Bondebjerg,

Filges,

Pejtersen

et al. 2023

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundUnsafe and unhealthy working conditions lead to injuries and financial losses across the globe, resulting in a need for research into effective work environment interventions.ObjectivesThe 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and safety regulatory interventions.Search MethodsRelevant studies are identified through searches in published and unpublished literature performed up to January 2023.Selection CriteriaThe population for this EGM is workers above the age of 15 and their workplaces within the OECD.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 AnalysisThe 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 ResultsThe 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’ ConclusionsMore 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.

show abstract

Section: The Problem Condition or Issuementioning

confidence: 99%