Systematic Review of Workplace Interventions to Support Young Workers’ Safety, Work Environment and Health

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2024-04-30 DOI:10.1007/s10926-024-10186-y
Emil Sundstrup, Karina Glies Vincents Seeberg, Johnny Dyreborg, Thomas Clausen, Lars Louis Andersen
{"title":"Systematic Review of Workplace Interventions to Support Young Workers’ Safety, Work Environment and Health","authors":"Emil Sundstrup, Karina Glies Vincents Seeberg, Johnny Dyreborg, Thomas Clausen, Lars Louis Andersen","doi":"10.1007/s10926-024-10186-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Purpose</h3><p>This systematic review investigates the effectiveness of workplace interventions to support young workers’ work environment, safety and health.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>A systematic search was conducted in bibliographic databases including PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection and PsycInfo for English or Scandinavian articles published from 2007 to 2022. The PICO strategy guided the assessment of study relevance and the bibliographical search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs in which (1) participants were young workers (mean age: 15–29), (2) interventions were initiated and/or carried out at the workplace, (3) a comparison group was included, and (4) an outcome measure related to work environment, safety and health was reported. We categorized each included study using the intervention classification framework. The quality assessment and evidence synthesis adhered to the guidelines developed by the Institute for Work &amp; Health (Toronto, Canada).</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>A total of 33 high and medium quality studies showed a moderate level of evidence for no benefit of ‘Mental training’ on stress. We found limited evidence of a positive effect of the following intervention types: ‘Attitude and belief’ on mental health problems, ‘Behavior based’ on anxiety, and ‘Multifaceted’ on hand eczema. We found limited evidence for no benefit of the following intervention types: ‘Mental training’ on mental health problems, and ‘Physiological modifications’ on musculoskeletal disorders. The remaining intervention types showed mixed or insufficient evidence.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusions</h3><p>Except for a moderate level of evidence for no benefit of ‘Mental training’ on stress, the evidence synthesis recommends, that there is not enough evidence from the scientific literature to guide current practices. The results emphasizes a strong need for high quality interventions specifically aiming at increasing or maintaining young workers’ work environment, safety and health. Included studies focused mainly on individual measures, highlighting the need for studies investigating possible preventive measures at the group or organizational level.</p>","PeriodicalId":48035,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-024-10186-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

This systematic review investigates the effectiveness of workplace interventions to support young workers’ work environment, safety and health.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted in bibliographic databases including PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection and PsycInfo for English or Scandinavian articles published from 2007 to 2022. The PICO strategy guided the assessment of study relevance and the bibliographical search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs in which (1) participants were young workers (mean age: 15–29), (2) interventions were initiated and/or carried out at the workplace, (3) a comparison group was included, and (4) an outcome measure related to work environment, safety and health was reported. We categorized each included study using the intervention classification framework. The quality assessment and evidence synthesis adhered to the guidelines developed by the Institute for Work & Health (Toronto, Canada).

Results

A total of 33 high and medium quality studies showed a moderate level of evidence for no benefit of ‘Mental training’ on stress. We found limited evidence of a positive effect of the following intervention types: ‘Attitude and belief’ on mental health problems, ‘Behavior based’ on anxiety, and ‘Multifaceted’ on hand eczema. We found limited evidence for no benefit of the following intervention types: ‘Mental training’ on mental health problems, and ‘Physiological modifications’ on musculoskeletal disorders. The remaining intervention types showed mixed or insufficient evidence.

Conclusions

Except for a moderate level of evidence for no benefit of ‘Mental training’ on stress, the evidence synthesis recommends, that there is not enough evidence from the scientific literature to guide current practices. The results emphasizes a strong need for high quality interventions specifically aiming at increasing or maintaining young workers’ work environment, safety and health. Included studies focused mainly on individual measures, highlighting the need for studies investigating possible preventive measures at the group or organizational level.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对支持青年工人安全、工作环境和健康的工作场所干预措施的系统性审查
目的 本系统综述调查了工作场所干预措施对支持青年工人工作环境、安全和健康的有效性。方法 在 PubMed、Web of Science Core Collection 和 PsycInfo 等文献数据库中对 2007 年至 2022 年发表的英语或斯堪的纳维亚语文章进行了系统检索。在 PICO 策略的指导下,我们对研究的相关性进行了评估,并对随机对照试验(RCT)和非 RCT 进行了文献检索,其中:(1)参与者为青年工人(平均年龄:15-29 岁);(2)干预措施是在工作场所发起和/或实施的;(3)纳入了对比组;(4)报告了与工作环境、安全和健康相关的结果测量。我们使用干预分类框架对每项纳入的研究进行了分类。结果 共有 33 项高、中质量的研究显示,中等程度的证据表明 "心理训练 "对压力无益。我们发现有限的证据表明以下干预类型具有积极作用:"态度和信念 "对心理健康问题有积极作用,"基于行为的 "对焦虑有积极作用,"多方面 "对手部湿疹有积极作用。我们发现了有限的证据,证明以下干预类型无益:"心理训练 "对心理健康问题无益,"生理调整 "对肌肉骨骼疾病无益。结论除了 "心理训练 "对压力无益的中等程度证据外,证据综述建议,没有足够的科学文献证据来指导当前的实践。研究结果强调,亟需采取高质量的干预措施,以改善或维护青年工人的工作环境、安全和健康。所纳入的研究主要集中在个人措施方面,强调需要对团体或组织层面的可能预防措施进行调查研究。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
12.10%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: The Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation is an international forum for the publication of peer-reviewed original papers on the rehabilitation, reintegration, and prevention of disability in workers. The journal offers investigations involving original data collection and research synthesis (i.e., scoping reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses). Papers derive from a broad array of fields including rehabilitation medicine, physical and occupational therapy, health psychology and psychiatry, orthopedics, oncology, occupational and insurance medicine, neurology, social work, ergonomics, biomedical engineering, health economics, rehabilitation engineering, business administration and management, and law.  A single interdisciplinary source for information on work disability rehabilitation, the Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation helps to advance the scientific understanding, management, and prevention of work disability.
期刊最新文献
Test-Retest Reliability, Clinical Usefulness, and Telephone Application of the Work Limitation Questionnaire in Individuals Who Returned to Work After Stroke. Workplace Accommodations and the Labor Force Status of Persons with Disabilities. The Era of Technology in Healthcare-An Evaluation of Telerehabilitation on Client Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Psychological Service Utilization and its Impact on Return to Work in Vocational Retraining Centers: A Cohort Study Correction: Tensions of Low-Back Pain and Lifting; Bridging Clinical Low-Back Pain and Occupational Lifting Guidelines.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1