Medical occupational check-ups during the COVID-19 pandemic in the European Union.

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH European Journal of Public Health Pub Date : 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1093/eurpub/ckae103
Matyáš Fošum, Ladislav Štěpánek, Kateřina Ivanová, Marie Nakládalová
{"title":"Medical occupational check-ups during the COVID-19 pandemic in the European Union.","authors":"Matyáš Fošum, Ladislav Štěpánek, Kateřina Ivanová, Marie Nakládalová","doi":"10.1093/eurpub/ckae103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Given the enormous scale of the COVID-19 pandemic affecting the healthcare sector, limited human resource capacity, and efforts to prevent the spread of COVID-19, occupational health protection could not escape changes. The aim was to identify and compare the regulations regarding the provision of medical occupational check-ups (MOCs) during the pandemic in all European Union member states (EU MS). The study employed the Delphi method, involving experts from EU MS to assess MOC regulations between January 2020 and May 2021. Experts were queried regarding the existence and specifics of MOC regulations, particularly for entrance and periodic MOCs at hazardous and non-hazardous workplaces. Out of the 27 EU MS surveyed, 13 EU MS did not regulate MOCs, while 14 EU MS (51.6%) regulated the provision of MOCs. The regulations were changes in the way MOCs were provided, modifications (postponement in time, alternative provision, e.g. using telemedicine or online connection, or replacing the medical certificate of fitness to work based on the MOC with a declaration by the worker), or interruption without compensation, even for hazardous works. The regulations were in effect for different lengths of time and varied in some countries during the study period. The cumulative duration of MOC interruptions in all EU MS during the study period was 137 months (7.5% of the cumulative study period of 1836 months). Given the different approaches to the provision of MOCs in EU MS, it has proved appropriate to develop an optimal unified framework plan for future similar situations.</p>","PeriodicalId":12059,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Public Health","volume":" ","pages":"753-759"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11293833/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckae103","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Given the enormous scale of the COVID-19 pandemic affecting the healthcare sector, limited human resource capacity, and efforts to prevent the spread of COVID-19, occupational health protection could not escape changes. The aim was to identify and compare the regulations regarding the provision of medical occupational check-ups (MOCs) during the pandemic in all European Union member states (EU MS). The study employed the Delphi method, involving experts from EU MS to assess MOC regulations between January 2020 and May 2021. Experts were queried regarding the existence and specifics of MOC regulations, particularly for entrance and periodic MOCs at hazardous and non-hazardous workplaces. Out of the 27 EU MS surveyed, 13 EU MS did not regulate MOCs, while 14 EU MS (51.6%) regulated the provision of MOCs. The regulations were changes in the way MOCs were provided, modifications (postponement in time, alternative provision, e.g. using telemedicine or online connection, or replacing the medical certificate of fitness to work based on the MOC with a declaration by the worker), or interruption without compensation, even for hazardous works. The regulations were in effect for different lengths of time and varied in some countries during the study period. The cumulative duration of MOC interruptions in all EU MS during the study period was 137 months (7.5% of the cumulative study period of 1836 months). Given the different approaches to the provision of MOCs in EU MS, it has proved appropriate to develop an optimal unified framework plan for future similar situations.

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
欧盟 COVID-19 大流行期间的职业体检。
鉴于 COVID-19 大流行影响医疗保健部门的规模巨大、人力资源能力有限以及为防止 COVID-19 传播所做的努力,职业健康保护不能逃避改变。本研究旨在确定和比较欧盟所有成员国(EU MS)在大流行期间提供职业体检(MOCs)的相关规定。研究采用了德尔菲法,由欧盟成员国的专家参与评估 2020 年 1 月至 2021 年 5 月期间的职业体检法规。专家们被问及是否存在平等机会委员会法规及其具体内容,特别是危险和非危险工作场所的入场平等机会委员会和定期平等机会委员会。在接受调查的 27 个欧盟成员国中,有 13 个欧盟成员国没有对海洋学和海洋气象学进行监管,有 14 个欧盟成员国(51.6%)对提供海洋学和海洋气象学进行了监管。这些管理条例改变了提供医疗事故证明的方式,对其进行了修改(推迟时间、替代性提供,如使用远程医疗或在线连接,或用工人的声明取代基于医疗事故证明的适合工作的医疗证明),或无偿中断,即使是对危险工作也是如此。在研究期间,这些规定的有效期长短不一,在一些国家还有所不同。在研究期间,所有欧盟成员国的最低工资中断时间累计为 137 个月(占研究期间累计 1836 个月的 7.5%)。鉴于欧盟成员国在提供增支经营成本方面采取了不同的方法,事实证明制定一个最佳的统一框架计划以应对未来的类似情况是合适的。
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
European Journal of Public Health
European Journal of Public Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
2.30%
发文量
2039
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Public Health (EJPH) is a multidisciplinary journal aimed at attracting contributions from epidemiology, health services research, health economics, social sciences, management sciences, ethics and law, environmental health sciences, and other disciplines of relevance to public health. The journal provides a forum for discussion and debate of current international public health issues, with a focus on the European Region. Bi-monthly issues contain peer-reviewed original articles, editorials, commentaries, book reviews, news, letters to the editor, announcements of events, and various other features.
期刊最新文献
Access points to different levels of health care over 13 years. Utilization behaviour in a changing health care system. Results of a three-wave cross-sectional series in Austria. Causal association of physical activity with lymphoma risk: a Mendelian randomization analysis. Public health approaches to 'Leave No One Behind' in heatwave resilience: insights from the UK. Intermarriage and mortality among Finnish migrants in Sweden: a prospective register study using binational data. Lessons learned from Taiwan's response to the COVID-19 pandemic: successes, challenges, and implications for future pandemics.
×
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