A systematic review of injury/illness prevention and loss control ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 1: Level 1 – Screening questions and the response that leads to exclusion*Intervention Yes No Unclear Comments1. Did the study occur in aworkplace?If no,exclude2. Does the study report on IPC orIPC measurement tools?If no,exclude3. Is reference from a peer-reviewedpublication (in press or accepted forIf no,excludepublication)?Study Parameters Yes No Unclear Comments4. Is article a review, commentary,letter to the editor, editorial or 2If yes,excludepages or less in length?5. Language of article in English,Spanish or French.If no,exclude6. Is the outcome injuries/illnesses orworker compensation claim/costs?If no,exclude7. Is there a control or concurrentcomparison group?If no,exclude* An exclusionary response to any one question would exclude the articlefrom further review. Question #7 required consensus between tworeviewers.A possibility of selection bias existed at Level 1 since the review was done bya single reviewer. A quality control (QC) check was done at this level by anindependent reviewer (QC reviewer) using questions 1 – 5 from Table 1.To do the QC review, a random 1% sample including studies that wereexcluded and included from each reviewer was selected. Responses from theQC reviewer were entered into a spreadsheet and compared to the responsesfrom individual reviewers.The QC reviewer's responses matched the review team’s responses forapproximately 90% of the articles. The remaining 10% of the articles wereincluded by the QC reviewer and had been excluded by the review team.Upon reviewing the articles, it was determined that all the articles would havebeen excluded had the full article been available to the QC reviewer.Therefore, we consider the quality of the Level 1 review process acceptable.Review cited references in articles remaining after Level 1 B reviewTo assure that the process captured the literature as comprehensively aspossible, all reference lists for articles continuing to Level 2 were reviewed toascertain any omitted references. All relevant references identified by teammembers at this stage had been identified during the initial search.14 Institute for Work & Health
2.4 Level 2 - Quality AssessmentIn Level 2, articles deemed relevant following the title/abstract and full articlescreening (Level 1 and 1 B review) underwent a methodological qualityassessment (QA). The team developed 16 questions with differentweightings to assess article quality (Table 2). The purpose of the QA stagewas to identify threats to internal and external validity. Stated differently, theQA established the criteria to assess the confidence a person could have thatan observed effect was due to the IPC and not to something else (10). Eacharticle was reviewed independently by two reviewers. To reduce bias,members of each pair were interchanged during the review process.Reviewers were therefore randomly paired with at least two other teammembers. Reviewers were required to reach consensus on all answers.Reviewers did not review articles that they authored, co-authored or consultedon.Table 2: Level 2 - Quality appraisal questions and weightsStudy DesignWeight1. Were time-based comparisons used? 32. Was a random intervention allocation described? 33. Is the research question clearly stated? 2Level of Recruitment4. Was recruitment rate reported? 15. Was the recruitment rate >40%? 26. Were pre-intervention characteristics described? 27. Were there any differences across groups at pre-intervention? 28. Was the loss to follow up (attrition)
Page 1 and 2: A systematic review of injury/illne
Page 3 and 4: Table of ContentsForeword ………
Page 5 and 6: ForewordIn recent years, the Instit
Page 7 and 8: employers with valuable information
Page 9 and 10: forward. In 1970, the Occupational
Page 11 and 12: Figure 1: IPC frameworkInput(to wor
Page 13 and 14: publish the results of the review i
Page 15: A key part of the literature would
Page 19 and 20: allowed us to insure the answers pr
Page 21 and 22: Table 4: Best evidence synthesis gu
Page 23 and 24: Figure 3: Flowchart of systematic r
Page 25 and 26: • Return-to-work/disability manag
Page 27 and 28: etween groups, but only 32% adjuste
Page 29 and 30: Workstationadjustment andtrainingRo
Page 31 and 32: focused on just RTW (Durand et al.
Page 33 and 34: ExerciseThree medium quality studie
Page 35 and 36: compensation and medical bills is m
Page 37 and 38: interventions provide an insufficie
Page 39 and 40: Researchers and practitioners also
Page 41 and 42: 5.0 MessagesBefore making recommend
Page 43 and 44: 1) Of the articles that remained af
Page 45 and 46: 11) Agency for Healthcare Research
Page 47 and 48: Carayon P, Haims MC, Hoonakker PLT,
Page 49 and 50: workers: Randomized controlled work
Page 51 and 52: Nelson NA, Silverstein BA. Workplac
Page 53 and 54: pain in sedentary office workers -
Page 55 and 56: Appendix A: Content expertsNameBarb
Page 57 and 58: Appendix C: Stakeholder search term
Page 59 and 60: Appendix D - Literature search term
Page 61 and 62: A systematic review of injury and i
Page 63 and 64: Zohar DZohar D,Modifying Supervisor
Page 65 and 66: Level 1 Guide for ReviewersThe guid
Page 67 and 68:
Appendix G: Quality Appraisal Revie
Page 69 and 70:
Q4. Were time-based comparisons use
Page 71 and 72:
If there are no major significant d
Page 73 and 74:
Q17. Was the calendar duration of t
Page 75 and 76:
a) YesBaseline differences were obs
Page 77 and 78:
5. List the jurisdiction where the
Page 79 and 80:
have intended to prevent both “as
Page 81 and 82:
Sample SizeEg: C 1 , C 2 , …(or I
Page 83 and 84:
29. If injury rates were calculated
Page 85 and 86:
38. Describe for each injury/illnes
Page 87 and 88:
Appendix J: Quality assessment tabl
Page 89 and 90:
StudyTime-Based ComparisonsRandom A
Page 91 and 92:
Appendix K: Intervention descriptio
Page 93 and 94:
InterventionCategoryErgonomictraini
Page 95 and 96:
InterventionCategoryBricklayingmeth
Page 97 and 98:
InterventionCategoryTraining &equip
Page 99 and 100:
Appendix L: Study description*key t
Page 101 and 102:
InterventioncategoryPrograms(regula
Page 103 and 104:
InterventioncategoryWorkstationadju
Page 105 and 106:
InterventioncategoryErgonomictraini
Page 107 and 108:
InterventioncategoryAuthor, Year QA
Page 109:
InterventioncategoryWorkstationadju
show all

A systematic review of injury/illness prevention and loss control ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?