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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3.0 Results3.1 Literature search and selection for relevanceIn total, 12,393 articles were identified in the literature search using the termsin Appendix D. This number reflects the total number of articles obtainedafter merging the different databases, removing duplicate articles and addingthe articles provided by the content experts (Figure 3).A total of 11,492 articles were excluded during Level 1 review of titles andabstracts. The articles were excluded based on the answers to questions 1 – 5in Table 1.A total of 901 articles proceeded to Level 1 B review. Using the exclusioncriteria in questions 1 – 7 in Table 1, the full articles were reviewed by twoteam members. This led to the exclusion of 709 articles and the identificationof 127 measurement tool studies. (For more details about the number ofarticles excluded by Level 1 and 1 B criteria, see Appendix I).A total of 72 studies proceeded to Level 2 methodological quality assessment.These 72 studies were each reviewed by two reviewers using our qualityassessment questions (see Table 2).Data extraction was completed on the 53 studies, of which nine were highquality and 44 were medium quality. The low quality studies were notincluded in data extraction.3.2 Methodological quality assessmentThe 72 studies that met the relevance criteria were assessed formethodological quality using 16 quality criteria (See Appendix J). Thesecriteria addressed important aspects of assessing internal and externalvalidity. The criteria were weighted according to the importance of each itemas decided by the entire review team.The weighted criteria were used to develop a normalized quality score foreach study. The studies were placed into three quality categories: high (85 –100%), medium (50-84%) and low (0-49%) based on the weighted scores ofthe 16 quality criteria. Only high and medium quality studies were includedin the data extraction process.20 Institute for Work & Health
Figure 3: Flowchart of systematic review processLiterature SearchEMBASE(4,761)CINAHL(2,240)MEDLINE(4,751)BusinessSource Premier(2,038)Psyc Info(1,200)Other(111)Merge databases andremove duplicates: n =12,393Selection for relevance Level 1Exclusion criteria applied totitles and abstracts(Table 1 questions 1 – 5)Studies excluded =11,492Articles moved forwardto Level 1b: n = 901Selection for relevance Level 1 BExclusion criteria applied tofull article(Table 1 questions 1-7)Articles moved forward toQA: n = 72*Studies excluded =709Measurement toolsidentified = 127Methodological Quality Assessment (QA)Full articles quality assessed(Table 2 questions 1-16)High and medium qualityarticles moved forward toDE: n = 53* Two Bohr articles were combined as they were determined to be reporting the same study.This figure also includes measurement tool articles that concerned IPC programs only. TheMartin and Gatty articles and the Hlobil and Staal articles were combined as the papers weredetermined to be reporting on the same studies. The total of 72 includes some measurementtool articles; thus, the numbers for Level 1 B will not add up.A systematic review of injury/illness prevention and loss controlprograms (IPCs)21
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 and 16: A key part of the literature would
Page 17 and 18: 2.4 Level 2 - Quality AssessmentIn
Page 19 and 20: allowed us to insure the answers pr
Page 21: Table 4: Best evidence synthesis gu
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?