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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

will be quality assessed using both sets of criteria. Examples of IPC measurement toolstudies are organizational policy and practice (OPP) studies and those that involveprimarily psychometric analyses (e.g., and instrument reliability/validity studies).These studies may be cross-sectional. Our primary focus here will be on measurementtools that have been used to assess IPCs and more diagnostic tools like safety climate,safety culture or a standard set of organizational policies or practices – like ergonomicpolicies.a) IPC Measurement Tool Onlyb) IPC Only (Program, Policy or Practice)c) Both IPC Program and IPC Measurement Toold) UnclearAll questions following Q2 do not need to be answered if the answer to Q2 is “a”The remaining questions are for IPC studies only. If a study includes both IPCs andIPC measurement tools, answer the remaining questions focusing on the IPC portion ofthe study.Q3. Were concurrent comparison groups(s) used? (choose only one answer)A comparison group is important to document and account for the potential effects ofunexpected secular changes. Having a closely analogous referent group, with similarexposure to causal risk factors as the intervention subjects is a major strength of aworkplace intervention study. A comparison group can receive a ‘placebo; and thus beconsidered a comparison. By ‘concurrent’ it is expected the information on the controlor comparison group is collected at the same times as the treatment group. Comparisongroups are actual groups of individuals; statistically generated references created forcomparison do not constitute a control.a) Yes; single referent groupOne comparison group was used against which the intervention’s effect wasevaluated.b) Yes; multiple referent groupsMore than one comparison group was used to evaluate the intervention’s effects.Referents can be within the same plant (such as different departments), or outside theintervention plant (such as a similar company in the same industry, etc.) and mayhave received no interventions, or some interventions that differ from those of thestudy group.c) Uncleard) No Control or Comparison GroupNo concurrent comparison groups were used in the study.All questions following Q3 do not need to be answered if the answer to Q3 is “d”66 Institute for Work & Health
Q4. Were time-based comparisons used? (choose only one answer)a) Yes; pre-postEvaluations of the intervention took place at two time points – before (or at thebeginning stages of the intervention) and after (or towards the end) the intervention.b) Unclearc) NoEvaluation took place at only one time point during the study, i.e. the study is crosssectionalor post-intervention only.Q5. Was a random intervention allocation described?Inadequate description of the exposure/intervention allocation strategy makes itimpossible to reproduce the intervention in another population. This should be clearlystated in the study to allow for interventions to be reproducible by others. Effects ofconfounding may be reduced when participants are matched. However, randomallocation of treatment/intervention conditions is the preferred scientific method as it ismost likely to control for confounding.a) Yes; randomStudy participants, work units or organizations are described as randomly receivingthe intervention. Randomization of intervention conditions is typically preferredbecause it avoids systematic confounding by known and unknown factors.b) Unclearc) NoQ6. Is the research question clearly stated?If the aim of the study is not clearly stated then results are likely of limited value. Aclear, explicit statement of objectives should be included in the study.a) Yesb) Unclearc) NoQ7. Please indicate which levels of recruitment were described (check all that apply)Recruitment is considered the effort by the investigator to obtain participation byspecific groups or individuals. Workplace interventions can typically occur at differentlevels. It is important to distinguish between the various levels so that results can beinterpreted in relation to the level at which interventions were applied. Also,differences in recruitment strategies for individuals, groups and workplaces could leadto differences in characteristics of the participants.a) Employees/workersb) Department/supervisorsc) Organizations/workplaced) Uncleare) Not DescribedA systematic review of injury and illness prevention and loss controlPrograms (IPCs)67
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 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: Appendix G: Quality Appraisal Revie
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?