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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Level of RecruitmentQ8. Was recruitment rate reported?a) Yesb) Unclearc) NoQ9. Was the recruitment rate >40% for the following? (if yes, then check all thatapply)In relation to each of the levels of recruitment identified below, indicate whether thenumber of eligible participants from the study population that refused to participate inthe study is identified. A greater rate of participation (or recruitment) reduces nonresponsebias. Please report the recruitment rate in the comment box for each level ofrecruitment that is reported and is greater than 40%. Sometimes the information tocalculate a recruitment (or participation rate) must be abstracted from informationreported in tables.a) Employees/workersb) Department/supervisorsc) Organizations/workplaced) Uncleare) Not ApplicableQ10. Were pre-intervention characteristics described? (if yes, then check all thatapply)Indicate if pre-intervention characteristics are described, these may include job relatedfactors, individual characteristics, and factors related to exposures and outcomes (forexample baseline pain levels across groups).a) Employees/workersIndividual level information – for example years on jobb) Department/supervisorsInformation on department level – for example percent femalec) Organizations/workplaceInformation at site level – for example percent of workers in each department[could also include percent females and males]d) Uncleare) Not DescribedQ11. Were there any differences across groups at pre-intervention? (if yes, thencheck all that apply)68 Institute for Work & Health
If there are no major significant differences between the groups on pre-interventioncharacteristics or other demographic variables, one can be confident that selectionbias to participate in the study was minimal and that the results obtained are not likelyaffected by these differences.a) Employees/workersb) Department/supervisorsc) Organizations/workplaced) Uncleare) No Differencesf) Not Reported (More than one group)g) Not Applicable (Only one group)Q12. 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 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 and 68: Appendix G: Quality Appraisal Revie
Page 69: Q4. Were time-based comparisons use
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?