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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Caution: Do not describe the intervention in great detail. It will be described in Q12.*Use notation (I 1 –Intervention #1, I 2 –Intervention #2, C 1 Control Group #1, C 2Control Group #2, I 1 C –crossover with intervention first, I 2 C –crossover withintervention second).Randomized Field TrialNon-randomized Field Trial with concurrent comparison groupRandomized Cross-Over DesignNon-randomized Cross-Over DesignPre-post Design with NO controlOtherRandomized Field Trial -a field study where the intervention assignment is randomized.R O X OO ONon-randomized Field Trial with concurrent comparison group – a field study where theintervention assignment is not randomized and the information on the controls is collectedconcurrently with the information for the treatment.O X OO ORandomized Cross-Over Design: –a field study where two groups receive the intervention atdifferent times and group assignment is randomized.R O X O OO O X ONon-randomized Cross-Over Design –a field study where two groups receive theintervention at different times and group assignment is not randomized.O X O OO O X O11. What type of prevention did the study investigate (choose only one)? Indicatewhether the study evaluated a primary or secondary prevention/intervention. The classicaldefinition of primary prevention is defined as an intervention aimed at preventing healthypeople from progressing on to symptom or disorder. The classical definition for tertiaryprevention is defined as intervention aiming to prevent people with clinically recognizeddisorders from further morbidity and mortality. Although these definitions are accepted inpublic health literature, to be comparable to other IW&H reviews, we will use the termsprimary and secondary (instead of tertiary) for those definitions.To determine what the authors “aimed” to do, reviewers must only answer based on whatwas reported by the authors. Therefore, any studies where clinical diagnoses or symptoms (aspart of a case definition) were used to identify and include participants with disorders will beclassified as secondary prevention. If a study excluded employees with clinical diagnoses orsymptoms to create a cohort of individuals free from symptoms this would be considered aprimary prevention. If no such exclusions were made, then the authors will be assumed to76 Institute for Work & Health
have intended to prevent both “asymptomatic” employees from developing symptom ordisorder and “symptomatic” individuals from further morbidity and mortality, and thereforewill be classified as both. If you choose other please provide details.Primary PreventionSecondary PreventionBothOtherIntervention Characteristics:12. Describe all interventions evaluated.If control received some treatment (or portion of an intervention) please describe as it will beimportant in understanding what is being evaluated.E.g.: I 1 - exercise ("training to improve physical fitness"); I 2 -ergonomic trainings" toimprove lifting technique"; C 1 -no exercise and no "training"*Organize your description of interventions according to I 1 , I 2 , C, I 1 C, and I 2 C13. Was there confirmation the intervention occurred (check all that apply)? Providedetails in the comment box to support your response.E.g.: “exercise” could be confirmed either by self-report in exercise logs, attendance inclasses, or questionnaire report of exercises done; “ergonomics training” from above couldbe confirmed by researchers observing “correct” ergonomic lifting technique.Direct Measurement by EquipmentObservationSelf ReportNone14. How long after the intervention implementation did confirmation occur? Monitoringof attendance would be confirmation “during” the intervention. A questionnaire of selfreportedexercise one month after the intervention would be 1 month.15. What was the duration of the intervention in months/days/hours? (Note this is notthe follow-up time but the actual duration of the intervention implementation). Indicatein months if possible, if not in weeks, days etc. or enter “NP”.*Use notation (I 1 , I 2 , I 1 C, and I 2 C) for different intervention groups.E.g., Baseline data collected on May 1st, 2000. Intervention implemented June 1st, 2000continues until June 1 st , 2001. Follow-up data collected on May 1st 2002. Note thisinformation may be presented in a number of ways (tables, figures, timelines etc). In thisexample the duration of intervention is I 1 = 12 months.For “administrative” data it is best to establish what the intervention period is first (e.g., liftswere installed between April 2002 to July 2002).A systematic review of injury and illness prevention and loss control (IPC) programs77
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 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: 5. List the jurisdiction where the
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?