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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2.0 Materials and methodsObservational and intervention studies were systematically reviewed usingprocesses developed by Cochrane (6), Coté (3) and Slavin (5). A review teamof professionals including both researchers and practitioners participated.Team members were invited to participate based on their expertise inoccupational medicine, safety management/engineering, epidemiologicintervention studies, organizational psychology, disability managementand/or their experience conducting systematic reviews.The more extensive IPC review encompassed the safety culture/climate andIPC measurement tool literature. Scoping reviews of the sustainability ofsafety culture/climate and IPC measurement tools were also conducted.Scoping reviews provide a description of the breadth of the literature andthemes that emerge in each area, rather than a full synthesis of findings. Theresults from these reviews are presented in other manuscripts.The basic steps of the systematic review follow a standard protocol (2; 7; 1)and are:Step 1 Formulate review questions and search terms.Step 2 Identify articles that are relevant to the review questions and areexpected to be found by the search (“must-have” articles).Step 3 Conduct stakeholder meetings to receive input from target audiencesregarding the relevance of the search terms and questions.Step 4 Contact content experts to identify key articles (including greyliterature).Step 5 Conduct literature search and pool articles with those submitted byexperts.Step 6 Level 1 review: Select articles for inclusion based on relevance to thereview questions and quality screening criteria.• Identify articles relevant to the scoping reviews.• Summarize scoping review articles.Step 7 Level 2 review: Assess quality of relevant articles and calculate aquality score.Step 8 Level 3 review: Conduct data extraction of relevant articles.Step 9 Conduct evidence synthesis.Step 10 Present results to stakeholders.Step 11 Prepare report incorporating stakeholder input.The review team developed and reached consensus on the IPC reviewquestions and the breadth of the scoping reviews. The questions wereexamined by considering both primary and secondary prevention studies.The review was limited to articles published or in press in the English,Spanish or French languages, in peer-reviewed publications, from 19706 Institute for Work & Health
forward. In 1970, the Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSHA) wasenacted in the United States, where the majority of the literature was expectedto originate. Book chapters and conference proceedings were excluded unlesssuggested by content experts (experts are listed in Appendix A). The primaryreasons for the stated limitations were the language proficiency of the teamand the time available to complete the review steps.A sound literature search required defining the key terms in the reviewquestions. The identified terms determined the breadth of the search. Thethree key definitions needed prior to performing the literature search were for:injury/illness prevention and loss control programs, injury/illness outcomesand workplace/workers.Injury/illness prevention and loss control programs (IPCs)Many concepts and definitions were reviewed to determine how to best defineinjury/illness prevention and loss control programs. The followingframework was taken and adapted from a 1976 Professional Safety article,reprinted in 2003, which was written by Ted Ferry to help describe IPCs (8).In a workplace, the planning process begins with determining organizationalobjectives. The planning next turns to policies, procedures and practices(what he calls “performance”) used to achieve objectives. There are threefunctional levels in most organizations. The policy level is associated withtop management. The procedures level is a function of middle management,while actual work practices are at a lower or general worker level. Functionaldivisions by organizational level are seldom this clear-cut and are oftenknown by other names. The policies, procedures and practices combine tocreate workplace IPCs.What separates prevention strategies and control strategies is not absolute;prevention is considered to be the activities that focus on preventing injuries,while control strategies focus on minimizing losses associated with injuriesonce they have occurred. This approach to planning provides a practicalexplanation of IPCs.In this review, some programs and policies that are often considered part of acompany’s IPC were excluded from the search because their effects in theworkplace were not expected to be generalizable to other IPCs. Programs andpolicies that addressed the following areas were excluded: employeeassistance programs (EAP), violence prevention, substance abuse, Americanswith Disabilities Act (ADA), quality management, health-care utilization andmental health/illness.Studies that addressed regulatory programs with injury/illnesses and/orworkers’ compensation claims as the outcome were included. Programs thatA systematic review of injury/illness prevention and loss controlprograms (IPCs)7
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: employers with valuable information
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 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?