Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10474531›Full record

SynthesisOccupational and environmental medicine1999

Evaluation research in occupational health services: general principles and a systematic review of empirical studies.

C T Hulshof, J H Verbeek, F J van Dijk, W E van der Weide, I T Braam

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Occupational and environmental medicine, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 88 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Evaluation of medical decisions' effectiveness: a 4-year evidence-based study in a health care setting.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2008
    Article
  17. Agreement of medical decisions in occupational health as a quality requirement.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2006
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Evaluation of the effectiveness of pre-employment screening.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2004
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

C T HulshofCoronel Institute for Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. c.t.hulshof@amc.uva.nl
J H Verbeek
F J van Dijk
W E van der Weide
I T Braam
University of Amsterdam · NLAcademic Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo study the nature and extent of evaluation research in occupational health services (OHSs).

methodsLiterature review of evaluation research in OHSs. On the basis of a conceptual model of OHS evaluation, empirical studies are categorised into aspects of input, process, output, outcome, and OHS core activities.

resultsMany methods to evaluate OHSs or OHS activities exist, depending on the objective and object of evaluation. The amount of empirical studies on evaluation of OHSs or OHS activities that met the non-restrictive inclusion criteria, was remarkably limited. Most of the 52 studies were more descriptive than evaluative. The methodological quality of most studies was not high. A differentiated picture of the evidence of effectiveness of OHSs arises. Occupational health consultations and occupational rehabilitation are hardly studied despite much time spent on the consultation by occupational physicians in most countries. The lack of effectiveness and efficiency of the pre-employment examination should lead to its abandonment as a means of selection of personnel by OHSs. Periodic health monitoring or surveillance, and education on occupational health hazards can be carried out with reasonable process quality. Identification and evaluation of occupational health hazards by a workplace survey can be done with a high output quality, which, however, does not guarantee a favourable outcome.

conclusionsAlthough rigorous study designs are not always applicable or feasible in daily practice, much more effort should be directed at the scientific evaluation of OHSs and OHS instruments. To develop evidence-based occupational health care the quality of evaluation studies should be improved. In particular, process and outcome of consultation and rehabilitation activities of occupational physicians need to be studied more.

Indexed as

Occupational Health ServicesEvaluation Studies as TopicHealth Services ResearchHumansModels, TheoreticalOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CareResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID10474531
PMCPMC1757745
OpenAlexW2101832695

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.