SynthesisInternational archives of occupational and environmental health2015
Preventive occupational health interventions in the meat processing industry in upper-middle and high-income countries: a systematic review on their effectiveness.
Synthesis in International archives of occupational and environmental health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evidence of Workplace Interventions-A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Pooled it
- Effectiveness and Cost-benefit Evaluation of a Comprehensive Workers' Health Surveillance Program for Sustainable Employability of Meat Processing Workers.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2018Trial
- Prevalence, types and outcome of injuries among abattoir workers in Ghana.BMC research notes · 2024Article
- Is a One Health Approach Utilized for Q Fever Control? A Comprehensive Literature Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the effectiveness of occupational health interventions in the meat processing industry on work and health-related outcomes.
methodsA systematic literature review was performed. PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library were searched. Studies were included when they reported on an intervention among employees in the meat processing industry and with outcomes related to work or health. Studies were assessed on risk of bias, and data were synthesized by type of intervention.
resultsA total of 13 articles reporting on two randomized controlled trials and nine non-randomized intervention studies were retrieved. Studies were categorized into three topics: ergonomics programs, skin protection, and Q fever vaccination. All studies had high risk of bias. Based on four studies, there was limited evidence for workplace health and safety programs showing reductions in musculoskeletal injury severity, reduction of lost work days, and reduction of costs and claims for several musculoskeletal disorders. There was limited evidence for added rest breaks resulting in improved productivity at the end of a workday and in reductions of perceived discomfort in various body regions at the end of the workday. One study on skin protection showed reductions of eczema prevalence, although evidence was moderate. Based on four studies, there was high-quality evidence for strong effectiveness of Q fever vaccination.
conclusionThis review presents evidence for the effectiveness of a variety of workplace interventions. There was limited evidence for effectiveness of ergonomic interventions, moderate evidence of a skin protection intervention, and strong evidence for Q fever vaccination.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.