ArticleInternational archives of occupational and environmental health2016
Improving fit to work assessments for rail safety workers by exploring work limitations.
Article in International archives of occupational and environmental health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mapping the evidence on the assessment of fitness to work at heights: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2025Article
- The new why when designing mandatory medical examinations.Occupational medicine (Oxford, England) · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe aim to provide evidence for improving fit to work assessments for rail safety workers and raised the question whether adding an assessment of work limitations is useful. Therefore, we assessed differences in the proportions of perceived work limitations and reported health complaints and whether older age or having health complaints are risk factors for having work limitations.
methodsJob requirements for rail safety workers are 'vigilance and clear judgment', 'good communication abilities', 'sufficient eye sight' and 'task-required physical abilities'. We invited 1000 workers to fill in a questionnaire about perceived work limitations and health problems related to their job requirements. Proportions of the two were compared by using the McNemar test. Associations were analyzed by using univariate logistic regression.
resultsAmong 484 rail safety workers, we found statistically significant differences between the proportions of reported health complaints (2-26 %) and work limitations (10-32 %). No significant associations were found between older age and work limitations, except for workers in the age group 40-50 years regarding physical abilities. This was not found for the age group over 50 years. For each age category, workers reporting health complaints related to 'vigilance and clear judgment' and 'sufficient physical abilities' had a statistically significant increased risk for reporting work limitations as well (ORs 2.4-17.9).
conclusionsOur results indicate that fit to work assessments should include both health complaints and work limitations. Our results do not substantiate the assumption that workers over 40 years of age are at increased risk for work limitations in general.
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.