ArticleInternational journal of occupational and environmental health2016
Work accident victims: a comparison between non-standard and standard workers in Belgium.
Article in International journal 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Considering Work Arrangement as an "Exposure" in Occupational Health Research and Practice.Frontiers in public health · 2020Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe fast growth of non-standard employment in developed countries highlights the importance of studying the influence of contract type on worker's safety and health.
objectiveThe main purpose of our study is to investigate whether non-standard workers are more injured than standard workers or not. Additionally, other risk factors for occupational accidents are investigated.
methodsData from the Belgian surveys on work ability in 2009 and 2011 are used. During their annual occupational health examination, workers were asked to fill in a self-administered questionnaire. In total, 1886 complete responses are collected and analyzed using logistic regression.
resultsTemporary workers did not have higher injury rates than permanent workers [OR 0.5, 95% confidence interval 0.2-1.2]. Low-educated, less-experienced workers and those exposed to dangerous conditions are more frequent victims of occupational accidents.
conclusionThe present data do not support the hypothesis that non-standard workers have more injuries than standard workers. Our results about occupational accidents derived from a non-representative sample of the Belgian workforce and cannot be generalized due to the heterogeneity in job organization and labor regulations between countries. Further research is needed to extend our findings and to seek other factors that may be associated with work accidents.
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.