Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30469425›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2018

Methodological Challenges in the Economic Evaluation of Occupational Health and Safety Programmes.

Jonas Steel, Lode Godderis, Jeroen Luyten

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Emerging Issues in Occupational Safety and Health.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018
    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

3 authors.

Jonas SteelLeuven Institute for Healthcare Policy, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. jonas.steel@kuleuven.be.ORCID 0000-0002-3303-8289
Lode GodderisEnvironment and Health, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. lode.godderis@kuleuven.be.ORCID 0000-0003-4764-8835
Jeroen LuytenLeuven Institute for Healthcare Policy, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. jeroen.luyten@kuleuven.be.ORCID 0000-0001-6398-4025

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An emerging issue in occupational health and safety (OHS) is that interventions increasingly have to demonstrate that they offer sufficient value for money. To this end, the last decennia have seen more and more economic evaluation methods being employed in this field. However, several recent publications have indicated that many of the published studies suffer from important shortcomings. This paper aims to highlight difficulties in assessing the value of OHS by use of current economic evaluation methods. First, a summary framework presents an overview of the costs and benefits relevant for OHS interventions. Next, three elements from this framework are selected that are at the same time crucial to OHS value, but also challenging to measure and monetise: Effects on worker productivity, 'intangible' benefits, such as reputation effects, and the influence of the broader legal⁻fiscal context in which an intervention takes place. The following sections then discuss the following research questions for each of these elements: Why is it difficult to exclude these factors from OHS economic evaluations? Why do they pose a challenge to the quality of economic evaluations in OHS? How can they be included, and what are the known advantages and disadvantages of the methods to measure these factors? Future work should investigate (and standardise) better methods to include these elements.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisHumansOccupational Health ServicesWorkplaceeconomic evaluationmethodologyoccupational health and safetyproductivityworkplace

Identifiers

PMID30469425
PMCPMC6265704

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.