Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32483871›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of industrial medicine2020

Evaluating Oregon's occupational public health surveillance system based on the CDC updated guidelines.

Liu Yang, Crystal Weston, Curtis Cude, Laurel Kincl

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of industrial medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Proposed approaches for public health surveillance: A literature review for the Canadian National HIV Surveillance Program.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

4 authors.

Liu YangSchool of Biological and Population Health Sciences, College of Public Health and Human Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.ORCID 0000-0002-6154-4015
Crystal WestonPublic Health Division, Oregon Health Authority, Portland, Oregon.
Curtis CudePublic Health Division, Oregon Health Authority, Portland, Oregon.
Laurel KinclSchool of Biological and Population Health Sciences, College of Public Health and Human Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.ORCID 0000-0003-1883-9456

Funding

Oregon Worker Illness &Injury Prevention ProgramU60OH008472 · OH · PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES · PI CUDE, CURTIS, OLSON, RYAN · 2005 to 2021
$5.4M
NIOSH CDC HHS U60 OH008472
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Oregon Occupational Public Health Program (OOPHP) monitors occupational health indicators (OHIs) to inform occupational safety and health (OSH) surveillance. In 2018, OOPHP evaluated the performance of the OSH surveillance system and identified areas for future improvement.

methodsFollowing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated guidelines for evaluating public health surveillance systems, the OOPHP evaluation team engaged internal and external stakeholders using a mixed-methods approach. Operational measures for ten surveillance attributes were developed. Multiple data collection methods resulted in credible evidence for evaluation conclusions. Analyses included summary statistics and qualitative analysis of interviews, a focus group, and online surveys.

resultsTwenty stakeholders took part in this evaluation, with an average participation rate of 55%. Results showed the Oregon OSH surveillance system was simple, flexible, and highly accepted by its stakeholders. Funding security presents challenges for stability. A lack of timeliness of OHIs, low relevance of OHIs to local OSH issues, and the system's ineffectual data dissemination all limit the usefulness of the OSH surveillance system. A review of key data sources for the system showed good data quality and predictive value positive, but relatively poor sensitivity and representativeness.

conclusionsThe evaluation team successfully adapted attributes and examples in the CDC guidelines to this Oregon OSH surveillance evaluation. The evaluation findings have informed the development of recommendations for improvements to OOPHP's OSH surveillance. Future research is needed to develop guidance specific to OSH surveillance evaluation.

Indexed as

Occupational HealthCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.Guidelines as TopicHumansOregonPublic Health SurveillanceStakeholder ParticipationUnited Statesoccupational health indicatorsoccupational safety and health surveillancesurveillance evaluation

Identifiers

PMID32483871
PMCPMC7383881

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.