ArticleJournal of occupational health2020
Factors that influence occupational physicians' decision to issue an employer warning in Japan.
Article in Journal of occupational health, 2020. 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.
- Article
- Factors that influence occupational physicians' decision to issue an employer warning in Japan.Journal of occupational 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo elucidate the factors that influence occupational physicians' decision to issue an employer warning.
methodsThe interview was conducted with 10 Japan Society for Occupational Health certified occupational physicians (COPs) and certified senior occupational physicians (CSOPs) to create nine fictive scenarios in which an occupational physician may need to consider issuing a warning. Sixteen CSOPs assessed the seriousness of the problem in each of nine scenarios where they may need to consider issuing an employer warning. Next, using a survey questionnaire, 597 COPs and CSOPs were asked to rate how likely they were to issue a warning in each of the nine scenarios, and answer items on their characteristics and number of previously issued warnings. A multilevel logistic regression analysis nested for various scenarios was used to assess the odds ratio (OR) of being likely to issue a warning.
resultsValid questionnaires were obtained from 117 participants (19.6%). The ORs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were as follows: mean score of seriousness of the problem, 5.90 (4.50-7.75); years of experience as occupational physician, 1.04 (1.02-1.06); women, 1.75 (1.20-2.54); being a part-time occupational physician without in-house experience, 2.08 (1.31-3.29); and having previously issued two or more times warnings, 1.99 (1.29-3.06), compared with those who had never issued a warning.
conclusionsOccupational physicians' likelihood to issue a warning was associated with the seriousness of the problem as assessed in various scenarios, years of experience as occupational physician, gender, employment type, experience as in-house occupational physician, and number of past warnings.
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.