ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021
SARS-CoV-2 and the Risk Assessment Document in Italian Work; Specific or Generic Risk Even If Aggravated?
Review in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intention to leave, depersonalisation and job satisfaction in physicians and nurses: a cross-sectional study in Europe.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Alcohol and Nicotine Use among Adolescents: An Observational Study in a Sicilian Cohort of High School Students.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Observational
- Article
- Alcohol Abuse and Insomnia Disorder: Focus on a Group of Night and Day Workers.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Occupational Safety of Municipal Police Officers: Assessing the Vulnerability and Riskiness of Police Officers' Work.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In December 2019, several cases of atypical pneumonia were detected in Wuhan city, Hubei province, inland China. The initial outbreak was of considerable size first in China subsequently spread to the rest of the world. Immediately after the epidemic (which according to the World Health Organization had risen to pandemic status), the problem of whether or not to update the occupational risk assessment arose, also considering how the biological risk from SARS CoV-2 should be understood: specific or generic. To this end, we conducted a literature review to identify national health legislation and policies, examining how Italy has addressed the COVID-19 emergency in occupational health planning, in order to develop considerations on the need to update the Risk Assessment Document following the pandemic status. The data that emerged from the review of current legislation allowed us to conclude that the risk from SARS-CoV-2 is in most work activities to be understood as a generic or aggravated generic risk, requiring the employer to apply and control the preventive measures suggested by health authorities to contain the spread of the virus.
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.