ReviewZentralblatt fur Arbeitsmedizin, Arbeitsschutz und Ergonomie2022
[Risk assessment for mental stress].
Review in Zentralblatt fur Arbeitsmedizin, Arbeitsschutz und Ergonomie, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the risk assessment for mental stress is to evaluate the hazards associated with the work in order to derive measures for the healthy design of the work. The range of procedures for assessment of mental stress is, however, extensive and unclear. Against this background, this article presents a reduced and structured overview of instruments for social and healthcare services.
methodsA comprehensive search was carried out to identify appropriate tools. Prior to beginning the search, criteria were defined to test the suitability of the identified tools. For one thing, there are minimum requirements that must be fulfilled so that the tool is accepted for the review process. There are also structuring criteria that can be divided into descriptive and evaluative aspects.
resultsThe search identified a total of 83 instruments for risk assessment of mental stress (GBU Psyche), of which 58 were accepted for a further suitability review process following initial evaluation. The comprehensive review of 44 services from the nonsystematic search has so far been completed. Of these, 19 procedures were deemed suitable and are presented in a structured overview matrix. The review of the 14 procedures from the systematic search is projected to be finished by mid-2022 and is part of the continual review process. DISCUSSION: The numerous procedures identified for risk assessment of mental stress clearly show that it is reasonable and relevant to find a limited selection of tools that have been tested in practice and are quality assured. The criteria for evaluating the tools, which are also presented in this article, render this selection transparent.
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.