Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35578160›Full record

SynthesisAmerican journal of industrial medicine2022

Differences between men and women in their risk of work injury and disability: A systematic review.

Aviroop Biswas, Shireen Harbin, Emma Irvin, Heather Johnston, Momtaz Begum, Maggie Tiong, Dorothy Apedaile, Mieke Koehoorn, Peter Smith

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in American journal of industrial medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors.

Aviroop BiswasInstitute for Work & Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0393-6280
Shireen HarbinInstitute for Work & Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Emma IrvinInstitute for Work & Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Heather JohnstonInstitute for Work & Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-3357-3166
Momtaz BegumInstitute for Work & Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Maggie TiongInstitute for Work & Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9708-1756
Dorothy ApedaileDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4663-8459
Mieke KoehoornInstitute for Work & Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5376-7489
Peter SmithInstitute for Work & Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8286-4563

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth responses associated with occupational exposures can vary between men and women.

aimsThis study reviewed the work injury and disability risks associated with similar types of occupational exposures for men and women within and across occupations. MATERIALS &

methodsA systematic review was undertaken of observational studies published between 2009 and 2019. Studies were required to empirically compare men and women for associations between occupational exposures and work injury or disability outcomes. Included studies were appraised for methodological quality and medium to high rated studies were compared for risk differences between men and women.

resultsOf 14,006 records identified, 440 articles were assessed for methodological quality, and 33 medium to high rated studies were included and reviewed. Among all occupations, the association between physical exposures, job demands, noise, and repetitive tasks, and injury risk were stronger among men. The relationship between repetitive tasks and sickness absence was stronger among women. Most studies examining psychological exposures found no risk differences for men and women across occupations. Men were at higher injury risk in certain occupations in primary and secondary industry sectors involving physical exposures and some chemical/biological exposures. Women were at higher injury risk for the physical demands and repetitive tasks of health care and aluminum production occupations.

conclusionThis review found that men and women can have different work injury and disability risks, both across and within the same occupations, for some physical exposures and to a lesser extent for some chemical and biological exposures. These differences might be a result of occupation-specific task differences.

Indexed as

Occupational ExposureOccupationsFemaleHumansIndustryMaleRisk Factorsgenderoccupational exposuressexsystematic reviewwork disabilitywork injury

Identifiers

PMID35578160
PMCPMC9321824

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.