Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35708771›Full record

ArticleInternational archives of occupational and environmental health2022

Working conditions in low risk nulliparous women in The Netherlands: are legislation and guidelines a guarantee for a healthy working environment? A cohort study.

Monique D M van Beukering, Heleen J Schuster, Myrthe J C S Peelen, Marit E A Schonewille, Petra J Hajenius, Ruben G Duijnhoven, Teus Brand, Rebecca C Painter, Marjolein Kok

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International archives of occupational and environmental health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Monique D M van BeukeringDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Location Amsterdam Medical Center, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, P.O. Box 22660, Amsterdam, 1100 DD, The Netherlands. m.d.vanbeukering@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-4080-5589
Heleen J SchusterDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Location Amsterdam Medical Center, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, P.O. Box 22660, Amsterdam, 1100 DD, The Netherlands.
Myrthe J C S PeelenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Location Amsterdam Medical Center, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, P.O. Box 22660, Amsterdam, 1100 DD, The Netherlands.
Marit E A SchonewilleDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Location Amsterdam Medical Center, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, P.O. Box 22660, Amsterdam, 1100 DD, The Netherlands.
Petra J HajeniusDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Location Amsterdam Medical Center, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, P.O. Box 22660, Amsterdam, 1100 DD, The Netherlands.
Ruben G DuijnhovenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Location Amsterdam Medical Center, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, P.O. Box 22660, Amsterdam, 1100 DD, The Netherlands.
Teus BrandCoronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Rebecca C PainterDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Location Amsterdam Medical Center, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, P.O. Box 22660, Amsterdam, 1100 DD, The Netherlands.
Marjolein KokDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Location Amsterdam Medical Center, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, P.O. Box 22660, Amsterdam, 1100 DD, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveHazardous working conditions increase the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. In this study, we examine adherence to legislation and guidelines aimed at improving working conditions in pregnancy.

methodsBetween 2014 and 2016, we recruited a prospective cohort of low-risk nulliparous pregnant women in paid employment or self-employed in 16 community midwifery practices in The Netherlands. Participants completed two questionnaires concerning demographics, education, general health and working conditions between 10-16 and 20-24 weeks of pregnancy. We calculated the proportion of participants with work-related risk factors not in accordance with legislation and/or guidelines.

resultsOf 269 participants included, 214 (80%) completed both questionnaires. At 10-16 weeks 110 (41%) participants and at 20-24 weeks 129 (63%) participants continued to work under circumstances that did not meet recommendations. Employers provided mandated information on work adjustment to 37 (15%) participants and 96 (38%) participants received no information about the potential hazards while working with biological and chemical hazards. Participants with lower educational attainment (aOR 2.2 95%CI 1.3-3.9), or employment in healthcare (aOR 4.5, 95%CI 2.2-9.0), education/childcare and social service (aOR 2.6, 95%CI 1.1-6.0 2),, catering (aOR 3.6, 95%CI 1.1-12) and industry, construction and cleaning (aOR 3.3, 95%CI 1.1-10.3) more often continued work which did not meet recommendations.

conclusionThere is poor adherence to national legislation and guidelines for safe working in pregnancy in The Netherlands: 50% of the pregnant women worked under hazardous conditions. Given the impact on adverse pregnancy outcomes as well as on the public purse, action to improve compliance must be taken by all stakeholders.

Indexed as

Pregnancy OutcomeCohort StudiesFemaleHumansNetherlandsPregnancyProspective StudiesRisk FactorsEmploymentMaternity protectionOccupational exposurePregnancyPreterm birthProtective legislation

Identifiers

PMID35708771
PMCPMC9273547

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.