Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38089568›Full record

ArticleCampbell systematic reviews2023

Occupational health and safety regulatory interventions to improve the work environment: An evidence and gap map of effectiveness studies.

Anja Bondebjerg, Trine Filges, Jan Hyld Pejtersen, Malene Wallach Kildemoes, Hermann Burr, Peter Hasle, Emile Tompa, Elizabeth Bengtsen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Campbell systematic reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Scoping review on the effect of labour inspections on occupational health and safety: a meta-analytic update.Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England) · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors.

Anja BondebjergVIVE-The Danish Center for Social Science Research Copenhagen Denmark.
Trine FilgesVIVE-The Danish Center for Social Science Research Copenhagen Denmark.
Jan Hyld PejtersenVIVE-The Danish Center for Social Science Research Copenhagen Denmark.
Malene Wallach KildemoesVIVE-The Danish Center for Social Science Research Copenhagen Denmark.
Hermann BurrFederal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA) Berlin Germany.
Peter HasleUniversity of Southern Denmark Odense Denmark.
Emile TompaInstitute for Work and Health Toronto Canada.
Elizabeth BengtsenVIVE-The Danish Center for Social Science Research Copenhagen Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Unsafe and unhealthy working conditions lead to injuries and financial losses across the globe, resulting in a need for research into effective work environment interventions. Objectives: The objective of this evidence and gap map (EGM) is to provide an overview of existing systematic reviews and primary studies examining the effects of occupational health and safety regulatory interventions. Search Methods: Relevant studies are identified through searches in published and unpublished literature performed up to January 2023. Selection Criteria: The population for this EGM is workers above the age of 15 and their workplaces within the OECD. We include randomised controlled trials, non-randomised studies with a comparison of two or more groups of participants, and systematic reviews of effects. Data Collection and Analysis: The map has been populated based on information about interventions and outcomes, study design, OECD country, and publication status. We have performed critical appraisal of included systematic reviews using an adjusted version of the AMSTAR-2 tool. Main Results: The included studies for this report consist of six systematic reviews, 28 primary effect studies, and three on-going studies. The interactive map shows that the largest cluster of studies is located in the inspection activity domain, while the sickness absence outcome domain and the intervention categories for training initiatives and formulation of regulatory standards are only scarcely populated. Additionally, the AMSTAR-appraisal suggests a lack of rigorous systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors’ Conclusions: More research in the form of primary studies and rigorous systematic reviews is needed to provide stakeholders with better guidance as to what constitutes the most efficient regulatory approaches to improve the work environment.

Identifiers

PMID38089568
PMCPMC10712440

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.