ArticleEuropean journal of public health2024
Medical occupational check-ups during the COVID-19 pandemic in the European Union.
Article in European journal of public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Retrospective evaluation of measures in the field of occupational health services during the COVID-19 epidemic.Central European journal of public health · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Given the enormous scale of the COVID-19 pandemic affecting the healthcare sector, limited human resource capacity, and efforts to prevent the spread of COVID-19, occupational health protection could not escape changes. The aim was to identify and compare the regulations regarding the provision of medical occupational check-ups (MOCs) during the pandemic in all European Union member states (EU MS). The study employed the Delphi method, involving experts from EU MS to assess MOC regulations between January 2020 and May 2021. Experts were queried regarding the existence and specifics of MOC regulations, particularly for entrance and periodic MOCs at hazardous and non-hazardous workplaces. Out of the 27 EU MS surveyed, 13 EU MS did not regulate MOCs, while 14 EU MS (51.6%) regulated the provision of MOCs. The regulations were changes in the way MOCs were provided, modifications (postponement in time, alternative provision, e.g. using telemedicine or online connection, or replacing the medical certificate of fitness to work based on the MOC with a declaration by the worker), or interruption without compensation, even for hazardous works. The regulations were in effect for different lengths of time and varied in some countries during the study period. The cumulative duration of MOC interruptions in all EU MS during the study period was 137 months (7.5% of the cumulative study period of 1836 months). Given the different approaches to the provision of MOCs in EU MS, it has proved appropriate to develop an optimal unified framework plan for future similar situations.
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.