ArticleAnnals of work exposures and health2024
Worker perspectives on improving occupational health and safety using wearable sensors: a cross-sectional survey.
Article in Annals of work exposures and 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.
- Co-Design of Smartphone- and Smartwatch-Based Occupational Health Visualisations in Office Environments.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Occupational Risk of COPD: Insights from a Large Cohort Study.Safety and health at work · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Workplace exposure is an important source of ill health. The use of wearable sensors and sensing technologies may help improve and maintain worker health, safety, and wellbeing. Input from workers should inform the integration of these sensors into workplaces. We developed an online survey to understand the acceptability of wearable sensor technologies for occupational health and safety (OSH) management. The survey was disseminated to members of OSH-related organizations, mainly in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. There were 158 respondents, with over half (n = 91, 58%) reporting current use of wearable sensors, including physical hazards (n = 57, 36%), air quality (n = 53, 34%), and location tracking (n = 36, 23%), although this prevalence likely also captures traditional monitoring equipment. There were no clear distinctions in wearable sensor use between the reported demographic and occupational characteristics, with the exception that hygienists were more likely than non-hygienists (e.g. safety professionals) to use wearable sensors (66% versus 34%). Overall, there was an interest in how sensors can help OSH professionals understand patterns of exposure and improve exposure management practices. Some wariness was expressed primarily around environmental and physical constraints, the quality of the data, and privacy concerns. This survey identified a need to better identify occupational situations that would benefit from wearable sensors and to evaluate existing devices that could be used for occupational hygiene. Further, this work underscores the importance of clearly defining "sensor" according to the occupational setting and context.
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.