ReviewMayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health2025
Impact of Digital Interventions in Occupational Health Care: A Systematic Review.
Review in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Occupational health interventions' impact on absenteeism and economic returns: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess the existing body of evidence and impact of digital interventions on occupational health care. Methods: The search strategy and review process were conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. The search was carried out during a period from January 1, 2013 to June 5, 2023, using the SCOPUS and Ovid Medline databases. After the identification of the relevant records, screening was conducted in 3 stages, following specific predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. A data-extraction model was created on the basis of the aim of the review. The quality of the selected studies was evaluated using the Effective Public Health Practice framework. Owing to the heterogeneity of the outcome measures, we used narrative synthesis to summarize the findings. Results: We identified 382 records in SCOPUS and 441 in Ovid Medline. We selected 54 studies to be included in the evidence synthesis. The health targets of the interventions varied widely, but we identified 2 main focus areas: sedentary behavior (n=17, 32%) and mental health (n=14, 26%). Even when the studies had the same health target, the outcomes and chosen measures varied widely. Given the considerable effect of the primary outcome, mental health appears to be a good target for digital interventions. Online training and computer software could be especially effective. Conclusion: The potential positive impact of digital interventions on mental health, especially online training, should be leveraged by health care professionals and providers. In order to provide more specific recommendations for health care professionals, occupational health care researchers should strive for consensus on outcome measures.
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.