ArticleCentral European journal of public health2025
Retrospective evaluation of measures in the field of occupational health services during the COVID-19 epidemic.
Article in Central European journal of public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectivesIn the Czech Republic, employers and employees are bound by legal regulations that ensure occupational health and safety. These regulations are based on international conventions of the International Labour Organization and directives of the European Parliament and Council and have long been incorporated into Czech legislation. During the COVID-19 epidemic, emergency and crisis measures led to a limitation of occupational health examinations (OHEs) in the Czech Republic, which represented a significant disruption of the occupational health and safety system. The aim of the study was to assess the impact of these measures in order to find the right model for providing occupational health services in similar situations in the future.
methodsThe method used was a survey, with participants including representatives of employers, state organizations, and employees (trade unions).
resultsParticipants from all three groups showed differing views on limiting OHEs during emergencies. While representatives of public administration and employers were generally open to postponing or adjusting pre-employment or periodic OHEs for non-hazardous work, the majority consistently opposed any limitation of OHEs for hazardous work. Statistical differences were observed particularly in attitudes toward future regulation of OHEs during epidemics.
conclusionsThe dominant conclusion of the survey is a strong recommendation against limiting initial occupational health examinations for jobs with occupational risks and in high-risk work categories.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40625136What 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.