ReviewScandinavian journal of work, environment & health2025
Requirements for occupational exposure limits in psychosocial risk assessment: What we know, what we don't know and what we can learn from other disciplines.
Review in Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Occupational exposure limits for psychosocial hazards: A promising concept or a premature leap?Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2026Review
- Perfection should not hinder progress towards occupational exposure limits for psychosocial hazards: A reply to Guseva Canu and van der Molen.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2026Article
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis discussion paper aims to provide recommendations for the development of occupational exposure limits (OEL) for psychosocial hazards. By comparing the characteristics of non-psychosocial and psychosocial hazards at work as well as approaches to derive occupational limit values for both types of hazards, the paper summarizes conceptual requirements and methodological perspectives for OEL in psychosocial risk assessment.
methodsAn interdisciplinary working group comprised of academics, active practitioners in company occupational health management and members of national committees advising policymakers conducted regular face-to-face and online meetings between October 2022 and August 2024 to draft a narrative review and discussion of the current state of research on OEL for psychosocial hazards within the fields of psychology, sociology and medicine.
resultsThe current field of research is in its early stages, indicated by individual efforts and a lack of joint decision-making. Existing approaches towards OEL focus on disease-level outcomes (eg, burnout, depression), which limits their effectiveness for primary prevention and identifying early warning signs of harm.
conclusionBased on the limited existing literature, we recommend (i) the use of outcome variables that enable detection of early stages of adverse effects aligned with the no-observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse effect level (LOAEL), (ii) standardization and harmonization of hitherto independent assessments of identical hazards, and (iii) policy-level actions to foster collaborative decision-making based on the full spectrum of scientific evidence.
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.