ArticleWork (Reading, Mass.)2026
Assessing integrative prevention at work: A scoping review.
Article in Work (Reading, Mass.), 2026. 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
BackgroundIntegrative prevention at work is a promising avenue to better prevent occupational injuries and manage prolonged incapacity in a changing world of work. Integrative prevention at work can be operationalized using its five defining attributes: (1) holistic vision of health, (2) common understanding of the purpose of integrative prevention, (3) communication among stakeholders, (4) collaboration among stakeholders, and (5) coordination of preventive action. An assessment tool for these characteristics would be a valuable resource for organizations seeking to improve their approach to prevention. Namely, it would allow organizations to assess the presence of integrative prevention at work in their environment and enhance their ability to implement it.ObjectiveThis study aimed to describe the evaluation tools assessing attributes of integrative prevention at work.MethodsThis scoping review followed a five-step process: 1) identifying the research question, 2) identifying relevant documents, 3) selecting documents, 4) extracting the data, and 5) examining, synthesizing, and reporting the results.ResultsTwelve evaluation tools were identified assessing one or more attributes of integrative prevention at work. Descriptive elements are provided for each tool (e.g., its purpose, the attribute(s) it assesses, and its metrological properties). Our study suggests that communication among stakeholders and collaboration among stakeholders are the attributes that are the most assessed by the evaluation tools.ConclusionsThis study provides the first comprehensive and detailed overview of the extant tools currently being used to assess the attributes of integrative prevention at work. None can assess all five attributes on a unified scale.
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.