ArticleJournal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England)2026
Why do occupational hygienists and physicians fail to communicate and collaborate when faced with chemicals in the workplace? A qualitative study from the Netherlands.
Article in Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England), 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWorkers who handle hazardous substances are at risk of health impairments, occupational diseases and even premature death. Occupational diseases are preventable, but early detection, diagnosis and intervention remain inadequate. Therefore, we aim to gain insight into the determinants of timely identification of health effects caused by exposure to hazardous substances in the workplace as perceived by occupational health professionals.
methodsWe conducted seventeen online semi-structured interviews among Dutch occupational hygienists and occupational physicians on their perspectives and experiences in identifying chemical-related health effects in the workplace. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and the data were analysed using the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model.
resultsOccupational hygienists and occupational physicians experience limited knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy for timely identification of chemical-related health effects. These modifiable determinants hinder effective collaboration between these occupational health professionals in translating exposure to hazardous substances into health effects and vice versa. Moreover, different system-level determinants in the Netherlands further impede this collaboration. Existing tools for occupational health professionals reinforce this gap by supporting either exposure assessment or health effect evaluation, rarely bridging the two. As a result, current tools are often tailored to a single professional group.
conclusionsThe results from our study suggest that gaps in knowledge, skills and self-efficacy hinder timely identification of chemical-related health effects in the Netherlands. The findings of this study can inform the development of multidisciplinary interventions and multifaceted strategies aimed at improving prevention of chemical-related occupational disease and timely implementation of appropriate (workplace) measures.
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.