ArticleSafety and health at work2026
Development of a First-tier Risk Assessment Tool for Occupational Hazards Among Public Officials.
Article in Safety and health at work, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Public officials face diverse job-related hazards, yet systematic approaches to identify risk factors are limited in the Republic of Korea. This study developed a risk assessment tool to evaluate occupational risk factors among public officials and describes its development process and practical use. Methods: We conducted text analysis of injury/illness narratives from 25,317 approved compensation claims (2019-2023) to extract and classify key risk factors. The tool was designed as a first-tier self-assessment in which respondents rate the frequency and intensity of exposure to each risk factor on a 4-point Likert scale. The product of the two scores yields a four-level risk rating. The tool was developed in Microsoft Excel and consists of six worksheets. Results: Text analysis of the claim narratives identified 24 risk factors (psychological 5, organizational 2, ergonomic 5, physical 7, chemical 3, and biological 2); collision/fall risk was the most common (54.7%). In the Excel-based tool, users rate frequency and intensity for each item, which automatically generates a four-level risk rating. Items rated as high/very high prompt entry of detailed work situations. The tool also allows the addition of extra risk factors and provides guidance on second-tier in-depth assessments for high-risk results. Conclusion: This tool may help public officials across diverse job types easily screen job-related risk factors. Further studies should evaluate its usability and applicability across public service occupations.
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.