Occupational Diseases

14,000,000 Leading Edge Experts on the ideXlab platform

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

The Experts below are selected from a list of 327 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Stefano Mattioli - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • 1710e Interventions to increase the reporting of Occupational Diseases by physicians
    Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2018
    Co-Authors: Stefania Curti, Riitta Sauni, Dick Spreeuwers, A De Schryver, M. Valenty, Stéphanie Rivière, Stefano Mattioli
    Abstract:

    Introduction Under-reporting of Occupational Diseases is an important issue worldwide. The collection of reliable data is essential for prevention programmes. Little is known about the effects of interventions for increasing the reporting of Occupational Diseases. Methods We searched the Cochrane Occupational Safety and Health Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, OSH UPDATE, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Open-SIGLE, and Health Evidence until January 2015. We also checked reference lists of relevant articles and contacted study authors. Results We included 12 studies. Six studies evaluated the effectiveness of educational materials alone; one study evaluated the effectiveness of educational meetings; and four studies evaluated a combination of the two in increasing the reporting of Occupational Diseases by physicians. A further study evaluated the effectiveness of a complex educational campaign acting at society level. We found that the use of educational materials did not considerably increase the number of physicians reporting Occupational Diseases, but a legal obligation reminder message did. Furthermore, we found that the use of educational materials did not considerably increase the rate of reporting Occupational Diseases. Similarly, we found that the use of both educational materials and meetings did not considerably increase the number of physicians reporting Occupational Diseases or the rate of reporting. The same holds for the use of educational meetings alone. The use of an educational campaign appeared to increase the number of physicians reporting Occupational Diseases, although this was based on very low-quality evidence. Discussion The studies provide evidence that educational materials, educational meetings, or a combination of the two do not considerably increase the reporting of Occupational Diseases. The use of a reminder message on the legal obligation to report might provide some positive results. We need high-quality RCTs to corroborate these findings.

  • interventions to increase the reporting of Occupational Diseases by physicians a cochrane systematic review
    Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2016
    Co-Authors: Stefania Curti, Riitta Sauni, Dick Spreeuwers, A De Schryver, M. Valenty, Stéphanie Rivière, Stefano Mattioli
    Abstract:

    Under-reporting of Occupational Diseases is an important issue in many countries. Timely and complete reporting is fundamental to a successful physician-based public health surveillance system and to plan intervention programmes and allocation of resources. For physicians, the main reasons for under-reporting consist of lack of awareness regarding reporting requirements, time and effort involved in reporting and lack of benefit from reporting. There are no systematic reviews of the effects of interventions for increasing the reporting (or reducing the under-reporting) of Occupational Diseases. Therefore, we conducted a Cochrane systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at increasing the reporting of Occupational Diseases by physicians.1 We searched the Cochrane Occupational Safety and Health Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, OSH UPDATE, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Open-SIGLE and Health Evidence, up to January 2015. We intended to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, controlled before-after (CBA) studies and interrupted time series (ITS), on the effects of increasing the reporting of Occupational Diseases by physicians, but we only identified RCTs and CBA studies. Outcome measures were the reporting of Occupational Diseases measured either as the number of physicians reporting or as the rate of reporting Occupational Diseases. Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. The results of similar studies were combined in a meta-analysis. …

  • the surveillance of Occupational Diseases in italy the malprof system
    Occupational Medicine, 2015
    Co-Authors: G Campo, Adriano Papale, Alberto Baldasseroni, G Di Leone, Battista Magna, B Martini, Stefano Mattioli
    Abstract:

    BACKGROUND Occupational Diseases data can guide efforts to improve worker's health and safety. AIMS To describe MALPROF, the Italian system for surveillance of work-related Diseases collected by the subregional Department of Prevention. METHODS The MALPROF system started in 1999 with contributions from Lombardy and Tuscany and spread in the following years to collect contributions from 14 out of the 20 Italian regions. MALPROF data were explored to follow-up work-related Diseases and to detect emerging Occupational health risks by calculating proportional reporting ratio (PRR), as in pharmacosurveillance. It classified work-related Diseases according to economic sector and job activity in which the exposure occurred. Occupational physicians of the Italian National Health Service evaluate the possible causal relationship with Occupational exposures and store the data in a centralized database. RESULTS From 1999 to 2012, the MALPROF system collected about 112000 cases of workers' Diseases. In 2010, more than 13000 cases of Occupational Diseases were reported. The most frequently reported Diseases were hearing loss (n = 4378, 32%), spine disorders (n = 2394, 17%) and carpal tunnel syndrome (n = 1560, 11%). The PRR calculated for cervical disc herniation, a disease whose Occupational origin has to be studied, in 1999-2010 was 2.47 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.76-3.47] for drivers and 36.64 (95% CI 22.03-60.93) for air transport workers. CONCLUSIONS MALPROF is a sensitive system for identifying possible associations between Occupational risks and Diseases, it can contribute to the development of preventive measures, to evaluate the effectiveness of preventive interventions and to stimulate research on new Occupational risks and Diseases.

  • interventions to increase the reporting of Occupational Diseases by physicians
    Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2015
    Co-Authors: Stefania Curti, Riitta Sauni, Dick Spreeuwers, A De Schryver, M. Valenty, Stéphanie Rivière, Stefano Mattioli
    Abstract:

    BACKGROUND Under-reporting of Occupational Diseases is an important issue worldwide. The collection of reliable data is essential for public health officials to plan intervention programmes to prevent Occupational Diseases. Little is known about the effects of interventions for increasing the reporting of Occupational Diseases. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the effects of interventions aimed at increasing the reporting of Occupational Diseases by physicians. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Occupational Safety and Health Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, OSH UPDATE, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), OpenSIGLE, and Health Evidence until January 2015.We also checked reference lists of relevant articles and contacted study authors to identify additional published, unpublished, and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs (cRCTs), controlled before-after (CBA) studies, and interrupted time series (ITS) of the effects of increasing the reporting of Occupational Diseases by physicians. The primary outcome was the reporting of Occupational Diseases measured as the number of physicians reporting or as the rate of reporting Occupational Diseases. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Pairs of authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data. We expressed intervention effects as risk ratios or rate ratios. We combined the results of similar studies in a meta-analysis. We assessed the overall quality of evidence for each combination of intervention and outcome using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS We included seven RCTs and five CBA studies. Six studies evaluated the effectiveness of educational materials alone, one study evaluated educational meetings, four studies evaluated a combination of the two, and one study evaluated a multifaceted educational campaign for increasing the reporting of Occupational Diseases by physicians. We judged all the included studies to have a high risk of bias.We did not find any studies evaluating the effectiveness of Internet-based interventions or interventions on procedures or techniques of reporting, or the use of financial incentives. Moreover, we did not find any studies evaluating large-scale interventions like the introduction of new laws, existing or new specific disease registries, newly established Occupational health services, or surveillance systems. Educational materialsWe found moderate-quality evidence that the use of educational materials did not considerably increase the number of physicians reporting Occupational Diseases compared to no intervention (risk ratio of 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.67). We also found moderate-quality evidence showing that sending a reminder message of a legal obligation to report increased the number of physicians reporting Occupational Diseases (risk ratio of 1.32, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.66) when compared to a reminder message about the benefits of reporting.We found low-quality evidence that the use of educational materials did not considerably increase the rate of reporting when compared to no intervention. Educational materials plus meetingsWe found moderate-quality evidence that the use of educational materials combined with meetings did not considerably increase the number of physicians reporting when compared to no intervention (risk ratio of 1.22, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.81).We found low-quality evidence that educational materials plus meetings did not considerably increase the rate of reporting when compared to no intervention (rate ratio of 0.77, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.41). Educational meetingsWe found very low-quality evidence showing that educational meetings increased the number of physicians reporting Occupational Diseases (risk ratio at baseline: 0.82, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.41 and at follow-up: 1.74, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.74) when compared to no intervention.We found very low-quality evidence that educational meetings did not considerably increase the rate of reporting Occupational Diseases when compared to no intervention (rate ratio at baseline: 1.57, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.02 and at follow-up: 1.92, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.47). Educational campaignWe found very low-quality evidence showing that the use of an educational campaign increased the number of physicians reporting Occupational Diseases when compared to no intervention (risk ratio at baseline: 0.53, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.50 and at follow-up: 11.59, 95% CI 5.97 to 22.49). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We found 12 studies to include in this review. They provide evidence ranging from very low to moderate quality showing that educational materials, educational meetings, or a combination of the two do not considerably increase the reporting of Occupational Diseases. The use of a reminder message on the legal obligation to report might provide some positive results. We need high-quality RCTs to corroborate these findings.Future studies should investigate the effects of large-scale interventions like legislation, existing or new disease-specific registries, newly established Occupational health services, or surveillance systems. When randomisation or the identification of a control group is impractical, these large-scale interventions should be evaluated using an interrupted time-series design.We also need studies assessing online reporting and interventions aimed at simplifying procedures or techniques of reporting and the use of financial incentives.

Stefania Curti - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • 1710e Interventions to increase the reporting of Occupational Diseases by physicians
    Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2018
    Co-Authors: Stefania Curti, Riitta Sauni, Dick Spreeuwers, A De Schryver, M. Valenty, Stéphanie Rivière, Stefano Mattioli
    Abstract:

    Introduction Under-reporting of Occupational Diseases is an important issue worldwide. The collection of reliable data is essential for prevention programmes. Little is known about the effects of interventions for increasing the reporting of Occupational Diseases. Methods We searched the Cochrane Occupational Safety and Health Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, OSH UPDATE, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Open-SIGLE, and Health Evidence until January 2015. We also checked reference lists of relevant articles and contacted study authors. Results We included 12 studies. Six studies evaluated the effectiveness of educational materials alone; one study evaluated the effectiveness of educational meetings; and four studies evaluated a combination of the two in increasing the reporting of Occupational Diseases by physicians. A further study evaluated the effectiveness of a complex educational campaign acting at society level. We found that the use of educational materials did not considerably increase the number of physicians reporting Occupational Diseases, but a legal obligation reminder message did. Furthermore, we found that the use of educational materials did not considerably increase the rate of reporting Occupational Diseases. Similarly, we found that the use of both educational materials and meetings did not considerably increase the number of physicians reporting Occupational Diseases or the rate of reporting. The same holds for the use of educational meetings alone. The use of an educational campaign appeared to increase the number of physicians reporting Occupational Diseases, although this was based on very low-quality evidence. Discussion The studies provide evidence that educational materials, educational meetings, or a combination of the two do not considerably increase the reporting of Occupational Diseases. The use of a reminder message on the legal obligation to report might provide some positive results. We need high-quality RCTs to corroborate these findings.

  • interventions to increase the reporting of Occupational Diseases by physicians a cochrane systematic review
    Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2016
    Co-Authors: Stefania Curti, Riitta Sauni, Dick Spreeuwers, A De Schryver, M. Valenty, Stéphanie Rivière, Stefano Mattioli
    Abstract:

    Under-reporting of Occupational Diseases is an important issue in many countries. Timely and complete reporting is fundamental to a successful physician-based public health surveillance system and to plan intervention programmes and allocation of resources. For physicians, the main reasons for under-reporting consist of lack of awareness regarding reporting requirements, time and effort involved in reporting and lack of benefit from reporting. There are no systematic reviews of the effects of interventions for increasing the reporting (or reducing the under-reporting) of Occupational Diseases. Therefore, we conducted a Cochrane systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at increasing the reporting of Occupational Diseases by physicians.1 We searched the Cochrane Occupational Safety and Health Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, OSH UPDATE, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Open-SIGLE and Health Evidence, up to January 2015. We intended to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, controlled before-after (CBA) studies and interrupted time series (ITS), on the effects of increasing the reporting of Occupational Diseases by physicians, but we only identified RCTs and CBA studies. Outcome measures were the reporting of Occupational Diseases measured either as the number of physicians reporting or as the rate of reporting Occupational Diseases. Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. The results of similar studies were combined in a meta-analysis. …

  • interventions to increase the reporting of Occupational Diseases by physicians
    Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2015
    Co-Authors: Stefania Curti, Riitta Sauni, Dick Spreeuwers, A De Schryver, M. Valenty, Stéphanie Rivière, Stefano Mattioli
    Abstract:

    BACKGROUND Under-reporting of Occupational Diseases is an important issue worldwide. The collection of reliable data is essential for public health officials to plan intervention programmes to prevent Occupational Diseases. Little is known about the effects of interventions for increasing the reporting of Occupational Diseases. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the effects of interventions aimed at increasing the reporting of Occupational Diseases by physicians. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Occupational Safety and Health Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, OSH UPDATE, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), OpenSIGLE, and Health Evidence until January 2015.We also checked reference lists of relevant articles and contacted study authors to identify additional published, unpublished, and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs (cRCTs), controlled before-after (CBA) studies, and interrupted time series (ITS) of the effects of increasing the reporting of Occupational Diseases by physicians. The primary outcome was the reporting of Occupational Diseases measured as the number of physicians reporting or as the rate of reporting Occupational Diseases. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Pairs of authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data. We expressed intervention effects as risk ratios or rate ratios. We combined the results of similar studies in a meta-analysis. We assessed the overall quality of evidence for each combination of intervention and outcome using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS We included seven RCTs and five CBA studies. Six studies evaluated the effectiveness of educational materials alone, one study evaluated educational meetings, four studies evaluated a combination of the two, and one study evaluated a multifaceted educational campaign for increasing the reporting of Occupational Diseases by physicians. We judged all the included studies to have a high risk of bias.We did not find any studies evaluating the effectiveness of Internet-based interventions or interventions on procedures or techniques of reporting, or the use of financial incentives. Moreover, we did not find any studies evaluating large-scale interventions like the introduction of new laws, existing or new specific disease registries, newly established Occupational health services, or surveillance systems. Educational materialsWe found moderate-quality evidence that the use of educational materials did not considerably increase the number of physicians reporting Occupational Diseases compared to no intervention (risk ratio of 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.67). We also found moderate-quality evidence showing that sending a reminder message of a legal obligation to report increased the number of physicians reporting Occupational Diseases (risk ratio of 1.32, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.66) when compared to a reminder message about the benefits of reporting.We found low-quality evidence that the use of educational materials did not considerably increase the rate of reporting when compared to no intervention. Educational materials plus meetingsWe found moderate-quality evidence that the use of educational materials combined with meetings did not considerably increase the number of physicians reporting when compared to no intervention (risk ratio of 1.22, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.81).We found low-quality evidence that educational materials plus meetings did not considerably increase the rate of reporting when compared to no intervention (rate ratio of 0.77, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.41). Educational meetingsWe found very low-quality evidence showing that educational meetings increased the number of physicians reporting Occupational Diseases (risk ratio at baseline: 0.82, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.41 and at follow-up: 1.74, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.74) when compared to no intervention.We found very low-quality evidence that educational meetings did not considerably increase the rate of reporting Occupational Diseases when compared to no intervention (rate ratio at baseline: 1.57, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.02 and at follow-up: 1.92, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.47). Educational campaignWe found very low-quality evidence showing that the use of an educational campaign increased the number of physicians reporting Occupational Diseases when compared to no intervention (risk ratio at baseline: 0.53, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.50 and at follow-up: 11.59, 95% CI 5.97 to 22.49). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We found 12 studies to include in this review. They provide evidence ranging from very low to moderate quality showing that educational materials, educational meetings, or a combination of the two do not considerably increase the reporting of Occupational Diseases. The use of a reminder message on the legal obligation to report might provide some positive results. We need high-quality RCTs to corroborate these findings.Future studies should investigate the effects of large-scale interventions like legislation, existing or new disease-specific registries, newly established Occupational health services, or surveillance systems. When randomisation or the identification of a control group is impractical, these large-scale interventions should be evaluated using an interrupted time-series design.We also need studies assessing online reporting and interventions aimed at simplifying procedures or techniques of reporting and the use of financial incentives.

Dick Spreeuwers - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • 1710e Interventions to increase the reporting of Occupational Diseases by physicians
    Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2018
    Co-Authors: Stefania Curti, Riitta Sauni, Dick Spreeuwers, A De Schryver, M. Valenty, Stéphanie Rivière, Stefano Mattioli
    Abstract:

    Introduction Under-reporting of Occupational Diseases is an important issue worldwide. The collection of reliable data is essential for prevention programmes. Little is known about the effects of interventions for increasing the reporting of Occupational Diseases. Methods We searched the Cochrane Occupational Safety and Health Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, OSH UPDATE, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Open-SIGLE, and Health Evidence until January 2015. We also checked reference lists of relevant articles and contacted study authors. Results We included 12 studies. Six studies evaluated the effectiveness of educational materials alone; one study evaluated the effectiveness of educational meetings; and four studies evaluated a combination of the two in increasing the reporting of Occupational Diseases by physicians. A further study evaluated the effectiveness of a complex educational campaign acting at society level. We found that the use of educational materials did not considerably increase the number of physicians reporting Occupational Diseases, but a legal obligation reminder message did. Furthermore, we found that the use of educational materials did not considerably increase the rate of reporting Occupational Diseases. Similarly, we found that the use of both educational materials and meetings did not considerably increase the number of physicians reporting Occupational Diseases or the rate of reporting. The same holds for the use of educational meetings alone. The use of an educational campaign appeared to increase the number of physicians reporting Occupational Diseases, although this was based on very low-quality evidence. Discussion The studies provide evidence that educational materials, educational meetings, or a combination of the two do not considerably increase the reporting of Occupational Diseases. The use of a reminder message on the legal obligation to report might provide some positive results. We need high-quality RCTs to corroborate these findings.

  • interventions to increase the reporting of Occupational Diseases by physicians a cochrane systematic review
    Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2016
    Co-Authors: Stefania Curti, Riitta Sauni, Dick Spreeuwers, A De Schryver, M. Valenty, Stéphanie Rivière, Stefano Mattioli
    Abstract:

    Under-reporting of Occupational Diseases is an important issue in many countries. Timely and complete reporting is fundamental to a successful physician-based public health surveillance system and to plan intervention programmes and allocation of resources. For physicians, the main reasons for under-reporting consist of lack of awareness regarding reporting requirements, time and effort involved in reporting and lack of benefit from reporting. There are no systematic reviews of the effects of interventions for increasing the reporting (or reducing the under-reporting) of Occupational Diseases. Therefore, we conducted a Cochrane systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at increasing the reporting of Occupational Diseases by physicians.1 We searched the Cochrane Occupational Safety and Health Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, OSH UPDATE, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Open-SIGLE and Health Evidence, up to January 2015. We intended to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, controlled before-after (CBA) studies and interrupted time series (ITS), on the effects of increasing the reporting of Occupational Diseases by physicians, but we only identified RCTs and CBA studies. Outcome measures were the reporting of Occupational Diseases measured either as the number of physicians reporting or as the rate of reporting Occupational Diseases. Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. The results of similar studies were combined in a meta-analysis. …

  • interventions to increase the reporting of Occupational Diseases by physicians
    Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2015
    Co-Authors: Stefania Curti, Riitta Sauni, Dick Spreeuwers, A De Schryver, M. Valenty, Stéphanie Rivière, Stefano Mattioli
    Abstract:

    BACKGROUND Under-reporting of Occupational Diseases is an important issue worldwide. The collection of reliable data is essential for public health officials to plan intervention programmes to prevent Occupational Diseases. Little is known about the effects of interventions for increasing the reporting of Occupational Diseases. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the effects of interventions aimed at increasing the reporting of Occupational Diseases by physicians. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Occupational Safety and Health Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, OSH UPDATE, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), OpenSIGLE, and Health Evidence until January 2015.We also checked reference lists of relevant articles and contacted study authors to identify additional published, unpublished, and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs (cRCTs), controlled before-after (CBA) studies, and interrupted time series (ITS) of the effects of increasing the reporting of Occupational Diseases by physicians. The primary outcome was the reporting of Occupational Diseases measured as the number of physicians reporting or as the rate of reporting Occupational Diseases. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Pairs of authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data. We expressed intervention effects as risk ratios or rate ratios. We combined the results of similar studies in a meta-analysis. We assessed the overall quality of evidence for each combination of intervention and outcome using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS We included seven RCTs and five CBA studies. Six studies evaluated the effectiveness of educational materials alone, one study evaluated educational meetings, four studies evaluated a combination of the two, and one study evaluated a multifaceted educational campaign for increasing the reporting of Occupational Diseases by physicians. We judged all the included studies to have a high risk of bias.We did not find any studies evaluating the effectiveness of Internet-based interventions or interventions on procedures or techniques of reporting, or the use of financial incentives. Moreover, we did not find any studies evaluating large-scale interventions like the introduction of new laws, existing or new specific disease registries, newly established Occupational health services, or surveillance systems. Educational materialsWe found moderate-quality evidence that the use of educational materials did not considerably increase the number of physicians reporting Occupational Diseases compared to no intervention (risk ratio of 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.67). We also found moderate-quality evidence showing that sending a reminder message of a legal obligation to report increased the number of physicians reporting Occupational Diseases (risk ratio of 1.32, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.66) when compared to a reminder message about the benefits of reporting.We found low-quality evidence that the use of educational materials did not considerably increase the rate of reporting when compared to no intervention. Educational materials plus meetingsWe found moderate-quality evidence that the use of educational materials combined with meetings did not considerably increase the number of physicians reporting when compared to no intervention (risk ratio of 1.22, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.81).We found low-quality evidence that educational materials plus meetings did not considerably increase the rate of reporting when compared to no intervention (rate ratio of 0.77, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.41). Educational meetingsWe found very low-quality evidence showing that educational meetings increased the number of physicians reporting Occupational Diseases (risk ratio at baseline: 0.82, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.41 and at follow-up: 1.74, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.74) when compared to no intervention.We found very low-quality evidence that educational meetings did not considerably increase the rate of reporting Occupational Diseases when compared to no intervention (rate ratio at baseline: 1.57, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.02 and at follow-up: 1.92, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.47). Educational campaignWe found very low-quality evidence showing that the use of an educational campaign increased the number of physicians reporting Occupational Diseases when compared to no intervention (risk ratio at baseline: 0.53, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.50 and at follow-up: 11.59, 95% CI 5.97 to 22.49). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We found 12 studies to include in this review. They provide evidence ranging from very low to moderate quality showing that educational materials, educational meetings, or a combination of the two do not considerably increase the reporting of Occupational Diseases. The use of a reminder message on the legal obligation to report might provide some positive results. We need high-quality RCTs to corroborate these findings.Future studies should investigate the effects of large-scale interventions like legislation, existing or new disease-specific registries, newly established Occupational health services, or surveillance systems. When randomisation or the identification of a control group is impractical, these large-scale interventions should be evaluated using an interrupted time-series design.We also need studies assessing online reporting and interventions aimed at simplifying procedures or techniques of reporting and the use of financial incentives.

  • Information and feedback to improve Occupational physicians’ reporting of Occupational Diseases: a randomised controlled trial
    International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 2010
    Co-Authors: Annet F. Lenderink, Dick Spreeuwers, Jac J. L. Klink, Frank J. H. Dijk
    Abstract:

    Purpose To assess the effectiveness of supplying Occupational physicians (OPs) with targeted and stage-matched information or with feedback on reporting Occupational Diseases to the national registry in the Netherlands. Methods In a randomized controlled design, 1076 OPs were divided into three groups based on previous reporting behaviour: precontemplators not considering reporting, contemplators considering reporting and actioners reporting Occupational Diseases. Precontemplators and contemplators were randomly assigned to receive stage-matched, stage-mismatched or general information. Actioners were randomly assigned to receive personalized or standardized feedback upon notification. Outcome measures were the number of OPs reporting and the number of reported Occupational Diseases in a 180-day period before and after the intervention. Results Precontemplators were significantly more male and self-employed compared to contemplators and actioners. There was no significant effect of stage-matched information versus stage-mismatched or general information on the percentage of reporting OPs and on the mean number of notifications in each group. Receiving any information affected reporting more in contemplators than in precontemplators. The mean number of notifications in actioners increased more after personalized feedback than after standardized feedback, but the difference was not significant. Conclusions This study supports the concept that contemplators are more susceptible to receiving information but could not confirm an effect of stage-matching this information on reporting Occupational Diseases to the national registry.

  • sentinel surveillance of Occupational Diseases a quality improvement project
    American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 2008
    Co-Authors: Dick Spreeuwers, A G E M De Boer, Jos Verbeek, N S De Wilde, I T J Braam, Y Willemse, T M Pal, F J H Van Dijk
    Abstract:

    Background Occupational Diseases are generally underreported. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a sentinel surveillance project comprising motivated and guided Occupational physicians would provide higher quality information than a national registry for a policy to prevent Occupational Diseases. Methods A group of 45 Occupational physicians participated in a sentinel surveillance project for two years. All other Occupational physicians (N = 1,729) in the national registry were the reference group. We compared the number of notifications per Occupational physician, the proportion of incorrect notifications, and the overall reported incidence of Occupational Diseases. Results The median number of notifications per Occupational physician during the project was 13.0 (IQR, 4.5–31.5) in the sentinel group versus 1.0 (IQR, 0.0–5.0) in the reference group (P < 0.001). The proportion of incorrect notifications was 3.3% in the sentinel group and 8.9% in the reference group (P < 0.001). The overall reported Occupational disease incidence was 7 times higher (RR = 6.9, 95% CI: 6.5–7.4) in the sentinel group (466 notifications per 100,000 employee years) than in the reference group (67 notifications per 100,000 employee years). Conclusions A sentinel surveillance group comprising motivated and guided Occupational physicians reported a substantially higher Occupational disease incidence and a lower proportion of incorrect notifications than a national registry. Am. J. Ind. Med. 51:834-842, 2008. © 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Wiesław Szymczak - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Occupational Diseases in Poland, 2008
    Medycyna pracy, 2009
    Co-Authors: Urszula Wilczyńska, Neonila Szeszenia-dabrowska, Wiesław Szymczak
    Abstract:

    BACKGROUND The aim of the paper was to present basic statistical data on Occupational Diseases diagnosed in 2008. MATERIAL AND METHODS The work was based on the data compiled from "Occupational Disease Reporting Forms" received by the Central Register of Occupational Diseases in 2008. The data comprised information on nosologic units, gender and age of patients, and duration of Occupational exposure to harmful agents responsible for the development of specified pathologies. These data were further classified by sectors of the national economy and voivodeships. The incidence was specified in terms of the number of cases in relation to paid employees or to employed persons. RESULTS The number of Occupational Diseases diagnosed in 2008 accounted for 3546 cases. The incidence rate was 34.7 cases per 100,000 paid employees. The highest incidence rates were noted for infectious and parasitic Diseases (9.4/100,000), chronic voice disorders (7.9) and pneumoconioses (6.8). As many as 77.9% of patients affected by Occupational Diseases had been exposed to harmful agents for longer than 20 years. In industrial sectors of the national economy, the highest incidence rate was noted in the coal mining industry (416.3 cases per 100,000). The highest incidence rates were recorded in the Lubelskie (75.5), Silesian (66.3) and Podlaskie (60.7) voivodeships. CONCLUSIONS An increase of 261 (7.9%) cases of Occupational Diseases and an increase of 3.6% in their incidence rate over the previous year were noted in 2008. The greatest increase was noted in infectious and parasitic Diseases (of 285 cases, i.e. 42.5%) and chronic Diseases of the locomotor system (of 22 cases i.e. 22.4%).

  • Occupational Diseases in Poland, 2007
    Medycyna pracy, 2008
    Co-Authors: Urszula Wilczyńska, Neonila Szeszenia-dabrowska, Wiesław Szymczak
    Abstract:

    BACKGROUND The aim of the paper was to present basic statistical data on Occupational Diseases diagnosed in 2007. MATERIAL AND METHODS The work was based on the data compiled from "Occupational Disease Reporting Forms" received by the Central Register of Occupational Diseases in 2006. The data comprised information on nosologic units, gender and age of patients, and duration of Occupational exposure to harmful agents responsible for the development of specified pathologies. These data were further classified by sectors of the national economy and voivodships. The incidence was specified in terms of the number of cases in relation to paid employees or to employed persons. RESULTS In 2007, 3285 cases of Occupational Diseases were diagnosed. The incidence rate was 33.5 cases/100 000 paid employees. The highest incidence rates were noted for chronic voice disorders (8.1/100 000), pneumoconioses (7.1), infectious and parasitic Diseases (6.8) and hearing loss (2.6). As many as 77.3% of patients affected by Occupational Diseases had been exposed to harmful agents for more than 20 years. In industrial sectors of the national economy, the coal mining industry showed the highest incidence rates (404.1 cases/100 000). The highest incidence rates were recorded in the Lubelskie (73.1), Silesian (68.4), Swietokrzyskie (66.5) and Malopolskie (60.7) voivodships. CONCLUSIONS Compared with 2006, the number of cases of Occupational Diseases increased by 156 cases (5%), the incidence rate increased by 2.1%. The greatest rise was noted in infectious and parasitic Diseases (by 68 cases, 11.3%) and chronic Diseases of peripheral nervous system (by 50 cases, 46.3%). At the same time the number of hearing loss cases apparently decreased (by 43 cases, 14.6%).

  • Occupational Diseases in Poland, 2006
    Medycyna pracy, 2007
    Co-Authors: Urszula Wilczyńska, Neonila Szeszenia-dabrowska, Wiesław Szymczak
    Abstract:

    Background The aim of the paper was to present basic statistical data on Occupational Diseases diagnosed in 2006. Material and methods The work was based on the data compiled from "Occupational Disease Reporting Forms" received by the Central Register of Occupational Diseases in 2006. The data comprised information on individual Diseases, gender and age of patients, and duration of Occupational exposure to harmful agents responsible for the development of specified pathologies. These data were further classified by sectors of the national economy and voivodships (provinces). The incidence was specified in terms of the number of cases per 100,000 paid employees and per 100,000 employed persons. Results In Poland, the number of Occupational Diseases diagnosed in 2006 accounted for 3129 cases. The incidence rate was 32.8 cases per 100,000 paid employees. The highest incidence rates were noted for chronic disorders of the voice organ (8.0 per 100,000), pneumoconioses (7.0), contagious and parasitic Diseases (6.3) and permanent bilateral hearing loss (3.1 per 100 000). As many as 75.8% of patients affected by Occupational Diseases had been exposed to harmful agents for longer than 20 years. In industrial sectors of the national economy, the highest incidence was noted among workers employed in the mining industry (309.1 cases per 100,000 paid employees), particularly in coal mining (366.8). The highest incidence rates were recorded in the Lubelskie (73.7), Silesian (70.2) and Swietokrzyskie (62.6) voivodships. Conclusion The incidence of Occupational Diseases in Poland continues to abate. A downward trend is primarily due to a lower number of cases of hearing loss, Diseases of pleura or pericardium induced by asbestos dust, skin Diseases, and intoxications with chemical substances. However, an increase in the number of cases of chronic Diseases of the voice organ was revealed.

  • Occupational Diseases in Poland, 2005
    Medycyna pracy, 2006
    Co-Authors: Urszula Wilczyńska, Neonila Szeszenia-dabrowska, Wiesław Szymczak
    Abstract:

    BACKGROUND: The aim of this paper was to present basic statistical data on Occupational Diseases diagnosed and certified in 2005. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This work is based on the data compiled from "Occupational Disease Reporting Forms" received by the Central Register of Occupational Diseases in 2005. The data comprised information on individual Diseases, gender and age of patients, and duration of Occupational exposure to harmful agents responsible for the development of specified pathologies. These data were further classified by sectors of the national economy and voivodships (provinces). The incidence was specified in terms of the number of cases per 100,000 paid employees and per 100,000 employed persons. RESULTS: In Poland, the number of Occupational Diseases diagnosed in 2005 accounted for 3249 cases. The incidence rate was 34.8 cases per 100,000 paid employees. The highest incidence rates were noted for: chronic disorders of the voice organ (7.3 per 100,000), pneumoconioses (7.2), infectious and parasitic Diseases (6.6) and permanent bilateral hearing loss (3.6). As much as 73.0% of patients affected by Occupational Diseases had been exposed to harmful agents for more than 20 years. In the industrial sectors of the national economy, the highest incidence was noted among workers employed in the mining industry (281.7 cases per 100,000 paid employees), particularly in coal mining (325.2). The highest incidence rates were recorded in the Podlaskie (87.3), Lubelskie (82.1), and Silesian (66.3) voivodships. CONCLUSION The incidence of Occupational Diseases in Poland continues to abate. The downward trend is primarily due to a lower incidence of chronic Diseases of the voice organ and hearing loss. However, an increased number of cases of infectious and parasitic Diseases, mainly borreliosis, was revealed. Language: pl

  • Occupational Diseases in Poland, 2004
    Medycyna pracy, 2005
    Co-Authors: Neonila Szeszenia-dabrowska, Urszula Wilczyńska, Wiesław Szymczak
    Abstract:

    BACKGROUND: Our annual analysis of the epidemiology of Occupational Diseases is intended to indicate morbidity categories characterized by the highest risk of developing pathologies associated with working conditions and to assay variations in the frequency of those pathologies, depending on Occupational exposure, medical factors, social and economic circumstances, legal regulations, and ongoing transformation of the national economy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This work is based on the data compiled from "Occupational Disease Reporting Forms" received by the Central Register of Occupational Diseases in 2004. The data comprised information on individual Diseases, gender and age of patients, and duration of Occupational exposure to harmful agents responsible for the development of specified pathologies. These data were further classified by sectors of the national economy and voivodships (provinces). The incidence was specified in terms of the number of cases per 100,000 paid employees and per 100,000 employed persons. RESULTS: In Poland, the number of Occupational Diseases diagnosed in 2004 accounted for 3790 cases. The incidence rate was 41.0 cases per 100,000 paid employees. The highest incidence rates were noted for: chronic disorders of the voice organ (9.5 per 100 thousand), pneumoconioses (8.1), contagious and parasitic Diseases (5.8), permanent bilateral hearing loss (5.5) and skin Diseases (2.0). As much as 72.4% of patients affected by Occupational Diseases, had been exposed to harmful agents for longer than 20 years. In the industrial sectors of the national economy, the highest incidence was noted among workers employed in the mining industry (328.9 cases per 100,000 paid employees), particularly in coal mining (380.1). The highest incidence rates were recorded in the Lubelskie (122.0 cases) and Silesian (85.6 cases per 1000 workers) voivodships. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of Occupational Diseases in Poland continues to abate. The downwards trend is primarily due to a lower incidence of hearing loss and chronic Diseases of the voice organ.

Riitta Sauni - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • 1318 Trends in Occupational Diseases in finland 1975–2013
    Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2018
    Co-Authors: Riitta Sauni, Panu Oksa, Nina Talola, Simo Virtanen, Jaakko Nevalainen, Jukka Uitti
    Abstract:

    Introduction The objective was to investigate trends in the incidence of recognised and suspected cases of Occupational Diseases in Finland 1975–2013, including variations by gender and industry. Methods The data consisted of recognised and suspected cases of Occupational Diseases registered in the Finnish Registry of Occupational Diseases (FROD) in 1975–2013. From the annual workforce statistics and data of FROD we calculated the incidence of Occupational Diseases and suspected Occupational Diseases per 10 000 employed. For time trends by industrial sector, we used a five-year moving average and Poisson’s regression analysis. Results Annual average rates of Occupational Diseases (per 10 000 employees) have varied from year to year. The total number was 25.0/10,000 in 1975 and 20.1/10,000 in 2013. Screening campaigns and legislative changes have caused temporary increases. The highest incidence rates in different industrial sectors were in mining and quarrying (9.87; 95% CI: 8.65 to 11.30), construction (9.11; 95% CI: 9.98 to 10.43), manufacturing (9.04; 95% CI: 7.93 to 10.36) and in agriculture (8.78; 95% CI: 7.69 to 10.06), when financial sector was the reference (1.0). During that time, women had significantly less Occupational Diseases than men (RR 0.62; 95% CI: 0.57 to 0.68). There is a more distinct decreasing trend from 2005 onwards: the average annual change in incidence was e.g. in agriculture −9.2%, in transportation −10.3% and in construction −4.7%. The average annual decline was greatest in upper limb strain injuries (−11.1%). Discussion This study provides a useful overview of the status of Occupational Diseases in Finland over several decades. These data are a valuable resource for investigating which occupations are at an increased risk and where the preventive actions should be focused on. It is important to study the long-term trends in the statistics of Occupational Diseases to discover the real trends behind year-to-year fluctuations.

  • 1710e Interventions to increase the reporting of Occupational Diseases by physicians
    Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2018
    Co-Authors: Stefania Curti, Riitta Sauni, Dick Spreeuwers, A De Schryver, M. Valenty, Stéphanie Rivière, Stefano Mattioli
    Abstract:

    Introduction Under-reporting of Occupational Diseases is an important issue worldwide. The collection of reliable data is essential for prevention programmes. Little is known about the effects of interventions for increasing the reporting of Occupational Diseases. Methods We searched the Cochrane Occupational Safety and Health Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, OSH UPDATE, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Open-SIGLE, and Health Evidence until January 2015. We also checked reference lists of relevant articles and contacted study authors. Results We included 12 studies. Six studies evaluated the effectiveness of educational materials alone; one study evaluated the effectiveness of educational meetings; and four studies evaluated a combination of the two in increasing the reporting of Occupational Diseases by physicians. A further study evaluated the effectiveness of a complex educational campaign acting at society level. We found that the use of educational materials did not considerably increase the number of physicians reporting Occupational Diseases, but a legal obligation reminder message did. Furthermore, we found that the use of educational materials did not considerably increase the rate of reporting Occupational Diseases. Similarly, we found that the use of both educational materials and meetings did not considerably increase the number of physicians reporting Occupational Diseases or the rate of reporting. The same holds for the use of educational meetings alone. The use of an educational campaign appeared to increase the number of physicians reporting Occupational Diseases, although this was based on very low-quality evidence. Discussion The studies provide evidence that educational materials, educational meetings, or a combination of the two do not considerably increase the reporting of Occupational Diseases. The use of a reminder message on the legal obligation to report might provide some positive results. We need high-quality RCTs to corroborate these findings.

  • interventions to increase the reporting of Occupational Diseases by physicians a cochrane systematic review
    Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2016
    Co-Authors: Stefania Curti, Riitta Sauni, Dick Spreeuwers, A De Schryver, M. Valenty, Stéphanie Rivière, Stefano Mattioli
    Abstract:

    Under-reporting of Occupational Diseases is an important issue in many countries. Timely and complete reporting is fundamental to a successful physician-based public health surveillance system and to plan intervention programmes and allocation of resources. For physicians, the main reasons for under-reporting consist of lack of awareness regarding reporting requirements, time and effort involved in reporting and lack of benefit from reporting. There are no systematic reviews of the effects of interventions for increasing the reporting (or reducing the under-reporting) of Occupational Diseases. Therefore, we conducted a Cochrane systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at increasing the reporting of Occupational Diseases by physicians.1 We searched the Cochrane Occupational Safety and Health Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, OSH UPDATE, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Open-SIGLE and Health Evidence, up to January 2015. We intended to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, controlled before-after (CBA) studies and interrupted time series (ITS), on the effects of increasing the reporting of Occupational Diseases by physicians, but we only identified RCTs and CBA studies. Outcome measures were the reporting of Occupational Diseases measured either as the number of physicians reporting or as the rate of reporting Occupational Diseases. Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. The results of similar studies were combined in a meta-analysis. …

  • interventions to increase the reporting of Occupational Diseases by physicians
    Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2015
    Co-Authors: Stefania Curti, Riitta Sauni, Dick Spreeuwers, A De Schryver, M. Valenty, Stéphanie Rivière, Stefano Mattioli
    Abstract:

    BACKGROUND Under-reporting of Occupational Diseases is an important issue worldwide. The collection of reliable data is essential for public health officials to plan intervention programmes to prevent Occupational Diseases. Little is known about the effects of interventions for increasing the reporting of Occupational Diseases. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the effects of interventions aimed at increasing the reporting of Occupational Diseases by physicians. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Occupational Safety and Health Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, OSH UPDATE, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), OpenSIGLE, and Health Evidence until January 2015.We also checked reference lists of relevant articles and contacted study authors to identify additional published, unpublished, and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs (cRCTs), controlled before-after (CBA) studies, and interrupted time series (ITS) of the effects of increasing the reporting of Occupational Diseases by physicians. The primary outcome was the reporting of Occupational Diseases measured as the number of physicians reporting or as the rate of reporting Occupational Diseases. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Pairs of authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data. We expressed intervention effects as risk ratios or rate ratios. We combined the results of similar studies in a meta-analysis. We assessed the overall quality of evidence for each combination of intervention and outcome using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS We included seven RCTs and five CBA studies. Six studies evaluated the effectiveness of educational materials alone, one study evaluated educational meetings, four studies evaluated a combination of the two, and one study evaluated a multifaceted educational campaign for increasing the reporting of Occupational Diseases by physicians. We judged all the included studies to have a high risk of bias.We did not find any studies evaluating the effectiveness of Internet-based interventions or interventions on procedures or techniques of reporting, or the use of financial incentives. Moreover, we did not find any studies evaluating large-scale interventions like the introduction of new laws, existing or new specific disease registries, newly established Occupational health services, or surveillance systems. Educational materialsWe found moderate-quality evidence that the use of educational materials did not considerably increase the number of physicians reporting Occupational Diseases compared to no intervention (risk ratio of 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.67). We also found moderate-quality evidence showing that sending a reminder message of a legal obligation to report increased the number of physicians reporting Occupational Diseases (risk ratio of 1.32, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.66) when compared to a reminder message about the benefits of reporting.We found low-quality evidence that the use of educational materials did not considerably increase the rate of reporting when compared to no intervention. Educational materials plus meetingsWe found moderate-quality evidence that the use of educational materials combined with meetings did not considerably increase the number of physicians reporting when compared to no intervention (risk ratio of 1.22, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.81).We found low-quality evidence that educational materials plus meetings did not considerably increase the rate of reporting when compared to no intervention (rate ratio of 0.77, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.41). Educational meetingsWe found very low-quality evidence showing that educational meetings increased the number of physicians reporting Occupational Diseases (risk ratio at baseline: 0.82, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.41 and at follow-up: 1.74, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.74) when compared to no intervention.We found very low-quality evidence that educational meetings did not considerably increase the rate of reporting Occupational Diseases when compared to no intervention (rate ratio at baseline: 1.57, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.02 and at follow-up: 1.92, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.47). Educational campaignWe found very low-quality evidence showing that the use of an educational campaign increased the number of physicians reporting Occupational Diseases when compared to no intervention (risk ratio at baseline: 0.53, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.50 and at follow-up: 11.59, 95% CI 5.97 to 22.49). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We found 12 studies to include in this review. They provide evidence ranging from very low to moderate quality showing that educational materials, educational meetings, or a combination of the two do not considerably increase the reporting of Occupational Diseases. The use of a reminder message on the legal obligation to report might provide some positive results. We need high-quality RCTs to corroborate these findings.Future studies should investigate the effects of large-scale interventions like legislation, existing or new disease-specific registries, newly established Occupational health services, or surveillance systems. When randomisation or the identification of a control group is impractical, these large-scale interventions should be evaluated using an interrupted time-series design.We also need studies assessing online reporting and interventions aimed at simplifying procedures or techniques of reporting and the use of financial incentives.

Related terms

Occupational Diseases - 15 days free trial to Access Experts & Abstracts