Search

ObjectiveSynthesising evidence of the effects of interventions to improve work participation among people with health problems is currently difficult due to heterogeneity in outcome measurements. A core outcome set for work participation is needed.Study design and settingFollowing the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials methodology, we used a five-step approach to reach international multistakeholder consensus on a core outcome set for work participation. Five subgroups of stakeholders took part in two rounds of discussions and completed two Delphi voting rounds on 26 outcomes. A consensus of ≥80% determined core outcomes and 50%–80% consensus was required for candidate outcomes.ResultsFifty-eight stakeholders took part in the Delphi rounds. Core outcomes were: ‘any type of employment including self-employment’, ‘proportion of workers that return to work after being absent because of illness’ and ‘time to return to work’. Ten candidate outcomes were proposed, among others: ‘sustainable employment’, ‘work productivity’ and ‘workers’ perception of return to work’.ConclusionAs a minimum, all studies evaluating the impact of interventions on work participation should include one employment outcome and two return to work outcomes if workers are on sick leave prior to the intervention.

BackgroundOutdoor workers (OW) receive a higher dose of ultraviolet radiation (UVR) compared to indoor workers (IW) which increases the risk of non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC). Regular sunscreen use reduces the NMSC risk, however, adequate sun-safety behavior among OW is poor. The main objective was to conduct method- and intervention-related elements of a future intervention trial among OW, based on providing sunscreen and assessing sunscreen use on group- and individual level.MethodsThis pilot study was conducted at a construction site in the Netherlands from May-August 2021. Nine dispensers with sunscreen (SPF 50+) were installed at the worksite. OW (n = 67) were invited to complete two (cross-sectional) questionnaires on sun-safety behavior, before and after providing sunscreen. Stratum corneum (SC) samples for the assessment of UV-biomarkers were collected from the forehead and behind the ear from 15 OW and 15 IW. The feasibility of the following elements was investigated: recruitment, (loss to) follow-up, outcome measures, data collection, and acceptability of the intervention.ResultsThe first questionnaire was completed by 27 OW, the second by 17 OW. More than 75 percent of the OW were aware of the risks of sun exposure, and 63% (n = 17) found sunscreen use during worktime important. The proportion of OW never applying sunscreen in the past month was 44.4% (n = 12) before, and 35.3% (n = 6) after providing sunscreen. A majority of OW (59.3%, n = 16) found sunscreen provision encouraging for sunscreen use, the dispensers easy to use (64.7%, n = 17) and placed in practical spots (58.8%, n = 18). Collecting SC-samples was fast and easy, and several UV-biomarkers showed higher levels for sun-exposed compared to less exposed body parts. There was no significant difference in UV-biomarker levels between OW and IW.ConclusionsThis pilot study revealed low sunscreen use among OW despite providing sunscreen, overall satisfaction with the sunscreen, and the sufficient awareness of the risks of UVR-exposure. Collecting SC-samples at the workplace is feasible and several UV-biomarkers showed to be promising in assessing UVR-exposure. The low participation rate and high loss to follow-up poses a challenge for future intervention studies.

Objectives: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:. To assess the effect of a legal ban of asbestos on the time trend of production, import and use of asbestos and exposure to asbestos among workers or the general population, compared to the time trend when there was not such a ban.

Additional file 1. SPIRIT checklist.

Additional file 1: search strategy.

Additional file 1: Table 1. Code system of interviews.

Additional file 1. Overview measurements [59, 60].

Additional file 1: Table 1. Ovid MEDLINE search strategy. Table 2. Ovid PsycINFO search strategy.

Additional file 2: Table 1. Details of included studies.

Additional file 3: Table 1. Risk of bias of randomized controlled trials. Table 2. Risk of bias of cohort studies. Table 3. Risk of bias of non-randomized experimental studies and studies with a single group pre-test post-test design.