Search

Objective To report the annual incidence of occupational diseases (ODs) in economic sectors in The Netherlands. Methods In a 5-year prospective cohort study (2009-2013), occupational physicians were asked to participate in a sentinel surveillance system for OD notification. The inclusion criteria for participation were (1) covering a population of employees, (2) reporting the economic sectors and the size of their employee population and (3) willingness to report all diagnosed ODs. In this study, an OD was defined as a disease with a specific clinical diagnosis that was predominantly caused by work-related factors. The economic sectors (n=21) were defined according the NACE (Nomenclature des Activités Économiques dans la Communauté Européenne) classification. Results In a total working population of 514590 employees, 1782 ODs were reported over 12 months in 2009. The estimated annual incidence for any OD was 346 (95% CI 330 to 362) per 100000 worker-years. Of all the ODs, mental diseases were reported most frequently (41%), followed by musculoskeletal (39%), hearing (11%), infectious (4%), skin (3%), neurological (2%) and respiratory (2%) diseases. The four economic sectors with the highest annual incidences per 100000 workers were construction (1127; 95% CI 1002 to 1253), mining and quarrying (888; 95% CI 110 to 1667), water and waste processing (832; 95% CI 518 to 1146) and transport and storage (608; 95% CI 526 to 690). Conclusion ODs are reported in all economic sectors in The Netherlands. Up to 91% of all ODs are mental, musculoskeletal and hearing diseases. Efforts to increase the effective assessment of ODs and compliance in reporting activities enhance the usability of incidence figures for the government, employers and workers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background- The aim of the study was to develop quality indicators that can be used for quality assessment of registries of occupational diseases in relation to preventive policy on a national level. The research questions were: 1. Which indicators determine the quality of national registries of occupational diseases with respect to their ability to provide appropriate information for preventive policy? 2. What are the criteria that can distinguish low quality from high quality? Methods- First, we performed a literature search to assess which output of registries can be considered appropriate for preventive policy and to develop a set of preliminary indicators and criteria. Second, final indicators and criteria were assessed and their content validity was tested in a Delphi study, for which experts from the 25 EU Member States were invited. Results- The literature search revealed two different types of information output to be appropriate for preventive policy: monitor and alert information. For the evaluation of the quality of the monitor and alert function we developed ten indicators and criteria. Sixteen of the twenty-five experts responded in the first round of the Delphi study, and eleven in the second round. Based on their comments, we assessed the final nine indicators: the completeness of the notification form, coverage of registration, guidelines or criteria for notification, education and training of reporting physicians, completeness of registration, statistical methods used, investigation of special cases, presentation of monitor information, and presentation of alert information. Except for the indicator "coverage of registration" for the alert function, all the indicators met the preset requirements of content validity. Conclusion- We have developed quality indicators and criteria to evaluate registries for occupational diseases on the ability to provide appropriate information for preventive policy on a national level. Together, these indicators form a tool which can be used for quality improvement of registries of occupational diseases.

Background: The aim of the study was to develop quality indicators that can be used for quality assessment of registries of occupational diseases in relation to preventive policy on a national level. The research questions were: 1. Which indicators determine the quality of national registries of occupational diseases with respect to their ability to provide appropriate information for preventive policy? 2. What are the criteria that can distinguish low quality from high quality?Methods: First, we performed a literature search to assess which output of registries can be considered appropriate for preventive policy and to develop a set of preliminary indicators and criteria. Second, final indicators and criteria were assessed and their content validity was tested in a Delphi study, for which experts from the 25 EU Member States were invited.Results: The literature search revealed two different types of information output to be appropriate for preventive policy: monitor and alert information. For the evaluation of the quality of the monitor and alert function we developed ten indicators and criteria. Sixteen of the twenty-five experts responded in the first round of the Delphi study, and eleven in the second round. Based on their comments, we assessed the final nine indicators: the completeness of the notification form, coverage of registration, guidelines or criteria for notification, education and training of reporting physicians, completeness of registration, statistical methods used, investigation of special cases, presentation of monitor information, and presentation of alert information. Except for the indicator "coverage of registration" for the alert function, all the indicators met the preset requirements of content validity.Conclusion: We have developed quality indicators and criteria to evaluate registries for occupational diseases on the ability to provide appropriate information for preventive policy on a national level. Together, these indicators form a tool which can be used for quality improvement of registries of occupational diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

Background: The impact of workplace interventions on the outcome of occupational asthma is not well-understood., Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of workplace interventions on the outcome of occupational asthma., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; NIOSHTIC-2; CISDOC and HSELINE up to February 2011., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series of workplace interventions for occupational asthma., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and trial quality, and extracted data., Main Results: We included 21 controlled before and after studies with 1447 participants that reported on 29 comparisons.In 15 studies, removal from exposure was compared with continued exposure. Removal increased the likelihood of reporting absence of symptoms (risk ratio (RR) 21.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 7.20 to 63.77), improved forced expiratory volume (FEV1 %) (mean difference (MD) 5.52 percentage points, 95% CI 2.99 to 8.06) and decreased non-specific bronchial hyper-reactivity (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.67, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.21).In six studies, reduction of exposure was compared with continued exposure. Reduction increased the likelihood of reporting absence of symptoms (RR 5.35, 95% CI 1.40 to 20.48) but did not affect FEV1 % (MD 1.18 percentage points, 95% CI -2.96 to 5.32).In eight studies, removal from exposure was compared with reduction of exposure. Removal increased the likelihood of reporting absence of symptoms (RR 39.16, 95% CI 7.21 to 212.83) but did not affect FEV1 % (MD 1.16 percentage points, 95% CI -7.51 to 9.84).Two studies reported that the risk of unemployment after removal from exposure was increased compared with reduction of exposure (RR 14.3, 95% CI 2.06 to 99.16). Three studies reported loss of income of about 25% after removal from exposure.Overall the quality of the evidence was very low., Authors' Conclusions: There is very low-quality evidence that removal from exposure improves asthma symptoms and lung function compared with continued exposure.Reducing exposure also improves symptoms, but seems not as effective as complete removal.However, removal from exposure is associated with an increased risk of unemployment, whereas reduction of exposure is not. The clinical benefit of removal from exposure or exposure reduction should be balanced against the increased risk of unemployment. We need better studies to identify which interventions intended to reduce exposure give most benefit.