Search

Purpose Heterogeneity in work participation (WP) outcomes measurements hampers large scale evidence synthesis in systematic reviews of trials. In this survey we explore authors’ reasons for choosing specific WP outcomes and their measurement methods, including employment status, absence from work, at-work productivity loss, and employability. Methods We contacted authors of 260 trials and 69 systematic reviews and asked closed and open-ended questions about previously used WP outcomes and measurement methods as well as their opinion on the best way to measure WP. Results In total, 91 authors from a wide range of professional backgrounds completed the survey. The majority of authors (86%) chose WP outcomes based on their use in previous similar studies. In most studies (88%), patients had not been involved in the process of selecting the WP outcome. Authors judged feasibility to be an important factor for choosing a measurement instrument (67%). Additionally, valid measurement tools should be available, easy to administer and not too time consuming. Although authors preferred registry data for long term follow-up, the availability and validity of registries was seen as a barrier. Most of the reviewers (72%) struggled to pool data because of variation in follow-up times and cut off points and varying definitions of work outcomes. Almost all (92%) respondents support the use of a Core Outcome Set for Work. Conclusions There is strong support from authors of trials and systematic reviews to develop a core outcome set on work participation outcomes for the evaluation of interventions.

Objectives: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:. To assess the effects of personal protective equipment, including donning and doffing procedures and individual hygienic behaviour, compared to no such equipment or alternative equipment, on asbestos exposure in workers exposed to asbestos in demolition and repair work.

Background: Although many people infected with SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2) experience no or mild symptoms, some individuals can develop severe illness and may die, particularly older people and those with underlying medical problems. Providing evidence-based interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection has become more urgent with the spread of more infectious SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VoC), and the potential psychological toll imposed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Controlling exposures to occupational hazards is the fundamental method of protecting workers. When it comes to the transmission of viruses, such as SARS-CoV-2, workplaces should first consider control measures that can potentially have the most significant impact. According to the hierarchy of controls, one should first consider elimination (and substitution), then engineering controls, administrative controls, and lastly, personal protective equipment (PPE). Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of interventions in non-healthcare-related workplaces to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection relative to other interventions, or no intervention. Search methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS), Clinicaltrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to 14 September 2021. We will conduct an update of this review in six months. Selection criteria: We included randomised control trials (RCT) and planned to include non-randomised studies of interventions. We included adult workers, both those who come into close contact with clients or customers (e.g. public-facing employees, such as cashiers or taxi drivers), and those who do not, but who could be infected by co-workers. We excluded studies involving healthcare workers. We included any intervention to prevent or reduce workers' exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in the workplace, defining categories of intervention according to the hierarchy of hazard controls, i.e. elimination; engineering controls; administrative controls; personal protective equipment. Data collection and analysis: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection (or other respiratory viruses), SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, and absenteeism from work. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, quality of life, hospitalisation, and uptake, acceptability, or adherence to strategies. We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess the risk of bias, and GRADE methods to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. Main results: Elimination of exposure interventions. We included one study examining an intervention that focused on elimination of hazards. This study is an open-label, cluster-randomised, non-inferiority trial, conducted in England in 2021. The study compared standard 10-day self-isolation after contact with an infected person to a new strategy of daily rapid antigen testing and staying at work if the test is negative (test-based attendance). The trialists hypothesised that this would lead to a similar rate of infections, but lower COVID-related absence. Staff (N = 11,798) working at 76 schools were assigned to standard isolation, and staff (N = 12,229) at 86 schools to the test-based attendance strategy. The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of symptomatic PCR-positive SARS-COV-2 infection rate ratio ((RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 2.21; 1 study, very low-certainty evidence)). The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of any PCR-positive SARS-COV-2 infection (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.21; 1 study, very low-certainty evidence). COVID-related absenteeism rates were 3704 absence days in 566,502 days-at-risk (6.5 per 1000 days at risk) in the control group and 2932 per 539,805 days-at-risk (5.4 per 1000 days at risk) in the intervention group (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25). The certainty of the evidence was downgraded to low, due to imprecision. Uptake of the intervention was 71 % in the intervention group, but not reported for the control intervention. The trial did not measure other outcomes, SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, all-cause mortality, quality of life, and hospitalisation. We found one ongoing RCT about screening in schools, using elimination of hazard strategies. Personal protective equipment. We found one ongoing non-randomised study on the effects of closed face shields to prevent COVID-19 transmission. Other intervention categories. We did not find studies in the other intervention categories. Authors' conclusions: We are uncertain whether a test-based attendance policy affects rates of PCR-postive SARS-CoV-2 infection (any infection; symptomatic infection) compared to standard 10-day self-isolation amongst school and college staff. Test-based attendance policy may result in little to no difference in absence rates compared to standard 10-day self-isolation. As a large part of the population is exposed in the case of a pandemic, an apparently small relative effect that would not be worthwhile from the individual perspective may still affect many people, and thus, become an important absolute effect from the enterprise or societal perspective. The included study did not report on any other primary outcomes of our review, i.e. SARS-CoV-2-related mortality and adverse events. No completed studies were identified on any other interventions specified in this review, but two eligible studies are ongoing. More controlled studies are needed on testing and isolation strategies, and working from home, as these have important implications for work organisations.

Background: Work participation is important for health and can be considered as engagement in a major area of life which is of significance for most people, but it can also be thought of as fulfilling or discharging a role. Currently, academic research lacks a comprehensive classification of work participation outcomes. The International Classification of Functioning is the foremost model in defining work functioning and its counterpart work disability, but it does not provide a critical (core) set of outcomes. It is important to standardize the definitions and the nomenclature used in the research of work participation, so that the outcomes of studies are comparable, and practitioners and guideline developers can better decide what works best. As work participation is a broad umbrella term including outcome categories which need unambiguous differentiation, a framework needs to be developed first.Aim: To propose a framework which can be used to develop a generic core outcome set for work participation.Methods: First, we performed a systematic literature search on the concept of (work) participation, perspectives on how to measure it, and existing classifications for outcome measurements. Next, we derived criteria for the framework and proposed a framework based on the criteria. Last, we applied the framework to six case studies as a proof of concept. Results: Our literature search provided 2106 hits and we used 59 studies for full-text analysis. Based on the literature and the developed criteria we propose four overarching outcome categories: (1) initiating employment, (2) having employment, (3) increasing or maintaining productivity at work and (4) return to employment. These categories appeared feasible in our proof-of-concept assessment with six different case studies. Conclusion: We propose to use the framework for work participation outcomes to develop a core outcome set for intervention studies to improve work participation.

Background Work participation is important for health and can be considered as engagement in a major area of life which is of significance for most people, but it can also be thought of as fulfilling or discharging a role. Currently, academic research lacks a comprehensive classification of work participation outcomes. The International Classification of Functioning is the foremost model in defining work functioning and its counterpart work disability, but it does not provide a critical (core) set of outcomes. Standardizing the definitions and nomenclature used in the research of work participation would ensure that the outcomes of studies are comparable, and practitioners and guideline developers can better decide what works best. As work participation is a broad umbrella term including outcome categories which need unambiguous differentiation, a framework needs to be developed first. Aim To propose a framework which can be used to develop a generic core outcome set for work participation. Methods First, we performed a systematic literature search on the concept of (work) participation, views on how to measure it, and on existing classifications for outcome measurements. Next, we derived criteria for the framework and proposed a framework based on the criteria. Last, we applied the framework to six case studies as a proof of concept. Results Our literature search provided 2106 hits and we selected 59 studies for full-text analysis. Based on the literature and the developed criteria we propose four overarching outcome categories: (1) initiating employment, (2) having employment, (3) increasing or maintaining productivity at work, and (4) return to employment. These categories appeared feasible in our proof-of-concept assessment with six different case studies. Conclusion We propose to use the framework for work participation outcomes to develop a core outcome set for intervention studies to improve work participation.

Background Seborrhoeic dermatitis is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that is distributed worldwide. It commonly affects the scalp, face and flexures of the body. Treatment options include antifungal drugs, steroids, calcineurin inhibitors, keratolytic agents and phototherapy. Objectives To assess the effects of antifungal agents for seborrhoeic dermatitis of the face and scalp in adolescents and adults. A secondary objective is to assess whether the same interventions are effective in the management of seborrhoeic dermatitis in patients with HIV/AIDS. Search methods We searched the following databases up to December 2014: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 11), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974) and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (from 1982). We also searched trials registries and checked the bibliographies of published studies for further trials. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials of topical antifungals used for treatment of seborrhoeic dermatitis in adolescents and adults, with primary outcome measures of complete clearance of symptoms and improved quality of life. Data collection and analysis Review author pairs independently assessed eligibility for inclusion, extracted study data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. We performed fixed-effect meta-analysis for studies with low statistical heterogeneity and used a random-effects model when heterogeneity was high. Main results We included 51 studies with 9052 participants. Of these, 45 trials assessed treatment outcomes at five weeks or less after commencement of treatment, and six trials assessed outcomes over a longer time frame. We believe that 24 trials had some form of conflict of interest, such as funding by pharmaceutical companies. Among the included studies were 12 ketoconazole trials (N = 3253), 11 ciclopirox trials (N = 3029), two lithium trials (N = 141), two bifonazole trials (N = 136) and one clotrimazole trial (N = 126) that compared the effectiveness of these treatments versus placebo or vehicle. Nine ketoconazole trials (N = 632) and one miconazole trial (N = 47) compared these treatments versus steroids. Fourteen studies (N = 1541) compared one antifungal versus another or compared different doses or schedules of administration of the same agent versus one another. Ketoconazole Topical ketoconazole 2% treatment showed a 31% lower risk of failed clearance of rashes compared with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 0.81, eight studies, low-quality evidence) at four weeks of follow-up, but the effect on side effects was uncertain because evidence was of very low quality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.64, six studies); heterogeneity between studies was substantial (I² = 74%). The median proportion of those who did not have clearance in the placebo groups was 69%. Ketoconazole treatment resulted in a remission rate similar to that of steroids (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.44, six studies, low-quality evidence), but occurrence of side effects was 44% lower in the ketoconazole group than in the steroid group (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.96, eight studies, moderate-quality evidence). Ketoconozale yielded a similar remission failure rate as ciclopirox (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.26, three studies, low-quality evidence). Most comparisons between ketoconazole and other antifungals were based on single studies that showed comparability of treatment effects. Ciclopirox Ciclopirox 1% led to a lower failed remission rate than placebo at four weeks of follow-up (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.94, eight studies, moderate-quality evidence) with similar rates of side effects (RR 0.9, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.11, four studies, moderate-quality evidence). Other antifungals Clotrimazole and miconazole efficacies were comparable with those of steroids on short-term assessment in single studies. Treatment effects on individual symptoms were less clear and were inconsistent, possibly because of difficulties encountered in measuring these symptoms. Evidence was insufficient to conclude that dose or mode of delivery influenced treatment outcome. Only one study reported on treatment compliance. No study assessed quality of life. One study assessed the maximum rash-free period but provided insufficient data for analysis. One small study in patients with HIV compared the effect of lithium versus placebo on seborrhoeic dermatitis of the face, but treatment outcomes were similar. Authors' conclusions Ketoconazole and ciclopirox are more effective than placebo, but limited evidence suggests that either of these agents is more effective than any other agent within the same class. Very few studies have assessed symptom clearance for longer periods than four weeks. Ketoconazole produced findings similar to those of steroids, but side effects were fewer. Treatment effect on overall quality of life remains unknown. Better outcome measures, studies of better quality and better reporting are all needed to improve the evidence base for antifungals for seborrhoeic dermatitis. Plain Language Summary Antifungal treatments applied to the skin to treat seborrhoeic dermatitis Background Seborrhoeic dermatitis is a chronic inflammatory skin condition found throughout the world, with rashes with varying degrees of redness, scaling and itching. It affects people of both sexes but is more common among men. The disease usually starts after puberty and can lead to personal discomfort and cosmetic concerns when rashes occur at prominent skin sites. Drugs that act against moulds, also called antifungal agents, have been commonly used on their own or in combination. Review question Do antifungal treatments applied to the skin clear up the rashes and itching of seborrhoeic dermatitis? Study characteristics We included 51 studies with 9052 participants. Trials typically were four weeks long, and very few trials were longer. In all, 24 studies had some involvement of pharmaceutical companies such as funding or employment of the researchers. Key results Particpants taking ketoconazole were 31% less likely than those given placebo to have symptoms that persisted at four weeks of follow-up. This was seen in eight studies with 2520 participants, but wide variation was noted between studies. Ketoconazole was as effective as steroids but had 44% fewer side effects. Without causing more side effects, ciclopirox was 21% more effective than placebo in achieving clinical clearance of rashes. Treatment effect on redness, itching or scaling symptoms of the skin was less clear. Evidence was insufficient to conclude that that one antifungal was superior to other antifungals, but this observation was based on few studies. Ketoconazole and ciclopirox are the most heavily investigated antifungals and are more effective than placebo. Other antifungals might have similar effects, but data are insufficient to underpin this. Common side effects were increased skin redness or itching, burning sensation and hair loss. No studies measured quality of life. Only one study reported on percentage of compliance in different treatment groups. Other studies used surrogates such as acceptability to represent compliance. We therefore could not assess the effect of compliance on treatment outcomes. One study on patients with HIV reported no clear effects of treatments. Quality of the evidence Evidence for the effects of ketoconazole compared with placebo or a steroid was assessed to be of low quality. Evidence derived from comparison of ciclopirox versus placebo was assessed to be of moderate quality. Better quality studies with longer follow-up and better reporting are needed to enlarge the evidence base for antifungals.

Dampness and mould in buildings have been associated with adverse respiratory symptoms, asthma and respiratory infections of inhabitants. Moisture damage is a very common problem in private houses, workplaces and public buildings such as schools.To determine the effectiveness of remediating buildings damaged by dampness and mould in order to reduce or prevent respiratory tract symptoms, infections and symptoms of asthma.We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1951 to June week 1, 2011), EMBASE (1974 to June 2011), CINAHL (1982 to June 2011), Science Citation Index (1973 to June 2011), Biosis Previews (1989 to June 2011), NIOSHTIC (1930 to November 2010) and CISDOC (1974 to November 2010).Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs (cRCTs), interrupted time series studies and controlled before-after (CBA) studies of the effects of remediating dampness and mould in a building on respiratory symptoms, infections and asthma.Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.We included eight studies (6538 participants); two RCTs (294 participants), one cRCT (4407 participants) and five CBA studies (1837 participants). The interventions varied from thorough renovation to cleaning only. We found moderate-quality evidence in adults that repairing houses decreased asthma-related symptoms (among others, wheezing (odds ratio (OR) 0.64; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 0.75) and respiratory infections (among others, rhinitis (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.66)). For children, we found moderate-quality evidence that the number of acute care visits (among others mean difference (MD) -0.45; 95% CI -0.76 to -0.14)) decreased in the group receiving thorough remediation. One CBA study showed very low-quality evidence that after repairing a mould-damaged office building, asthma-related and other respiratory symptoms decreased. For children and staff in schools, there was very low-quality evidence that asthma-related and other respiratory symptoms in mould-damaged schools were similar to those of children and staff in non-damaged schools, both before and after intervention. For children, respiratory infections might have decreased after the intervention.We found moderate to very low-quality evidence that repairing mould-damaged houses and offices decreases asthma-related symptoms and respiratory infections compared to no intervention in adults. There is very low-quality evidence that although repairing schools did not significantly change respiratory symptoms in staff or children, pupils' visits to physicians due to a common cold were less frequent after remediation of the school. Better research, preferably with a cRCT design and with more validated outcome measures, is needed.

Functional capacity evaluation (FCE) has been widely used to assess workers' physical state of readiness to return to work (RTW) after an injury and to make recommendations for the time and capacity in which they might return. FCEs are also used to prevent re-injury after RTW. Despite being a commonly used tool, little is known about how effective FCE is in preventing occupational injuries.To assess the effectiveness of FCE-based return to work recommendations in preventing occupational re-injuries of injured workers compared with no intervention or alternative interventions.We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1966 to December 2009), EMBASE (1980 to December 2009), CINAHL (1980 to December 2009), PsycINFO (1983 to December 2009) and PEDro (1929 to December 2009). The searches were not restricted by date, language or type of publication.We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of FCE-based return to work recommendations for preventing occupational re-injuries in injured workers.Four authors (NM, ES, JV, ML), in pairs, independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias.We found no studies that compared FCE to no intervention. We found one RCT with 372 participants in which a short-form of one FCE was compared to the standard long-form FCE (Isernhagen Work Systems). Outcomes were recurrence rates of re-injuries. There was no significant difference between the two forms of FCE.We rated the overall quality of the evidence as low.There is no evidence for or against the effectiveness of FCE compared to no intervention. A short version of FCE showed similar effectiveness to a long version in preventing re-injury. More RCTs are needed.

BACKGROUND: Millions of workers worldwide are exposed to noise levels that increase their risk of hearing impairment. Little is known about the effectiveness of hearing loss prevention interventions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions for preventing occupational noise exposure or occupational hearing loss compared to no intervention or alternative interventions. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library issue 4, 2008); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; NIOSHTIC, CISDOC and mRCT to 15 December 2008. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series (ITS) of non-clinical hearing loss prevention interventions under field conditions among workers exposed to noise. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors (EK, JV) independently assessed study eligibility and trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included. One study evaluated a strategy to reduce noise exposure. Fourteen studies with 75,672 participants evaluated hearing loss prevention programmes (HLPPs), and six studies with 169 participants evaluated hearing protection. The overall quality of studies was low.One ITS study evaluated the effect of new legislation in reducing noise exposure. It found that the median noise level decreased by 27.7 dB(A) (95% confidence interval (CI) -36.1 to -19.3 dB) with a change in trend in time of -2.1 dB per year (95% CI -4.9 to 0.7).A hearing protection study in army recruits compared those exposed to impulse noise with non-exposed recruits. The odds ratio (OR) for hearing loss was 3.0 (95% CI 1.1 to 8.0) despite hearing protection. In four studies, workers in a HLPP had a 0.5 dB HL greater hearing loss at 4 kHz than non-noise exposed workers (95% CI -0.5 to 1.7). In one study, the hazard ratio of hearing loss was 3.8 (95% CI 2.7 to 5.3) for workers exposed to noise compared to non-exposed workers.In three studies, a high quality HLPP had a lower risk of hearing loss than lower quality programmes.Noise attenuation ratings of hearing protection under field conditions were consistently lower than the ratings provided by the manufacturers. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low quality evidence that legislation can reduce noise levels in workplaces.The effectiveness of hearing protection devices depends on their proper use. There is contradictory evidence that HLPPs are effective in the long-term. Even though case studies show that substantial reductions can be achieved, there is no evidence that this is realised in practice. Better implementation and reinforcement is needed.Better evaluations of technical interventions and long-term effects are needed. Audiometric and noise measurement data are potentially valuable for such studies

Occupational injury rates among construction workers are the highest among the major industries. A number of injury-prevention interventions have been proposed, yet the effectiveness of these is uncertain. Thus a systematic review evaluating the effectiveness of interventions for preventing occupational injuries among construction workers was conducted.Seven databases were searched, from the earliest available dates through June 2006, for published findings of injury prevention in construction studies. Acceptable study designs included RCTs; controlled before-after studies; and interrupted time series (ITS). Effect sizes of similar interventions were pooled into a meta-analysis in January 2007.Of 7522 titles found, four ITS studies and one controlled ITS study met the inclusion criteria. The overall methodologic quality was low. No indications of publication bias were found. Findings from a safety-campaign study and a drug-free-workplace study indicated that both interventions significantly reduced the level and the trend of injuries. Three studies that evaluated legislation did not decrease the level (ES 0.69; 95% CI=-1.70, 3.09) and made the downward trend (ES 0.28; 95% CI=0.05, 0.51) of injuries less favorable.Limited evidence was found for the effectiveness of a multifaceted safety campaign and a multifaceted drug program, but no evidence was found that legislation is effective to prevent nonfatal or fatal injuries in the construction industry.

BACKGROUND: Training and assistive devices are considered major interventions to prevent back pain among workers exposed to manual material handling (MMH). OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of MMH advice and training and the provision of assistive devices in preventing and treating back pain. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE to November 2005, EMBASE to August 2005, and CENTRAL, the Back Group's Trials Register, CINAHL, Nioshtic, CISdoc, Science Citation Index, and PsychLIT to September 2005. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCT) and cohort studies with a concurrent control group, aimed at changing human behaviour in MMH and measuring back pain, back pain-related disability or sickness absence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted the data and assessed the methodological quality using the criteria recommended by the Back Review Group for RCTs and MINORS for the cohort studies. One author of an original study supplied additional data for the review.The results and conclusions are based on the primary analysis of RCTs. We conducted a secondary analysis with cohort studies. We compared and contrasted the conclusions from the primary and secondary analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs (17,720 employees) and five cohort studies (772 employees). All studies focused on prevention of back pain. Two RCTs and all cohort studies met the majority of the quality criteria and were labeled high quality.We summarized the strength of the evidence with a qualitative analysis since the lack of data precluded a statistical analysis.There is moderate evidence that MMH advice and training are no more effective at preventing back pain or back pain-related disability than no intervention (four studies) or minor advice (one study). There is limited evidence that MMH advice and training are no more effective than physical exercise or back belt use in preventing back pain (three studies), and that MMH advice plus assistive devices are not more effective than MMH advice alone (one study) or no intervention (one study) in preventing back pain or related disability.The results of the cohort studies were similar to the randomised studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is limited to moderate evidence that MMH advice and training with or without assistive devices do not prevent back pain, back pain-related disability or reduce sick leave when compared to no intervention or alternative interventions. There is no evidence available for the effectiveness of MMH advice and training or MMH assistive devices for treating back pain

Systematic reviews have been described by leaders in the field of evidence-based practice as the most powerful and useful evidence available to guide practice. This paper gives a description and analysis of systematic reviews currently included in the Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews which have been identified by newly formed Cochrane Occupational Health Field as having an occupational health focus.

Background This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 2, 2006 and previously updated in 2009.Noise-induced hearing loss can be prevented by eliminating or lowering noise exposure levels. Where the source of the noise cannot be eliminated, workers have to rely on hearing protection equipment. Several trials have been conducted to study the effectiveness of interventions to influence the wearing of hearing protection. Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to enhance the wearing of hearing protection among persons regularly exposed to high noise levels. Search strategy We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 1); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was 8 April 2011. Selection criteria We included studies if they had a randomised design, if they were among noise exposed (> 80 dB(A)) persons, if they included an intervention to promote the wearing of hearing protection (compared to another intervention or no intervention), and if the outcome measured was the amount of use of hearing protection or a proxy measure thereof. Data collection and analysis Two authors selected relevant trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Main results Seven studies, involving 4670 participants, were included.A computer-based intervention lasting 30 minutes, tailored to the risk of an individual worker, was not found to be more effective than a video providing general information among workers, around 80% of whom already used hearing protection.A four-year school-based hearing loss prevention programme found that the intervention group was twice as likely to wear some kind of hearing protection as the control group that received a baseline hearing test and two additional tests at years two and three.We conducted two meta-analyses for the comparisons 'tailored strategy (the use of communication or other types of interventions that are specific to an individual or a group and aim to change behaviour) versus non-tailored strategy' and 'tailored strategy versus a commercial video on the use of hearing protection' to look at mean percentage use of hearing protective devices (HPDs), that showed improvement in the mean use of HPDs for the tailored group. A meta-analysis of the comparison 'mixed interventions' (classroom instruction, distribution of HPDs, mailings, noise level assessments and audiometric testing) versus control (audiometric testing alone) also showed improvement in self reported use of HPDs when shooting firearms.Tailored education showed an improvement in HPD use of 8.3% versus targeted education (6.1%). Authors' conclusions The evidence found in this review shows that some interventions improve the mean use of hearing protection devices compared to non-intervention. Future trials should have standard outcomes and interventions to allow the combining of results in meta-analysis.

This study attempted to determine the feasibility and utility of methods used in evidence-based medicine for some common questions in the practice of occupational medicine.The following clinical questions were generated that were representative of the type of problems encountered by occupational health physicians: is work a cause of health problems and is impaired health a cause of diminished work capacity for a specific job? Answers were generated according to the method used in evidence-based medicine by formulating an answerable question, searching the literature, critically appraising the results, and applying the results to the clinical question.Answers were found to all the questions in a reasonable amount of time. The searches revealed a need for more systematic reviews and studies that use work-related health outcomes like return to work. However, there is more evidence available in Medline than is generally assumed by occupational health physicians. Using this evidence led to better clinical decisions. Pitfalls during the literature search were typing mistakes, problems in using medical subject headings, and unreliable search strategies. With the use of the abstracts only, most clinical questions could be answered satisfactorily, but concrete risk estimates were often lacking. The lack of availability of full text journals decreased the reliability of the critical appraisal and risk estimation.Evidence-based medicine is a feasible and useful method for occupational medicine. Instruction and training is needed for most occupational health physicians to increase their searching and critical appraisal skills. More research is needed to determine the information needs of occupational health physicians and to develop tools that facilitate literature searches.