Register for email alerts and news feeds:
This journal | BMJ Group
rss
The most recent version of this article was published on 1 May 2007

Occup Environ Med. Published Online First: 9 November 2006. doi:10.1136/oem.2006.029397
Copyright © 2006 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

Review Article

Systematic review of criteria and methods used for the assessment of fitness for work

Consol Serra 1*, Mari Cruz Rodriguez 2, George L Delclos 3, Manel Plana 4, Luis Gomez 5 and Fernando G Benavides 6

1 University Pompeu Fabra, Spain
2 Occupational Health Research Unit. University Pompeu Fabra, Spain
3 The University of Texas School of Public Health, United States
4 MC MUTUAL, Spain
5 University of Zaragoza, Spain
6 Occupational Health Research Unit. Pompeu Fabra University, Spain

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: consol.serra{at}upf.edu.

Accepted 20 October 2006


Abstract

The main findings from reports published in scientific journals on the criteria and methods used to assess fitness for work were reviewed. Systematic searches were made with engine searches (1966-2005) with related keywords. Thirty-nine reports were identified, mostly from the United States and Western Europe. Assessment of fitness for work is defined by most as the evaluation of a worker’s capacity to work without risk to their own or others’ health and safety. It is mainly assessed at recruitment (pre or post offer) and when changes of work or health conditions occur. Five main criteria used by occupational physicians to evaluate fitness for work were identified: the determination of worker’s capacity and worker’s risk in relation to his/her workplace, as well as ethical, economic and legal criteria. Most authors agreed that assessment tools used need to be specific and cost-effective, and probably none gives unequivocal answers. Outcomes from fitness for work assessments range from "fit" to "unfit", with other possible intermediate categories such as "fit subject to work modifications", "fit with restrictions" or "conditionally fit (temporarily, permanently)". Workplace modifications to improve or adjust work conditions must always be considered. There is confusion about the decision-making process to be used to judge about fitness for work. There is very scarce scientific evidence based on empirical data, probably because there are no standard or valid methodologies for all professions and circumstances.

Keywords: Assessment, Fitness for work, Preemployment, Preplacement, Systematic review


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Harrison, J. (2008). Doctors' health and fitness to practise: assessment models. Occup Med (Lond) 58: 318-322 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Harrison, J. (2008). Doctors' health and fitness to practise: the need for a bespoke model of assessment. Occup Med (Lond) 58: 323-327 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Moshe, S., Shilo, M., Yagev, Y., Levy, D., Slodownik, D., Chodick, G., Levin, M. (2008). Comparison of three methods of pre-employment medical evaluations. Occup Med (Lond) 58: 46-51 [Abstract] [Full Text]  

This Article

Services
Citing Articles
Google Scholar
PubMed
Bookmark with

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.

Occupational, Public, Community health jobs

Occupational, Public, Community health jobs