Register for email alerts and news feeds:
This journal | BMJ Group
rss
The most recent version of this article was published on 1 November 2008

Occup Environ Med. Published Online First: 16 April 2008. doi:10.1136/oem.2007.037440
Copyright © 2008 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

Original Article

Chronic health problems and risk of accidental injury in the workplace: A systematic literature review

Keith T Palmer 1*, Elizabeth Clare Harris 1 and David Coggon 1

1 MRC Epidemiology Resource Centre, United Kingdom

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: ktp{at}mrc.soton.ac.uk.

Accepted 8 February 2008


Abstract

Objectives: To investigate whether common important health conditions and their treatments increase risks of occupational injury.

Methods: A systematic search was conducted of Medline, Embase and PsycINFO databases from inception to November 2006 employing terms for occupational injury, medications, and a broad range of diseases and impairments. Papers related solely to driving, alcohol, or substance abuse were excluded, as were studies that did not allow analysis of injury risk. For each paper that was retrieved we abstracted standard information on the population, design, exposure(s), outcome(s), response rates, confounders and effect estimates; and rated the quality of information provided.

Results: We found 38 relevant papers (33 study populations): 16 studies were of cross-sectional design, 13 were case-control and four were prospective. The overall quality was rated as excellent for only two studies. Most commonly investigated were problems of hearing (15 studies), mental health (11 studies) and vision (10 studies).

For impaired hearing, neurotic illness, diabetes, epilepsy and use of sedating medication there were moderate positive associations with occupational injury (ORs 1.5–2.0), but there were major gaps in the evidence base. Studies on vision did not present risks by category of eye disease; no evidence was found on psychotic illness; for diabetes, epilepsy and cardiovascular disease there were remarkably few papers; studies seldom distinguished risks by sub-category of external cause or anatomical site and nature of injury; and exposures and outcomes were mostly ascertained by self-report at a single time point, with a lack of clarity about exposure timings.

Conclusion: Improved research is needed to define the risks of occupational injury arising from common health complaints and treatments. Such research should delineate exposures and outcomes in more detail, and ensure by design that the former precede the latter.


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:

  • Sim, M. R, Agius, R. (2009). The role of Occupational and Environmental Medicine in strengthening the evidence base for occupational health practice. Occup. Environ. Med. 66: 570-571 [Full Text]  
  • Palmer, K. (2008). Work in Brief. Occup. Environ. Med. 65: i-i [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