You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
Cochrane corner
Interventions to increase the reporting of occupational diseases by physicians: a Cochrane systematic review
  1. Stefania Curti1,
  2. Riitta Sauni2,
  3. Dick Spreeuwers3,
  4. Antoon De Schryver4,
  5. Madeleine Valenty5,
  6. Stéphanie Rivière5,
  7. Stefano Mattioli1
  1. 1Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
  2. 2Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Tampere, Finland
  3. 3Free University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  4. 4Epidemiology and Social Medicine, University of Antwerp, Antwerpen, Belgium
  5. 5Département Santé Travail, Institut de Veille Sanitaire, Saint Maurice, France
  1. Correspondence to Dr Stefania Curti, Unità Operativa di Medicina del Lavoro, Policlinico S Orsola-Malpighi, via Pelagio Palagi 9, Bologna I-40138, Italy; stefania.curti{at}unibo.it

https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2015-103209

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Introduction

    Under-reporting of occupational diseases is an important issue in many countries. Timely and complete reporting is fundamental to a successful physician-based public health surveillance system and to plan intervention programmes and allocation of resources.

    For physicians, the main reasons for under-reporting consist of lack of awareness regarding reporting requirements, time and effort involved in reporting and lack of benefit from reporting.

    There are no systematic reviews of the effects of interventions for increasing the reporting (or reducing the under-reporting) of occupational diseases. Therefore, we conducted a Cochrane systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at increasing the reporting of occupational diseases by physicians.1

    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), Open-SIGLE and Health Evidence, up to January 2015.

    We intended to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, controlled before-after (CBA) studies and interrupted time series (ITS), on the effects of increasing the reporting of occupational diseases by physicians, but we only identified RCTs and CBA studies.

    Outcome measures were the reporting of occupational diseases measured either as the number of physicians reporting or as the rate of reporting occupational diseases.

    Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. The results of similar studies were combined in a meta-analysis. …

    View Full Text