Interventions to increase the reporting of occupational diseases by physicians
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 report...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2015-03, Vol.2015 (3), p.CD010305 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | CD010305 |
| container_title | Cochrane database of systematic reviews |
| container_volume | 2015 |
| creator | Curti, Stefania Sauni, Riitta Spreeuwers, Dick De Schryver, Antoon Valenty, Madeleine Rivière, Stéphanie Mattioli, Stefano Curti, Stefania |
| description | 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 s 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We also checked reference lists of relevant articles and contacted study authors to identify additional published, unpublished, and ongoing studies.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 system |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/14651858.CD010305.pub2 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>wiley_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1002_14651858_CD010305_pub2</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>CD010305.pub2</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3702-19afe96bbf96f46a273402a4a4d1baecb675c135d0740fd9750afeb9ee6f088a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkEtOwzAQhi0EoqVwhcoXSBnHsZMsoTylCjawjmxnTI3aOLJTUG5PolKE2LCaGf2PkT5C5gwWDCC9ZJkUrBDFYnkDDDiIRbvT6RGZjkIyKse_9gk5i_EdgMsyzU_JJBUFCM5gSp4emw7DBzad802knaeuMQFVRNqtkQZsfehc80a9pd6YXatGo9rQ2sXRFanuabvuozNONfGcnFi1iXjxPWfk9e72ZfmQrJ7vH5dXq8TwHNKElcpiKbW2pbSZVGnOM0hVprKaaYVGy1wYxkUNeQa2LnMBQ0CXiNJCUSg-I3Lfa4KPMaCt2uC2KvQVg2oEVB0AVQdA1QhoCM73weHaYv0TOxAZDNd7w6fbYF8Zb9ZBNfhP758vX0gMd6U</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Interventions to increase the reporting of occupational diseases by physicians</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Cochrane Library</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Curti, Stefania ; Sauni, Riitta ; Spreeuwers, Dick ; De Schryver, Antoon ; Valenty, Madeleine ; Rivière, Stéphanie ; Mattioli, Stefano ; Curti, Stefania</creator><creatorcontrib>Curti, Stefania ; Sauni, Riitta ; Spreeuwers, Dick ; De Schryver, Antoon ; Valenty, Madeleine ; Rivière, Stéphanie ; Mattioli, Stefano ; Curti, Stefania</creatorcontrib><description>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 s 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 materials
We 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 meetings
We 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 meetings
We 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 campaign
We 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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1465-1858</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1465-1858</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-493X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010305.pub2</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25805310</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd</publisher><subject><![CDATA[1.2 Other preventive measures to prevent occupational disease ; 1.2.2 Policy measures and legislation ; Disease Notification ; Disease Notification - statistics & numerical data ; Health & safety at work ; Humans ; Mandatory Reporting ; Medical Staff, Hospital ; Medical Staff, Hospital - education ; Medical Staff, Hospital - statistics & numerical data ; Medicine General & Introductory Medical Sciences ; Occupational Diseases ; Occupational Diseases - epidemiology ; Occupational Diseases - prevention & control ; Occupational health outcome ; Occupational Medicine ; Occupational Medicine - education ; Occupational Medicine - statistics & numerical data ; Other preventive measures ; Physician's Role ; Prevention of occupational disease ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; Teaching Materials]]></subject><ispartof>Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2015-03, Vol.2015 (3), p.CD010305</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2015 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3702-19afe96bbf96f46a273402a4a4d1baecb675c135d0740fd9750afeb9ee6f088a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3702-19afe96bbf96f46a273402a4a4d1baecb675c135d0740fd9750afeb9ee6f088a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,27905,27906</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25805310$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Curti, Stefania</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sauni, Riitta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spreeuwers, Dick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>De Schryver, Antoon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Valenty, Madeleine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rivière, Stéphanie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mattioli, Stefano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Curti, Stefania</creatorcontrib><title>Interventions to increase the reporting of occupational diseases by physicians</title><title>Cochrane database of systematic reviews</title><addtitle>Cochrane Database Syst Rev</addtitle><description>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 s 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 materials
We 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 meetings
We 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 meetings
We 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 campaign
We 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.</description><subject>1.2 Other preventive measures to prevent occupational disease</subject><subject>1.2.2 Policy measures and legislation</subject><subject>Disease Notification</subject><subject>Disease Notification - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Health & safety at work</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Mandatory Reporting</subject><subject>Medical Staff, Hospital</subject><subject>Medical Staff, Hospital - education</subject><subject>Medical Staff, Hospital - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Medicine General & Introductory Medical Sciences</subject><subject>Occupational Diseases</subject><subject>Occupational Diseases - epidemiology</subject><subject>Occupational Diseases - prevention & control</subject><subject>Occupational health outcome</subject><subject>Occupational Medicine</subject><subject>Occupational Medicine - education</subject><subject>Occupational Medicine - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Other preventive measures</subject><subject>Physician's Role</subject><subject>Prevention of occupational disease</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</subject><subject>Teaching Materials</subject><issn>1465-1858</issn><issn>1465-1858</issn><issn>1469-493X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>RWY</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkEtOwzAQhi0EoqVwhcoXSBnHsZMsoTylCjawjmxnTI3aOLJTUG5PolKE2LCaGf2PkT5C5gwWDCC9ZJkUrBDFYnkDDDiIRbvT6RGZjkIyKse_9gk5i_EdgMsyzU_JJBUFCM5gSp4emw7DBzad802knaeuMQFVRNqtkQZsfehc80a9pd6YXatGo9rQ2sXRFanuabvuozNONfGcnFi1iXjxPWfk9e72ZfmQrJ7vH5dXq8TwHNKElcpiKbW2pbSZVGnOM0hVprKaaYVGy1wYxkUNeQa2LnMBQ0CXiNJCUSg-I3Lfa4KPMaCt2uC2KvQVg2oEVB0AVQdA1QhoCM73weHaYv0TOxAZDNd7w6fbYF8Zb9ZBNfhP758vX0gMd6U</recordid><startdate>20150325</startdate><enddate>20150325</enddate><creator>Curti, Stefania</creator><creator>Sauni, Riitta</creator><creator>Spreeuwers, Dick</creator><creator>De Schryver, Antoon</creator><creator>Valenty, Madeleine</creator><creator>Rivière, Stéphanie</creator><creator>Mattioli, Stefano</creator><creator>Curti, Stefania</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd</general><scope>7PX</scope><scope>RWY</scope><scope>ZYTZH</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150325</creationdate><title>Interventions to increase the reporting of occupational diseases by physicians</title><author>Curti, Stefania ; Sauni, Riitta ; Spreeuwers, Dick ; De Schryver, Antoon ; Valenty, Madeleine ; Rivière, Stéphanie ; Mattioli, Stefano ; Curti, Stefania</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3702-19afe96bbf96f46a273402a4a4d1baecb675c135d0740fd9750afeb9ee6f088a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>1.2 Other preventive measures to prevent occupational disease</topic><topic>1.2.2 Policy measures and legislation</topic><topic>Disease Notification</topic><topic>Disease Notification - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Health & safety at work</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Mandatory Reporting</topic><topic>Medical Staff, Hospital</topic><topic>Medical Staff, Hospital - education</topic><topic>Medical Staff, Hospital - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Medicine General & Introductory Medical Sciences</topic><topic>Occupational Diseases</topic><topic>Occupational Diseases - epidemiology</topic><topic>Occupational Diseases - prevention & control</topic><topic>Occupational health outcome</topic><topic>Occupational Medicine</topic><topic>Occupational Medicine - education</topic><topic>Occupational Medicine - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Other preventive measures</topic><topic>Physician's Role</topic><topic>Prevention of occupational disease</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</topic><topic>Teaching Materials</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Curti, Stefania</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sauni, Riitta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spreeuwers, Dick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>De Schryver, Antoon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Valenty, Madeleine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rivière, Stéphanie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mattioli, Stefano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Curti, Stefania</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley-Blackwell Cochrane Library</collection><collection>Cochrane Library</collection><collection>Cochrane Library (Open Aceess)</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Cochrane database of systematic reviews</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Curti, Stefania</au><au>Sauni, Riitta</au><au>Spreeuwers, Dick</au><au>De Schryver, Antoon</au><au>Valenty, Madeleine</au><au>Rivière, Stéphanie</au><au>Mattioli, Stefano</au><au>Curti, Stefania</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Interventions to increase the reporting of occupational diseases by physicians</atitle><jtitle>Cochrane database of systematic reviews</jtitle><addtitle>Cochrane Database Syst Rev</addtitle><date>2015-03-25</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>2015</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>CD010305</spage><pages>CD010305-</pages><issn>1465-1858</issn><eissn>1465-1858</eissn><eissn>1469-493X</eissn><abstract>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 s 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 materials
We 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 meetings
We 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 meetings
We 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 campaign
We 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.</abstract><cop>Chichester, UK</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd</pub><pmid>25805310</pmid><doi>10.1002/14651858.CD010305.pub2</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1465-1858 |
| ispartof | Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2015-03, Vol.2015 (3), p.CD010305 |
| issn | 1465-1858 1465-1858 1469-493X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_crossref_primary_10_1002_14651858_CD010305_pub2 |
| source | MEDLINE; Cochrane Library; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| subjects | 1.2 Other preventive measures to prevent occupational disease 1.2.2 Policy measures and legislation Disease Notification Disease Notification - statistics & numerical data Health & safety at work Humans Mandatory Reporting Medical Staff, Hospital Medical Staff, Hospital - education Medical Staff, Hospital - statistics & numerical data Medicine General & Introductory Medical Sciences Occupational Diseases Occupational Diseases - epidemiology Occupational Diseases - prevention & control Occupational health outcome Occupational Medicine Occupational Medicine - education Occupational Medicine - statistics & numerical data Other preventive measures Physician's Role Prevention of occupational disease Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic Teaching Materials |
| title | Interventions to increase the reporting of occupational diseases by physicians |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-20T02%3A34%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-wiley_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Interventions%20to%20increase%20the%20reporting%20of%20occupational%20diseases%20by%20physicians&rft.jtitle=Cochrane%20database%20of%20systematic%20reviews&rft.au=Curti,%20Stefania&rft.date=2015-03-25&rft.volume=2015&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=CD010305&rft.pages=CD010305-&rft.issn=1465-1858&rft.eissn=1465-1858&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010305.pub2&rft_dat=%3Cwiley_cross%3ECD010305.pub2%3C/wiley_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/25805310&rfr_iscdi=true |