The evolution of new and emerging occupational health and safety risks: A qualitative review.
Maria Lindholm, Arto Reiman, Sari Tappura
PMID 38701168WHAT IT FOUND
Workplace safety literature before 2000 and from 2020 onwards keeps returning to changing work, workforce, materials and technology.
Newer papers add heat, climate change and viruses. This maps hazards and suggested controls, not tested patient treatments.
Key findings
01Before 2000, the main risk themes were changes in work patterns, growth in certain sectors, and new technology and technical development.
02From 2020 onwards, the main risk themes were climate change, new technology and technical development, and viruses, with changes in work patterns and growth in certain sectors also frequent.
03In both periods, possible effects included musculoskeletal disorders, exposure to toxic agents, chemical compounds and hazardous materials, increased stress, errors or accidents and psychosocial problems.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
This is a literature review, not a clinical study, so it reports themes and recommendations rather than patient outcomes. Only one author extracted data, and the researcher’s interpretations may have affected selection and analysis. The search used only Scopus and only English-language articles, so relevant studies may have been missed. Only 10 of 34 articles were based on empirical data. Many included articles were reviews or overviews with little methodological detail. The article selection process introduced potential bias; only 2% of the 1,950 articles found were included. Some older articles could not be retrieved because they were no longer available. A wider search with terms such as hazard could have found more relevant articles.
Declared interests
The authors report no conflict of interest and no funding.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the suggested measures as proven workplace interventions. The paper reports themes and recommendations from a qualitative review, and only 10 of 34 articles were based on empirical data.