Preventive occupational health interventions in the meat processing industry in upper-middle and high-income countries: a systematic review on their effectiveness

B.J. van Holland, R. Soer, M.R. de Boer, M.F. Reneman, S. Brouwer

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the effectiveness of occupational health interventions in the meat processing industry on work and health-related outcomes. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed. PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library were searched. Studies were included when they reported on an intervention among employees in the meat processing industry and with outcomes related to work or health. Studies were assessed on risk of bias, and data were synthesized by type of intervention. Results: A total of 13 articles reporting on two randomized controlled trials and nine non-randomized intervention studies were retrieved. Studies were categorized into three topics: ergonomics programs, skin protection, and Q fever vaccination. All studies had high risk of bias. Based on four studies, there was limited evidence for workplace health and safety programs showing reductions in musculoskeletal injury severity, reduction of lost work days, and reduction of costs and claims for several musculoskeletal disorders. There was limited evidence for added rest breaks resulting in improved productivity at the end of a workday and in reductions of perceived discomfort in various body regions at the end of the workday. One study on skin protection showed reductions of eczema prevalence, although evidence was moderate. Based on four studies, there was high-quality evidence for strong effectiveness of Q fever vaccination. Conclusion: This review presents evidence for the effectiveness of a variety of workplace interventions. There was limited evidence for effectiveness of ergonomic interventions, moderate evidence of a skin protection intervention, and strong evidence for Q fever vaccination.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)389-402
JournalInternational Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health
Volume88
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Fingerprint

Q Fever
Occupational Health
Meat
Industry
Vaccination
Human Engineering
Workplace
Skin
Health
Body Regions
Eczema
PubMed
Libraries
Efficiency
Safety
Costs and Cost Analysis
Wounds and Injuries

Cite this

@article{f575c7b2991f4ba1bcf3593fdf277d87,
title = "Preventive occupational health interventions in the meat processing industry in upper-middle and high-income countries: a systematic review on their effectiveness",
abstract = "Objective: To investigate the effectiveness of occupational health interventions in the meat processing industry on work and health-related outcomes. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed. PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library were searched. Studies were included when they reported on an intervention among employees in the meat processing industry and with outcomes related to work or health. Studies were assessed on risk of bias, and data were synthesized by type of intervention. Results: A total of 13 articles reporting on two randomized controlled trials and nine non-randomized intervention studies were retrieved. Studies were categorized into three topics: ergonomics programs, skin protection, and Q fever vaccination. All studies had high risk of bias. Based on four studies, there was limited evidence for workplace health and safety programs showing reductions in musculoskeletal injury severity, reduction of lost work days, and reduction of costs and claims for several musculoskeletal disorders. There was limited evidence for added rest breaks resulting in improved productivity at the end of a workday and in reductions of perceived discomfort in various body regions at the end of the workday. One study on skin protection showed reductions of eczema prevalence, although evidence was moderate. Based on four studies, there was high-quality evidence for strong effectiveness of Q fever vaccination. Conclusion: This review presents evidence for the effectiveness of a variety of workplace interventions. There was limited evidence for effectiveness of ergonomic interventions, moderate evidence of a skin protection intervention, and strong evidence for Q fever vaccination.",
author = "{van Holland}, B.J. and R. Soer and {de Boer}, M.R. and M.F. Reneman and S. Brouwer",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1007/s00420-014-0964-3",
language = "English",
volume = "88",
pages = "389--402",
journal = "International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health",
issn = "0340-0131",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "4",

}

Preventive occupational health interventions in the meat processing industry in upper-middle and high-income countries: a systematic review on their effectiveness. / van Holland, B.J.; Soer, R.; de Boer, M.R.; Reneman, M.F.; Brouwer, S.

In: International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, Vol. 88, No. 4, 2015, p. 389-402.

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Preventive occupational health interventions in the meat processing industry in upper-middle and high-income countries: a systematic review on their effectiveness

AU - van Holland, B.J.

AU - Soer, R.

AU - de Boer, M.R.

AU - Reneman, M.F.

AU - Brouwer, S.

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - Objective: To investigate the effectiveness of occupational health interventions in the meat processing industry on work and health-related outcomes. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed. PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library were searched. Studies were included when they reported on an intervention among employees in the meat processing industry and with outcomes related to work or health. Studies were assessed on risk of bias, and data were synthesized by type of intervention. Results: A total of 13 articles reporting on two randomized controlled trials and nine non-randomized intervention studies were retrieved. Studies were categorized into three topics: ergonomics programs, skin protection, and Q fever vaccination. All studies had high risk of bias. Based on four studies, there was limited evidence for workplace health and safety programs showing reductions in musculoskeletal injury severity, reduction of lost work days, and reduction of costs and claims for several musculoskeletal disorders. There was limited evidence for added rest breaks resulting in improved productivity at the end of a workday and in reductions of perceived discomfort in various body regions at the end of the workday. One study on skin protection showed reductions of eczema prevalence, although evidence was moderate. Based on four studies, there was high-quality evidence for strong effectiveness of Q fever vaccination. Conclusion: This review presents evidence for the effectiveness of a variety of workplace interventions. There was limited evidence for effectiveness of ergonomic interventions, moderate evidence of a skin protection intervention, and strong evidence for Q fever vaccination.

AB - Objective: To investigate the effectiveness of occupational health interventions in the meat processing industry on work and health-related outcomes. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed. PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library were searched. Studies were included when they reported on an intervention among employees in the meat processing industry and with outcomes related to work or health. Studies were assessed on risk of bias, and data were synthesized by type of intervention. Results: A total of 13 articles reporting on two randomized controlled trials and nine non-randomized intervention studies were retrieved. Studies were categorized into three topics: ergonomics programs, skin protection, and Q fever vaccination. All studies had high risk of bias. Based on four studies, there was limited evidence for workplace health and safety programs showing reductions in musculoskeletal injury severity, reduction of lost work days, and reduction of costs and claims for several musculoskeletal disorders. There was limited evidence for added rest breaks resulting in improved productivity at the end of a workday and in reductions of perceived discomfort in various body regions at the end of the workday. One study on skin protection showed reductions of eczema prevalence, although evidence was moderate. Based on four studies, there was high-quality evidence for strong effectiveness of Q fever vaccination. Conclusion: This review presents evidence for the effectiveness of a variety of workplace interventions. There was limited evidence for effectiveness of ergonomic interventions, moderate evidence of a skin protection intervention, and strong evidence for Q fever vaccination.

U2 - 10.1007/s00420-014-0964-3

DO - 10.1007/s00420-014-0964-3

M3 - Article

VL - 88

SP - 389

EP - 402

JO - International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health

JF - International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health

SN - 0340-0131

IS - 4

ER -