↓ Skip to main content

Historical review of the List of Occupational Diseases recommended by the International Labour organization (ILO)

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Historical review of the List of Occupational Diseases recommended by the International Labour organization (ILO)
Published in
Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, August 2013
DOI 10.1186/2052-4374-25-14
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eun-A Kim, Seong-Kyu Kang

Abstract

The list of occupational diseases established in the international and national legal system has played important roles in both prevention of and compensation for workers' diseases. This report reviewed the historical development in the ILO list of occupational diseases and suggested implications of the trends. Since the first establishment of the ILO list of occupational diseases in 1925, the list has played a key role in harmonizing the development of policies on occupational diseases at the international level. The three occupational diseases (anthrax, lead poisoning, and mercury poisoning) in the first ILO list of occupational diseases, set up in 1925 as workmen's compensation convention represented an increase of occupational diseases from the Industrial Revolution. Until the 1960s, 10 occupational diseases had been representative compensable occupational diseases listed in Convention No. 121, which implies that occupational diseases in this era were equated to industrial poisoning. Since 1980, with advancements in diagnostic techniques and medical science, noise-induced hearing loss, and several bronchopulmonary diseases have been incorporated into the ILO occupational list. Since 2002, changes in the structure of industries, emerging new chemicals, and advanced national worker's compensation schemes have provoked the ILO to revise the occupational disease list. A new format of ILO list appended in Recommendation 194 (R194) was composed of two dimensions (causes and diseases) and subcategories. Among 50 member states that had provided their national lists of occupational diseases, until 2012 thirty countries were found to have the list occupational diseases having similar structure to ILO list in R194.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Serbia 1 1%
Peru 1 1%
Ghana 1 1%
Unknown 86 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Other 10 11%
Researcher 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Other 23 26%
Unknown 13 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 35%
Engineering 11 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 10%
Environmental Science 7 8%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 18 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 October 2020.
All research outputs
#10,945,292
of 19,069,422 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
#67
of 158 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,099
of 203,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
#5
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,069,422 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 158 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 203,571 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.