↓ Skip to main content

Pre-employment examinations for preventing injury, disease and sick leave in workers

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 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
Pre-employment examinations for preventing injury, disease and sick leave in workers
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008881.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frederieke G Schaafsma, Norashikin Mahmud, Michiel F Reneman, Jean-Baptiste Fassier, Franciscus HW Jungbauer

Abstract

Many employers and other stakeholders believe that health examinations of job applicants prevent occupational diseases and sickness absence. This is an update of the original Cochrane review (Mahmud 2010). To evaluate the effectiveness of pre-employment examinations of job applicants in preventing occupational injury, disease and sick leave compared to no intervention or alternative interventions. We searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and PEDro (up to 31 March 2015). We did not impose any restrictions on date, language or publication type. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before-after (CBA) studies, and interrupted time-series (ITS) studies of health examinations to prevent occupational diseases and injuries in job applicants in comparison to no intervention or alternative interventions. All five review authors independently selected studies from the updated search for inclusion. We retrieved two new studies with the updated search from 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2015, resulting in a total of eleven studies. We included two RCTs, seven CBA studies and two ITS studies. Nine studies with 7820 participants evaluated the screening process of pre-employment examinations as a whole, and two studies with 2164 participants evaluated the measures to mitigate the risks found following the screening process. The studies were too heterogeneous for statistical pooling of results. We rated the quality of the evidence for all outcomes as very low quality. The two new CBA studies both used historical controls and both had a high risk of bias.Of those studies that evaluated the screening process, there is very low quality evidence based on one RCT that a general examination for light duty work may not reduce the risk for sick leave (mean difference (MD) -0.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.47 to 0.29). For army recruits, there is very low quality evidence based on one CBA study that there is a positive effect on fitness for duty after 12 months follow-up (odds ratio (OR) 0.40, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.85).We found inconsistent evidence of an effect of job-focused pre-employment examinations on the risk of musculoskeletal injuries in comparison with general or no pre-employment examination based on one RCT with high risk of bias, and four CBA studies. There is very low quality evidence based on one ITS study that incorporation of a bronchial challenge test may decrease occupational asthma (trend change -2.6, 95% CI -3.6 to -1.5) compared to a general pre-employment examination with lung function tests.Pre-employment examinations may also result in a rejection of the applicant for the new job. In six studies, the rates of rejecting job applicants increased because of the studied examinations , on average, from 2% to 35%, but not in one study.There is very low quality evidence based on two CBA studies that risk mitigation among applicants considered not fit for work at the pre-employment examination may result in a similar risk of work-related musculoskeletal injury during follow-up compared to workers considered fit for work at the health examination. There is very low quality evidence that a general examination for light duty work may not reduce the risk for sick leave, but may have a positive effect on fitness for duty for army recruits after 12 months follow-up.There is inconsistent evidence of an effect of job-focused pre-employment examinations on the risk of musculoskeletal injuries in comparison with general or no pre-employment examination. There is very low quality evidence that incorporation of a bronchial challenge test may decrease occupational asthma compared to a general pre-employment examination with lung function tests. Pre-employment examinations may result in an increase of rejecting job applicants in six out of seven studies. Risk mitigation based on the result of pre-employment examinations may be effective in reducing an increased risk for occupational injuries based on very low quality evidence. This evidence supports the current policy to restrict pre-employment examinations to only job-specific examinations. Better quality evaluation studies on pre-employment examinations are necessary, including the evaluation of the benefits of risk mitigation, given the effect on health and on the financial situation for those employees who do not pass the pre-employment examination.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 112 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Researcher 12 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 5%
Other 20 18%
Unknown 20 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 17%
Social Sciences 9 8%
Psychology 9 8%
Environmental Science 4 4%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 25 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 28 March 2020.
All research outputs
#1,428,268
of 15,916,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,730
of 11,324 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,955
of 372,599 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#86
of 210 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,916,297 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,324 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 372,599 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 210 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.