A Systematic Review of Occupational Health and Safety Interventions With Economic Analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We reviewed the occupational health and safety intervention literature to synthesize evidence on financial merits of such interventions. METHODS: A literature search included journal databases, existing systematic reviews, and studies identified by content experts. Studies meeting inclusion criteria were assessed for quality. Evidence was synthesized within industry-intervention type clusters. RESULTS: We found strong evidence that ergonomic and other musculoskeletal injury prevention interventions in manufacturing and warehousing are worth undertaking in terms of their financial merits. We also found strong evidence that multisector disability management interventions are worth undertaking. CONCLUSIONS: While the economic evaluation of interventions in this literature warrants further expansion, we found a sufficient number of studies to identify strong, moderate, and limited evidence in certain industry-intervention clusters. The review also provided insights into how the methodological quality of economic evaluations in this literature could be improved.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.154 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".