Workers with occupational contact dermatitis: workplace characteristics and prevention practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are many gaps in knowledge related to prevention practices in place for workers who subsequently develop occupational contact dermatitis (OCD). AIMS: To describe the workplace characteristics and the prevention practices in workplaces where workers developed hand dermatitis. METHODS: Consecutive cases of probable OCD were enrolled from a specialist occupational health clinic. At the time of the initial assessment, questionnaires were administered to collect information about clinical presentation, workplace characteristics and prevention practices at work. RESULTS: 100 workers with hand dermatitis were enrolled in the study and 78 were considered to have OCD. Two-thirds of these had had some occupational health and safety or Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS) training in their workplace, however, training related to glove use and skin care was less common. Unionized workers were more likely to have received training. Workers involved in wet work were less likely to report training. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that there are gaps in prevention programs for work-related skin disease. Research is needed on effective strategies that are sustainable in the workplace.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".