Current Guidelines for Protecting Health Workers from Occupational Tuberculosis Are Necessary, but Not Sufficient: Towards a Comprehensive Occupational Health Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health workers globally are at elevated occupational risk of tuberculosis infection and disease. While a raft of guidelines have been published over the past 25 years on infection prevention and control (IPC) in healthcare, studies in different settings continue to show inadequate implementation and persistence of risk. The aim of this commentary is to argue, based on the literature and our own research, that a comprehensive occupational health approach is an essential complement to IPC guidelines. Such an approach includes a health system framework focusing on upstream or mediating components, such as a statutory regulation, leadership, an information system, and staff trained in protective disciplines. Within the classical prevention framework, primary prevention needs to be complemented by occupational health services (secondary prevention) and worker's compensation (tertiary prevention). A worker-centric approach recognises the ethical implications of screening health workers, as well as the stigma perceived by those diagnosed with tuberculosis. It also provides for the voiced experience of health workers and their participation in decision-making. We argue that such a comprehensive approach will contribute to both the prevention of occupational tuberculosis and to the ability of a health system to withstand other crises of infectious hazards to its workforce
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 | 0.076 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.043 | 0.044 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".