Systematic Review of Workplace Interventions to Support Young Workers’ Safety, Work Environment and Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This systematic review investigates the effectiveness of workplace interventions to support young workers' work environment, safety and health. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in bibliographic databases including PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection and PsycInfo for English or Scandinavian articles published from 2007 to 2022. The PICO strategy guided the assessment of study relevance and the bibliographical search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs in which (1) participants were young workers (mean age: 15-29), (2) interventions were initiated and/or carried out at the workplace, (3) a comparison group was included, and (4) an outcome measure related to work environment, safety and health was reported. We categorized each included study using the intervention classification framework. The quality assessment and evidence synthesis adhered to the guidelines developed by the Institute for Work & Health (Toronto, Canada). RESULTS: A total of 33 high and medium quality studies showed a moderate level of evidence for no benefit of 'Mental training' on stress. We found limited evidence of a positive effect of the following intervention types: 'Attitude and belief' on mental health problems, 'Behavior based' on anxiety, and 'Multifaceted' on hand eczema. We found limited evidence for no benefit of the following intervention types: 'Mental training' on mental health problems, and 'Physiological modifications' on musculoskeletal disorders. The remaining intervention types showed mixed or insufficient evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Except for a moderate level of evidence for no benefit of 'Mental training' on stress, the evidence synthesis recommends, that there is not enough evidence from the scientific literature to guide current practices. The results emphasizes a strong need for high quality interventions specifically aiming at increasing or maintaining young workers' work environment, safety and health. Included studies focused mainly on individual measures, highlighting the need for studies investigating possible preventive measures at the group or organizational level.
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 | 0.013 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".