What’s the Impact of Safety Footwear on Workers Concerning Foot-Related Problems? A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aims to assess the impact of safety footwear (SF) on workers concerning foot-related problems, especially regarding discomfort, foot pain, and skin lesions. METHODS: A literature search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane databases was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Studies reporting foot-related problems in workers wearing SF were included. Exclusion criteria included non-English papers, reviews, laboratory and animal studies, expert opinions, letters to the editor, and grey literature. The quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Descriptive statistic was used to present data. RESULT: The initial search results yielded 483 articles; 7 articles were included in the review process. Despite the extensive variety of SF, all studies consistently reported symptomatic discomfort and pain. The discomfort factors included heat, sweating, heaviness, and footwear flexibility, with primary issues in the toes, toecaps, or metatarsal-toe crease region. The pain prevalence ranged from 42.3% to 60.8% in various anatomical regions. Irritant Contact Dermatitis was the most common (97.9%) foot dermatosis, but other foot lesions were reported: dry skin (30.2%), calluses (30%), hard nails (28%), corns (27%), and blisters. CONCLUSIONS: Current SFs are designed to comply with safety regulations but are influenced by the frequent occurrence of discomfort and foot problems. The literature review identified weaknesses in certain design features. Recommendations have been proposed to improve SF development. These include addressing issues such as the selection of specific types and designs of SF based on task performance and the working environment, footwear weight, and breathable materials for moisture permeation. Considerations should also encompass distinct sizing for an optimal fit, insole application, especially for prolonged standing users, and education programs to prevent foot-related issues.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".