A Systematic Review of Occupational Health and Safety Business Cases

This issue of Workplace Health & Safety contains a Continuing Nursing Education Module on “A Systematic Review of Occupational Health and Safety Business Cases” 1.0 contact hour of continuing nursing education credit will be awarded by AAOHN upon successful completion of the posttest and evaluation.

A certificate will be awarded when the following requirements are met by the participant: (1) Participant logs on to the AAOHN LMS website at www.aaohn.org/education/online-learning-center and enrolls in the course ($10 members; $15 non-members); (2) The completed posttest and course evaluation are entered online at at http://www.aaohn.org by February 2020;(3) A score of 75% (6 correct answers) is achieved by the participant.

Upon completion of this lesson, the occupational health nurse will be able to:

• Explain the rationale for establishing business cases in occupational health and safety programs

• Discuss economic and clinical outcomes of the business cases described and associated implications for research and practice

The American Association of Occupational Health Nurses, Inc. is an Approved Provider of continuing nursing education by the American Association of Occupational Health Nurses, Inc., an accredited approver by the American Nurses Credentialing Center’s Commission on Accreditation.

The American Association of Occupational Health Nurses, Inc. is additionally approved as a CNE provider by the California Board of Registered Nursing (#CEP9283).

Contact hours received for successful completion of the posttest and evaluation may be used for relicensure, certification, and re-certification.

1. The most important reason for establishing business cases in occupational health and safety is that they

2. Establish specific budget guidelines for OHSI programs

3. Can be used to secure management commitment to and investment in OHSI programs

4. Meet state guidelines for worker compensation funds

Promoting effective OHSI reduces costs related to

Lost productivity

Litigation

Presenteeism

Accomodation

In comparing results from the Barbarosa et al. (2015) and Abraham, Jeffrey, and Barleen (2012) studies, differences in ROI of OHSI were noted - 1.68 and 1.76, respectively. What does this mean?

The Barbarosa et al. article described a OHSI with higher efficicacy

The OHSI described by Abraham, Jeffrey, and Barleen was a more efficacious program

There was no difference in the efficacy of the programs described in the two articles

There is not enough information to compare the ROIs of the two programs

The two Van Dongen studies indicated that the OHSI programs were not cost-effective; however, both noted significant clinical outcomes. What were they?

Decreased injury rate and increased vitality

Increased work engagement and vitality

Decreased work engagement and vitality

Decreased injury rate and work engagement

The majority of the studies reviewed included health promotion or injury prevention strategies, including the following examples EXCEPT

Online-supported cognitive therapy

Yoga

Educational materials (e.g. booklets)

Establishment of a primary care center

The most common threat to internal validity of the studies reviewed was

History

Selection bias

Design contamination

Mortality

What strategy might have mitigated the most common threat to internal validity?

Use of purposive sampling

More frequent contact of the participants

Use of random sampling

Asking structured questions to determine participants’ reasons for study involvement

Based on results of the systematic review the authors suggest all of the following EXCEPT

Valid and reliable guidelines for reporting business cases

Using theory to guide future studies

Abandoning the use of the business case in occupational health and safety

Expanding diversity of participants, geographic regions, and business settings in future studies