Skip to content
naulon
Not checkedNot checked for notices yet.

A systematic review of the effectiveness of occupational health and safety training

Lynda S Robson, Carol M Stephenson, Paul A Schulte and 12 more

Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health · 2012

doi:10.5271/sjweh.3259 (opens in a new tab)

We email you when a new notice or a question about this paper appears.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Training is regarded as an important component of occupational health and safety (OHS) programs. This paper primarily addresses whether OHS training has a beneficial effect on workers. The paper also examines whether higher engagement OHS training has a greater effect than lower engagement training. METHODS: Ten bibliographic databases were searched for pre-post randomized trial studies published in journals between 1996 and November 2007. Training interventions were included if they were delivered to workers and were concerned with primary prevention of occupational illness or injury. The methodological quality of each relevant study was assessed and data was extracted. The impacts of OHS training in each study were summarized by calculating the standardized mean differences. The strength of the evidence on training’s effectiveness was assessed for (i) knowledge, (ii) attitudes and beliefs, (iIi) behaviors, and (iv) health using the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Guide to Community Preventive Services, a qualitative evidence synthesis method. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies met the relevance criteria of the review. They involved a variety of study populations, occupational hazards, and types of training. Strong evidence was found for the effectiveness of training on worker OHS behaviors, but insufficient evidence was found of its effectiveness on health (ie, symptoms, injuries, illnesses). CONCLUSIONS: The review team recommends that workplaces continue to deliver OHS training to employees because training positively affects worker practices. However, large impacts of training on health cannot be expected, based on research evidence.

Abstract licence: CC BY

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.