A living mapping review for COVID-19 funded research projects: final (27 month) update.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in an unprecedented research response, demonstrating exceptional examples of rapid research and collaboration. There has however been an ongoing need for greater coordination, with limited resources for research and the shifting global pandemic. METHODS: The UK Collaborative on Development Research (UKCDR) and Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R), two funder coordination groups have collaborated to develop a live database of funded research projects across the world relating to COVID-19. Drawing data continually from their members and further global funding bodies, as of 15th October 2022 the database contains 20,006 projects, funded by 351 funders, taking place across 157 countries representing an investment of at least $7.4 billion. To our knowledge it is one of the most comprehensive databases. The database is aligned to the World Health Organisation and GloPID-R Global Research Roadmap: 2019 Novel Coronavirus and the UN Research Roadmap for the COVID-19 Recovery. It is being used by the WHO, governments and further policy makers, research funders and researchers. This living mapping review aims to supplement the database by providing an open, accessible, and frequently updated resource summarising the characteristics of the COVID-19 funded research portfolio. Both descriptive and thematic analyses are presented and updated frequently to aid interpretation of the global COVID-19 funded research portfolio. RESULTS: In this final version ten analysis, we provide an updated detailed descriptive analysis of the database (on data from three months after version nine) and focus our thematic analysis on research gaps, research areas in need of coordination, study populations, and research locations (with a focus on resource-limited countries). CONCLUSIONS: As the global research response to COVID-19 plateaus, this living mapping review has helped both funders and researchers to prioritise resources and review investments.

The Interplay Between Supervisor Safety Support and Occupational Health and Safety Vulnerability on Work Injury.

BACKGROUND: Workers exposed to hazards without adequate protections are at greater risk of injury and illness. Supervisor activities have also been associated with injury risk. We examined the interplay between supervisor safety support and occupational health and safety (OHS) vulnerability on workplace injury and illness. METHODS: A survey was administered to 2,390 workers employed for more than 15 hrs/week in workplaces with at least five employees who had a direct supervisor. We examined the combined effects of hazard exposure with inadequate protection (OHS vulnerability) and supervisor support on workplace injury and illness, using additive interactions in log-binomial regression models. RESULTS: OHS vulnerability and lack of supervisor support independently increased the likelihood of physical injuries at work. Crude and adjusted models showed that the risk of physical injury was at least 3.5 times higher among those experiencing both OHS vulnerability and a lack of supervisor support than individuals without OHS vulnerability and with a supportive direct supervisor. Workers who experienced vulnerability were at less risk if they had a supervisor who was supportive. CONCLUSION: In workplaces where workers experience one or more types of OHS vulnerability, having a supportive supervisor may play an important role in reducing the risk of injury and protecting workers.

What do employers spend to protect the health of workers?

Objective This study aimed to estimate firm-level expenditures on occupational health and safety (OHS) for a representative sample of Canadian employers. Methods A cross-sectional survey of 334 employers with ≥20 employees in 18 economic sectors in the Ontario economy. Participants provided information on five dimensions of OHS expenditures: (i) organizational management and supervision; (ii) staff training in health and safety; (iii) personal protective equipment; (iv) professional services and, (v) estimates of the share of new capital investment that could be attributed to improved OHS performance. Expenditures for each of the five dimensions were summed for each organization and divided by the number of employees, resulting in an estimate of OHS expenditure per employee per year. Results The average OHS expenditure per worker per year was Can$1303 [95% confidence interval (CI) Can$1167-1454]. Expenditures were three times higher in the goods-producing sectors (Can$2417, 95% CI Can$2026-2809) relative to the service sectors (Can$847, 95% CI Can$777-915). The proportion of expenditures allocated to each of the five dimensions was generally consistent across economic sectors: 58% to organizational management and supervision, 22% to staff training in health and safety and 14% to personal protective equipment. On average, <5% of OHS expenditures per worker per year were allocated to professional services or estimated as the share of new capital investment attributed to OHS. Conclusions Employer expenditures on OHS are substantial. The results of this study are consistent with recent European estimates and strengthen understanding of the scale of employer financial expenditures to protect the health of workers.

Implementation of a disability management policy in a large healthcare employer: a quasi-experimental, mixed-methods evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: This study describes the process and outcomes of the implementation of a strengthened disability management policy in a large Canadian healthcare employer. Key elements of the strengthened policy included an emphasis on early contact, the training of supervisors and the integration of union representatives in return-to-work (RTW) planning. DESIGN: The study applied mixed methods, combining a process evaluation within the employer and a quasi-experimental outcome evaluation between employers for a 3-year period prior to and following policy implementation in January 2012. PARTICIPANTS: Staff in the implementation organisation (n=4000) and staff in a peer group of 29 large hospitals (n=1 19 000). OUTCOMES: Work disability episode incidence and duration. RESULTS: Both qualitative and quantitative measures of the implementation process were predominantly positive. Over the 6-year observation period, there were 624 work disability episodes in the organisation and 8604 in the comparison group of 29 large hospitals. The annual per cent change in episode incidence in the organisation was -5.6 (95% CI -9.9 to -1.1) comparable to the annual per cent change in the comparison group: -6.2 (-7.2 to -5.3). Disability episode durations also declined in the organisation, from a mean of 19.4 days (16.5, 22.3) in the preintervention period to 10.9 days (8.7, 13.2) in the postintervention period. Reductions in disability durations were also observed in the comparison group: from a mean of 13.5 days (12.9, 14.1) in the 2009-2011 period to 10.5 days (9.9, 11.1) in the 2012-2014 period. CONCLUSION: The incidence of work disability episodes and the durations of work disability declined strongly in this hospital sector over the 6-year observation period. The implementation of the organisation's RTW policy was associated with larger reductions in disability durations than observed in the comparison group.

The development of a conceptual model and self-reported measure of occupational health and safety vulnerability.

Injuries at work have a substantial economic and societal burden. Often groups of labour market participants, such as young workers, recent immigrants or temporary workers are labelled as being "vulnerable" to work injury. However, defining groups in this way does little to enable a better understanding of the broader factors that place workers at increased risk of injury. In this paper we describe the development of a new measure of occupational health and safety (OH&S) vulnerability. The purpose of this measure was to allow the identification of workers at increased risk of injury, and to enable the monitoring and surveillance of OH&S vulnerability in the labour market. The development included a systematic literature search, and conducting focus groups with a variety of stakeholder groups, to generate a pool of potential items, followed by a series of steps to reduce these items to a more manageable pool. The final measure is 29-item instrument that captures information on four related, but distinct dimensions, thought to be associated with increased risk of injury. These dimensions are: hazard exposure; occupational health and safety policies and procedures; OH&S awareness; and empowerment to participate in injury prevention. In a large sample of employees in Ontario and British Columbia the final measure displayed minimal missing responses, reasonably good distributions across response categories, and strong factorial validity. This new measure of OH&S vulnerability can identify workers who are at risk of injury and provide information on the dimensions of work that may increase this risk. This measurement could be undertaken at one point in time to compare vulnerability across groups, or be undertaken at multiple time points to examine changes in dimensions of OH&S vulnerability, for example, in response to a primary prevention intervention.

Medical repatriation of migrant farm workers in Ontario: a descriptive analysis.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 40 000 migrant farm workers are employed annually in Canada through temporary foreign worker programs. Workers experiencing health conditions that prevent ongoing work are normally repatriated to their home country, which raises concerns about human rights and health equity. In this study, we present data on the reasons for medical repatriation of migrant farm workers in Ontario. METHODS: In this retrospective descriptive study, we examined medical repatriation data from Foreign Agricultural Resource Management Services, a non-profit corporation managing the contracts of more than 15 000 migrant farm workers in Ontario annually. We extracted repatriation and demographic data for workers from 2001-2011. Physician volunteers used a validated system to code the reported reasons for medical repatriation. We conducted descriptive analyses of the dominant reasons for repatriation and rates of repatriation. RESULTS: During 2001-2011, 787 repatriations occurred among 170 315 migrant farm workers arriving in Ontario (4.62 repatriations per 1000 workers). More than two-thirds of repatriated workers were aged 30-49 years. Migrant farm workers were most frequently repatriated for medical or surgical reasons (41.3%) and external injuries including poisoning (25.5%). INTERPRETATION: This study provides quantitative health data related to a unique and vulnerable occupational group. Our findings reinforce existing knowledge regarding occupational hazards and health conditions among migrant farm workers. Medical repatriation of migrant farm workers merits further examination as a global health equity concern.