Toronto • May 28-29, 2010 • Student Day and Workshops: May 27
Paper: A systematic review of the effectiveness of training & education for the protection of workers
Download Presentation PDF:
Day/Time: Saturday at 11:15
Room: Armoury Suite, 2nd Floor
Objectives:
The primary objectives of the literature review were to answer the following research questions:
1) Does occupational health and safety (OHS) training have a beneficial effect on workers and firms?
2) Does higher engagement OHS training have a greater beneficial effect on workers and firms than lower engagement OHS training?
Methods:
Systematic review methods were used. Ten electronic databases were searched for articles meeting relevance criteria. Key criteria were that the study design be a randomized trial with pre- and post-intervention measures. Also, criteria allowed the inclusion of a wide range of OHS training and education intervention studies. The methodological quality of all relevant articles was assessed using a standardized form focused on internal validity. Information on the effectiveness of education & training interventions was extracted with respect to four broad outcome categories: knowledge, attitudes & beliefs, behaviours (including behaviourally-influenced hazards), and health (i.e. injuries, illnesses, symptoms). Effect sizes were also expressed as standardized mean differences to facilitate aggregation of and comparisons between studies. Training interventions were classified into categories of low, medium and high engagement, based on the degree of engagement of the learner in the training, as derived from the description in the article. Evidence was synthesized qualitatively using the Centers for Disease Control’s Guide to Community Preventive Services’ algorithm, which considers the quantity of evidence (number of studies), methodological quality, consistency of effect, and effect size.
Results:
Twenty-two studies, involving 36 training interventions met the relevance criteria. Intervention exposures were usually modest, consisting of one or two sessions, which were most often two hours or less each. A variety of methods were used to deliver training (i.e. lecture, printed materials, hands-on practice, etc.). The OHS hazards addressed by the interventions included all five possible types, but ergonomic was the most frequent. Effects were most often measured between 1 and 6 months post-intervention. Twelve of the 22 studies addressed the two research questions and were of Fair/Good methodological quality. These were used in the final evidence syntheses.
Conclusions:
Based on the studies reviewed, there is INSUFFICIENT evidence that training AS A LONE INTERVENTION impacts health (i.e. injuries, illnesses, symptoms), because effects have been inconsistent in direction and too small. The research team nevertheless recommends that workplaces continue to conduct training programs because STRONG evidence has been found for training impacting targeted behaviours (work practices) on the job. Regarding research question 2, there was INSUFFICIENT evidence that a single session of high engagement training was more effective than a single session of low/medium engagement training, because observed effects were too small. Thus, no recommendation has been made regarding engagement.
