Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Workers' health surveillance: implementation of the Directive 89/391/EEC in Europe.
Colosio, C; Mandic-Rajcevic, S; Godderis, L; van der Laan, G; Hulshof, C; van Dijk, F.
Afiliación
  • Colosio C; Department of Health Sciences of the University of Milano and International Centre for Rural Health of the San Paolo Hospital, 20142 Milano, Italy.
  • Mandic-Rajcevic S; Department of Health Sciences of the University of Milano and International Centre for Rural Health of the San Paolo Hospital, 20142 Milano, Italy.
  • Godderis L; Centre for Environment and Health, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven 3000, Belgium.
  • van der Laan G; IDEWE, External Service for Prevention and Protection at Work, Heverlee 3000, Belgium.
  • Hulshof C; Department of Health Sciences of the University of Milano and International Centre for Rural Health of the San Paolo Hospital, 20142 Milano, Italy.
  • van Dijk F; Learning and Developing Occupational Health (LDOH) Foundation, 1213 RH Hilversum, The Netherlands.
Occup Med (Lond) ; 67(7): 574-578, 2017 Oct 01.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29016828
BACKGROUND: European Union (EU) Directive 89/391 addressed occupational health surveillance, which recommends to provide workers with 'access to health surveillance at regular intervals', aiming to prevent work-related and occupational diseases. AIMS: To investigate how EU countries adopted this Directive. METHODS: We invited one selected representative per member state to complete a questionnaire. RESULTS: All 28 EU countries implemented the Directive in some form. Workers' health surveillance (WHS) is available to all workers in 15 countries, while in 12, only specific subgroups have access. In 21 countries, workers' participation is mandatory, and in 22, the employer covers the cost. In 13 countries, access to WHS is not available to all workers but depends on exposure to specific risk factors, size of the enterprise or belonging to vulnerable groups. In 26 countries, the employer appoints and revokes the physician in charge of WHS. Twelve countries have no recent figures, reports or cost-benefit analyses of their WHS programmes. In 15 countries where reports exist, they are often in the native language. CONCLUSIONS: Coverage and quality of occupational health surveillance should be evaluated to facilitate learning from good practice and from scientific studies. We propose a serious debate in the EU with the aim of protecting workers more effectively, including the use of evidence-based WHS programmes.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Vigilancia de la Población / Salud Laboral / Empleo Tipo de estudio: Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Screening_studies Aspecto: Determinantes_sociais_saude Límite: Humans País/Región como asunto: Europa Idioma: En Revista: Occup Med (Lond) Asunto de la revista: MEDICINA OCUPACIONAL Año: 2017 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Italia Pais de publicación: Reino Unido
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Vigilancia de la Población / Salud Laboral / Empleo Tipo de estudio: Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Screening_studies Aspecto: Determinantes_sociais_saude Límite: Humans País/Región como asunto: Europa Idioma: En Revista: Occup Med (Lond) Asunto de la revista: MEDICINA OCUPACIONAL Año: 2017 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Italia Pais de publicación: Reino Unido