C Colosio1, S Mandic-Rajcevic1, L Godderis2,3, G van der Laan1,4,5, C Hulshof6, F van Dijk4,5. 1. Department of Health Sciences of the University of Milano and International Centre for Rural Health of the San Paolo Hospital, 20142 Milano, Italy. 2. Centre for Environment and Health, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven 3000, Belgium. 3. IDEWE, External Service for Prevention and Protection at Work, Heverlee 3000, Belgium. 4. Learning and Developing Occupational Health (LDOH) Foundation, 1213 RH Hilversum, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, 1105 Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 6. Academic Medical Center, Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, 1105 Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
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.
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.
Keywords:
EU policy; health surveillance; occupational health; occupational health services; occupational health surveillance; prevention; quality of care; workers’ health surveillance
Authors: Mario Fargnoli; Mara Lombardi; Daniele Puri; Laura Casorri; Eva Masciarelli; Stefan Mandić-Rajčević; Claudio Colosio Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-01-23 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Esther Vaquero-Álvarez; Antonio Cubero-Atienza; Pilar Ruiz-Martínez; Manuel Vaquero-Abellán; María Dolores Redel Mecías; Pilar Aparicio-Martínez Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-09-16 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Fernando G Benavides; Jose Maria Ramada; Monica Ubalde-López; George L Delclos; Consol Serra Journal: Med Lav Date: 2019-08-26 Impact factor: 1.275
Authors: Felicia S Los; Henk F van der Molen; Carel T J Hulshof; Angela G E M de Boer Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-02-17 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Martina Michaelis; Christine Preiser; Susanne Voelter-Mahlknecht; Nicole Blomberg; Monika A Rieger Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-04 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Esther Vaquero-Álvarez; Antonio Cubero-Atienza; Pilar Ruiz-Martínez; Manuel Vaquero-Abellán; María Dolores Redel-Macías; Pilar Aparicio-Martínez Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-09-28 Impact factor: 3.390