OBJECTIVES: No single organization has the resources necessary to conduct occupational safety and health research to adequately serve the needs of workers in the United States. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) undertook the task of setting research priorities in response to a broadly perceived need to systematically address those topics most pressing and most likely to yield gains to workers and to the nation. METHODS: NIOSH and its public and private partners used a consensus-building process to set priorities for the next decade for occupational safety and health research--the National Occupational Research Agenda. RESULTS: The process resulted in the identification of 21 research priorities grouped into 3 categories: disease and injury, work environment and workforce, and research tools and approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Although the field of occupational safety and health is often contentious and adversarial, these research priorities reflect a remarkable degree of concurrence among a broad range of stakeholders who provided input into a clearly defined and open process.
OBJECTIVES: No single organization has the resources necessary to conduct occupational safety and health research to adequately serve the needs of workers in the United States. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) undertook the task of setting research priorities in response to a broadly perceived need to systematically address those topics most pressing and most likely to yield gains to workers and to the nation. METHODS: NIOSH and its public and private partners used a consensus-building process to set priorities for the next decade for occupational safety and health research--the National Occupational Research Agenda. RESULTS: The process resulted in the identification of 21 research priorities grouped into 3 categories: disease and injury, work environment and workforce, and research tools and approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Although the field of occupational safety and health is often contentious and adversarial, these research priorities reflect a remarkable degree of concurrence among a broad range of stakeholders who provided input into a clearly defined and open process.
Authors: DeAnn Lazovich; David L Parker; Lisa M Brosseau; F Thomas Milton; Siobhan K Dugan; Wei Pan; Lynette Hock Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Mark J Mendell; William J Fisk; Kathleen Kreiss; Hal Levin; Darryl Alexander; William S Cain; John R Girman; Cynthia J Hines; Paul A Jensen; Donald K Milton; Larry P Rexroat; Kenneth M Wallingford Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Sandy R Oliver; Rebecca W Rees; Lorna Clarke-Jones; Ruairidh Milne; Ann R Oakley; John Gabbay; Ken Stein; Phyll Buchanan; Gill Gyte Journal: Health Expect Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 3.377