Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 296

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A systematic review of the effectiveness of occupational health and safety training

Open access
Robson, Lynda S, Stephenson, Carol M, Schulte, Paul A, Amick, Benjamin C III, Irvin, Emma L, Eggerth, Donald E, Chan, Stella, Bielecky, Amber R, Wang, Anna M, Heidotting, Terri L, Peters, Robert H, Clarke, Judith A, Cullen, Kimberley, Rotunda, Cathy J, Grubb, Paula L·2012·Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Training is regarded as an important component of occupational health and safety (OHS) programs. This paper primarily addresses whether OHS training has a beneficial effect on workers. The paper also examines whether higher engagement OHS training has a greater effect than lower engagement training. METHODS: Ten bibliographic databases were searched for pre-post randomized trial studies published in journals between 1996 and November 2007. Training interventions were included if they were delivered to workers and were concerned with primary prevention of occupational illness or injury. The methodological quality of each relevant study was assessed and data was extracted. The impacts of OHS training in each study were summarized by calculating the standardized mean differences. The strength of the evidence on training's effectiveness was assessed for (i) knowledge, (ii) attitudes and beliefs, (iIi) behaviors, and (iv) health using the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Guide to Community Preventive Services, a qualitative evidence synthesis method. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies met the relevance criteria of the review. They involved a variety of study populations, occupational hazards, and types of training. Strong evidence was found for the effectiveness of training on worker OHS behaviors, but insufficient evidence was found of its effectiveness on health (ie, symptoms, injuries, illnesses). CONCLUSIONS: The review team recommends that workplaces continue to deliver OHS training to employees because training positively affects worker practices. However, large impacts of training on health cannot be expected, based on research evidence.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5271/sjweh.3259

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 296

Metadata

Authors
Robson, L. S., Stephenson, C. M., Schulte, P. A., Amick, B. C. I., Irvin, E. L., Eggerth, D. E., Chan, S., Bielecky, A. R., Wang, A. M., Heidotting, T. L., Peters, R. H., Clarke, J. A., Cullen, K., Rotunda, C. J., & Grubb, P. L.
Venue
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health
Published
2011-11-01
Volume
38
Issue
3
Pages
193-208
ISSN
  • 0355-3140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1795-990X
OpenAlex
W2129042743
Cited by
296
References
6
FWCI
14.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A systematic review of the effectiveness of occupational health and safety training. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5271/sjweh.3259
The paper
Robson, L. S., Stephenson, C. M., Schulte, P. A., Amick, B. C. I., Irvin, E. L., Eggerth, D. E., Chan, S., Bielecky, A. R., Wang, A. M., Heidotting, T. L., Peters, R. H., Clarke, J. A., Cullen, K., Rotunda, C. J., & Grubb, P. L. (2012). A systematic review of the effectiveness of occupational health and safety training. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3259

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.