Priorities in occupational health research: A Delphi study in The Netherlands
Priorities in occupational health research: A Delphi study in The Netherlands
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/oem.54.7.504
复制
发表时间：
1997-07-01
影响因子：
4.9
通讯作者：
Houtman, ILD
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
vanderBeek, AJ;FringsDresen, MHW;Houtman, ILD
目标 - 实现职业健康和安全研究主题的连贯计划，具有明确的优先事项，并将其与荷兰感知的差距和需求联系起来。 方法 - 在研究的第一阶段，采访了 33 名关键知情人。第二阶段向 150 名荷兰专家（包括关键知情人）发送了调查问卷。招募了四个群体，来自：职业健康和安全服务；科研院所；政府和其他行政机构；和公司。使用德尔菲技术，专家们被要求对几个主题进行优先排序，并将这些主题放置在不同的标题下。在第三阶段，组织了五场研讨会来详细阐述高度优先的主题。结果 - 第一份问卷的答复率为 86%，第二份问卷的答复率为 81%。在第二轮中达成了一致性，并且共识被证明是令人满意的，因此德尔菲过程被停止。令人惊讶的是，四个群体之间的意见分歧很少。最重要的标题是“措施的设计/实施/评估”，其中措施的成本效益分析主题得分最高。 “暴露与效果之间关系的评估”是第二个最重要的标题。在这一标题下，有关工作压力的主题通常被认为比有关肌肉骨骼疾病的主题更重要，而肌肉骨骼疾病的主题又比有关安全和生物、化学和物理危害的主题得分更高。 “职业康复/社会医学指导”和“职业健康职业健康服务”标题具有大致相同的优先级，紧随“暴露与影响之间关系的评估”标题。结论——关于优先级的总体一致应该为决策者启动荷兰职业健康研究和开发的长期计划提供足够广泛的基础。
Objectives-To achieve a coherent programme of topics for research in occupational health and safety, with well founded priorities and to relate them to perceived gaps and needs in The Netherlands.Methods-In the first phase of the study 33 key informants were interviewed. In the second phase questionnaires were sent to 150 Dutch experts (including the key informants). Four groups were recruited, originating from: occupational health and safety services; scientific research institutes; governmental and other administrative bodies; and companies. Using the Delphi technique, the experts were asked to prioritise several topics, which were placed under different headings. In the third phase five workshops were organised to elaborate on the highly prioritised topics.Results-The response rates were 86% for the first and 81% for the second questionnaire. In the second round consistency was reached and consensus proved to be satisfactory, so that the Delphi process was stopped. There were surprisingly few differences in opinion between the four groups. The most important heading was ''design/implementation/evaluation of measures'', in which the topic cost-benefit analysis of measures had the highest score. ''Assessment of relations between exposure and effect'' was the second most important heading. Under this heading, topics on work stress were generally judged to be more important than topics on musculoskeletal disorders, which in turn had higher scores than topics on safety and biological, chemical, and physical hazards. The headings ''occupational rehabilitation/sociomedical guidance'' and ''occupational health occupational health services'' had about the same priority, closely following the heading ''assessment of relations between exposure and effect''.Conclusions-The general agreement on priorities should provide a sufficiently broad basis for decision makers to initiate a long term programme for occupational health research and development in The Netherlands.