Skip Navigation


Occupational Medicine Advance Access originally published online on November 26, 2007
Occupational Medicine 2008 58(1):46-51; doi:10.1093/occmed/kqm131
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
58/1/46    most recent
kqm131v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Moshe, S.
Right arrow Articles by Levin, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Moshe, S.
Right arrow Articles by Levin, M.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Occupational Medicine. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Comparison of three methods of pre-employment medical evaluations

Shlomo Moshe1,2, Michal Shilo1, Yaron Yagev3, Doron Levy4, Dan Slodownik5, Gabriel Chodick2,4 and Michael Levin6

1 Occupational Medicine Department, Maccabi Healthcare Services, Holon, Israel
2 The Public Health School, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv, Israel
3 Occupational Medicine Department, Maccabi Healthcare Services, Beer-Sheva, Israel
4 Maccabi Healthcare Services, Central Headquarter, Tel Aviv, Israel
5 The Dermatology Department, Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel
6 Occupational Medicine Department, Maccabi Healthcare Services, Netanya, Israel

Background Increasing efforts are being made to prevent sickness absence and to increase worker efficiency, including the use of costly pre-employment medical assessment of white-collar workers and labourers, excluding occupations for which medical supervision is required by law.

Aim To investigate whether filling out an occupational health questionnaire (OHQ) as pre-employment assessment was more efficient than previously used protocols which included a physical examination and laboratory tests performed for each applicant.

Methods Retrospective study comparing three groups of job applicants: Group A—applicants examined by an occupational physician (OP); Group B—applicants examined by a general practitioner (GP) whose medical records were subsequently evaluated by an OP and Group C—the applicant filled out an OHQ which was evaluated by an OP.

Results The study included 1940 pre-employment assessments divided into groups A (618), B (256) and C (1066). The restriction rate was 2.1, 1.2 and 2.3%, respectively. The lowest restriction rate (1.4%) was among applicants 29 years old and younger and the highest one (3.6%) among 50 years and older. The most frequent diagnoses among restricted applicants were musculoskeletal and circulatory diseases (15 and 12%, respectively).

Conclusions The restriction rate achieved by medical examinations either done by an OP (Group A) or by a GP (Group B) was the same as in OHQ (Group C). The use of a self-administered questionnaire evaluated by an OP is the preferred method of pre-employment evaluation for non-hazardous occupations.

Keywords      Assessment; cost benefit; health examination; health services; occupational epidemiology; pre-employment


Correspondence to: Shlomo Moshe, Occupational Medicine Department, Maccabi Healthcare Services, 43 Geulim Street, Holon, Israel. Tel: +972 3 6530054/56/15; fax: +972 3 6521031; e-mail: moshe_sh{at}mac.org.il


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.