Enhancing workplace safety: Evaluating effectiveness through reliable indicators

The field of public health policy relies heavily on statistical data, such as work-related injury and illness records, to inform risk prevention strategies. While these data sets are useful for identifying hazards and prioritizing risk reduction efforts, they fall short when evaluating short- and medium-term project or program outcomes. This gap poses a significant impediment to informed decision-making and organizational improvement. The primary challenge lies in the absence of universally recognized indicators that can reliably assess the effectiveness of various occupational safety and health (OSH) measures. These measures range from technical and organizational solutions to training and health-promoting initiatives, each operating within different contexts such as national, sectoral, or company levels, and involving multiple stakeholders including regulatory bodies, policymakers, and employer associations.

Recent scientific literature highlights a pronounced disparity in research methodologies, as well as a critical gap in three key areas: mechanistic studies that explore causal relationships and contextual factors, longitudinal monitoring of intervention impacts, and evaluations of programs or projects at national or regional scales. Addressing these gaps is essential for advancing the field. This Research Topic aims to consolidate and assess the current state of international studies regarding the methods, models, and indicators used to evaluate the effectiveness of prevention measures. Original intervention studies focusing on improving worker health and safety, especially those involving multi-company prevention plans with defined metrics of effectiveness, are particularly encouraged.

To gather further insights in evaluating workplace prevention programs, we welcome articles addressing, but not limited to, the following themes:

o Sector-specific or risk-targeted prevention plans
o Technology-supported interventions, such as AI in work organization and risk management, as well as telehealth
o Medium- and long-term evaluation of OSH interventions
o Use of mandatory or voluntary OSH registries
o Measurement of organizational or behavioral changes impacting OSH outcomes

In addition, contributions are invited on topics including compliance with regulations, cost-effectiveness analyses of OSH policies, and assessments of workplace health promotion initiatives. Studies evaluating environmental and health impacts, methodological papers, reviews, and proposals for new data sources or models to monitor outcomes are also of significant interest. This Research Topic aims to advance the development of validated, standardized indicator panels and evaluation frameworks, ultimately enhancing result comparability, supporting evidence-based policy formulation, and fostering best practice dissemination.

Article types and fees

This Research Topic accepts the following article types, unless otherwise specified in the Research Topic description:

• Brief Research Report
• Case Report
• Classification
• Clinical Trial
• Community Case Study
• Data Report
• Editorial
• FAIR² Data
• FAIR² DATA Direct Submission
• ... View all formats

Articles that are accepted for publication by our external editors following rigorous peer review incur a publishing fee charged to Authors, institutions, or funders.

Article types

This Research Topic accepts the following article types, unless otherwise specified in the Research Topic description:

• Brief Research Report
• Case Report
• Classification
• Clinical Trial
• Community Case Study
• Data Report
• Editorial
• FAIR² Data
• FAIR² DATA Direct Submission
• General Commentary
• Hypothesis and Theory
• Methods
• Mini Review
• Opinion
• Original Research
• Perspective
• Review
• Study Protocol
• Systematic Review

Keywords: Occupational Safety and Health (OSH), Public Health Policy, Workplace Intervention Assessment, Standardized Outcome Measurement

Important note: All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.