Taking account of sex and gender in occupational health studies poses statistical challenges. Other sociodemographic variables, such as racialization, class, and age, also affect the relations between workplace exposures and health and interact with sex and gender. Our objective was to perform a critical review of conventional and emerging statistical tools, examining whether each analysis takes account of sociodemographic variables (1) in a way that contributes to identification of critical occupational determinants of health (2) while taking account of relevant population characteristics to reflect intersectional approaches to health and (3) using sample sizes and population characteristics available to researchers. A two-step search was conducted: (1) a scientific watch concerning the statistical tools most commonly used in occupational health over the past 20 years; (2) a screening of the 1980–2022 literature with a focus on emerging tools. Our examination shows that regressions with adjustment for confounders and stratification fail to reveal the sociodemographic mechanisms that interact with occupational health problems, endangering the identification of occupational risks. Multilevel (notably MAIHDA) analyses, decision tree, cluster, and latent analyses are useful methods to consider when seeking to orientate prevention. Researchers should consider methods that adequately reveal the mechanisms connecting sociodemographic variables and occupational health outcomes.

Background: The mortality rate from breast cancer has been declining for many years, and the population size of working-age survivors is steadily increasing. However, the recurrent side effects of cancer and its treatment can result in multiple disabilities and disruptions to day-to-day life, including work disruptions. Despite the existing knowledge of best practices regarding return to work (RTW) for breast cancer survivors, only a few interdisciplinary interventions have been developed to address the individualized needs and multiple challenges of breast cancer survivors, health care professionals, and employer and insurer representatives. Thus, it seems appropriate to develop RTW interventions collaboratively by using a co-design approach with these specific stakeholders. Objective: This paper presents a protocol for developing and testing an innovative, interdisciplinary pilot intervention based on a co-design approach to better support RTW and job retention after breast cancer treatment. Methods: First, a participatory research approach will be used to develop the intervention in a co-design workshop with 12 to 20 participants, including people affected by cancer, employer and insurer representatives, and health care professionals. Next, a pilot intervention will be tested in a primary care setting with 6 to 8 women affected by breast cancer. The acceptability and feasibility of the pilot intervention will be pretested through semistructured interviews with participants, health care professionals, and involved patient partners. The transcribed data will undergo an iterative content analysis. Results: The first phase of the project—the co-design workshop—was completed in June 2021. The pilot test of the intervention will begin in spring 2022. The results from the test will be available in late 2022. Conclusions: The project will offer novel data regarding the use of the co-design approach for the development of innovative, co-designed interventions. In addition, it will be possible to document the acceptability and feasibility of the pilot intervention with a primary care team. Depending on the results obtained, the intervention could be implemented on a larger scale. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/37009

Background/Objectives: Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) contribute to work disability arising from personal and work-related physical, organizational and psychosocial factors that often differentially affect men and women. We aimed to identify determinants of the sex/gender difference in duration of MSD work absence through a mixed-studies systematic review. Methods: We synthesized evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach adapted to prognostic studies and meta-ethnography for qualitative studies, followed by a mixed synthesis. Results: Twenty-six quantitative and four qualitative studies contributed to the evidence synthesis. Only two of the twenty-six quantitative studies addressed the sex/gender gap directly, compared to three of the four qualitative studies. Most other quantitative studies provided evidence from sex/gender-stratified analyses of determinants of MSD disability. The synthesis of qualitative studies suggested that domestic strain, less access to modified work/retraining, and gender-biased attitudes of health and insurance system gatekeepers hindered women’s return to work. Prognostic factors in women supporting this conclusion from quantitative studies included the combination “working ≥ 40 h/week and having dependents” and low supervisor support. The mixed synthesis yielded a conceptual model of hypothesized determinants of the sex/gender difference in MSD work disability that integrates factors from personal, workplace, healthcare and insurance–disability management spheres, influenced by the larger sociopolitical, cultural and macroeconomic context. Conclusions: Studies directly addressing the sex/gender gap in MSD disability are needed. These can be informed by the proposed model. Practitioners and policymakers can build upon the model to develop and implement MSD prevention and rehabilitation interventions tailored to the needs of men and women to reduce sex/gender disparities.

Background: Integrated prevention at work promises to eliminate the boundaries between primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention actions taken by stakeholders in the world of work. It is receiving increasing attention from the scientific community because of its concerted and harmonized approach, which promotes employment access, return, and healthy long-term continuation. Although promising, integrated prevention is not yet well-defined, which makes it difficult to operationalize. Objective: This manuscript exposes the protocol of a study aiming to conceptualize integrated prevention at work on the basis of scientific and experiential knowledge. Methods: Using a concept analysis research design, data collection has been planned in 2 parts. A meta-narrative literature review will first be conducted to document how integrated prevention has been defined in the literature. Then, phone interviews will be conducted with key informers (ie, managers, workers, ergonomists, occupational therapists, psychologists, physiotherapists, union and insurance representatives) to document their viewpoints and understanding of integrated prevention at work. Qualitative data gathered during these 2 parts of research will be analyzed using template analysis, which allows data from literature and empirical collection to be analyzed simultaneously. The analysis will bring out the points of convergence, divergence, and complementarity between the information gleaned from literature and key informers’ experiences to arrive at a conceptualization of integrated prevention at work by identifying its uses, attributes, antecedents, and consequences. As a final step, validation and interpretation with a TRIAGE (Technique for Research of Information by Animation of a Group of Experts) group will be carried out in collaboration with the key informers to identify the tools for the implementation of integrated prevention at work and promote workers’ health and safety. Results: This study is expected to offer a contemporary conceptualization of integrated prevention at work that clearly lays out the variables of this concept and elicits the viewpoints of the different stakeholders. Conclusions: This study will contribute to the advancement of knowledge about the professional injury prevention continuum. The clear identification of the uses, attributes, antecedents, and consequences of integrated prevention at work will offer concrete tools to stakeholders to implement innovative and promising approaches to integrated prevention at work. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/29869