Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Sep 25.
Published in final edited form as: Occup Environ Med. 2018 Aug 18;75(11):830–836. doi: 10.1136/oemed-2018-105114

Table 2. PD ‘Rating’ (Round 1).

Primary Domain RATING scores (n=252) 1* (of least importance) n (%) 2* (slightly important) n (%) 3* (of average importance) n (%) 4* (very important) n (%) 5* (absolutely necessary) n (%)
A. Occupational disease / injury/ illness 3 (1.2%) 3 (1.2%) 25 (9.9%) 104 (41.3%) 117 (46.4%)
B. Occupational hazards to health and risk assessment 3 (1.2%) 8 (3.2%) 32 (12.7%) 92 (36.5%) 117 (46.4%)
C Economic evaluation/cost effectiveness studies 7 (2.8%) 5 (2%) 42 (16.7%) 120 (47.6%) 78 (31%)
D. Occupational rehabilitation (including return to work after sickness absence) 8 (3.2%) 4 (1.6%) 46 (18.3%) 102 (40.5%) 92 (36.5%)
E. The changing nature of work (including types of work and technology changes 6 (2.4%) 7 (2.8%) 49 (19.4%) 134 (53.2%) 56 (22.2%)
F. Sickness absence management 7 (2.8%) 9 (3.6%) 59 (23.4%) 101 (40.1%) 76 (30.2%)
G. Disability management 8 (3.2%) 7 (2.8%) 65 (25.8%) 111 (44.1%) 61 (24.2%)
H. Health services research 12 (4.8%) 14 (5.6%) 87 (34.5%) 92 (36.5%) 47 (18.7%)
I. Occupational health policy 10 (4%) 16 (6.4%) 89 (35.3%) 92 (36.5%) 45 (17.9%)
J. Health promotion 24 (9.5%) 38 (15.1%) 66 (26.2%) 86 (34.1%) 38 (15.1%)

1*= of least importance, 2*= slightly important, 3*= of average importance, 4* =very important, 5*= absolutely necessary