IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0345318.html

Global reporting and underreporting of occupational diseases: A systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • Levina Chandra Khoe
  • Siti Rizny Fitriana Saldi
  • Marsen Isbayuputra
  • Muchtaruddin Mansyur
  • Virginia Wiseman
  • Augustine Asante

Abstract

Background: Disease reporting is often unreliable and faces many challenges, making it difficult to estimate the true burden of occupational diseases, defined as any disease that is caused by work activities or environment. This study aimed to assess the global reporting and underreporting rate of occupational diseases, and to identify the factors affecting the underreporting of occupational diseases. Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, this study searched Medline (PubMed), CINAHL, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing (IRIS) database, Dimensions, and Google Scholar in September 2024. Search terms related to reporting and underreporting of occupational diseases or illnesses were used. The selected records were screened, and data extracted using the Covidence software tool. Screening and quality assessment were conducted by two independent researchers and finalized by a third researcher. The quality of the evidence was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. This study is registered on PROSPERO, number CRD42023417814. Results: A total of 127 studies from 29 countries were identified, all coming from high-income and upper-middle-income countries. The incidence rate of occupational disease varied widely, ranging between 1.71 to 1,387 per 100,000 employees yearly. The highest number of annual cases was reported in the agricultural sector (ranging from 33 to 6,431), followed by the health sector (146–5,508), and then the construction sector (264). Two studies evaluated rates of underreporting, which varied from 50% to 95%. The main factor contributing to underreporting was employee concerns about job security. Conclusions: The results reveal a significant gap in the reporting of occupational diseases among high-income and low-middle-income countries. Variations in reporting mechanisms across countries were also identified. Our findings highlight the need to establish a national system for reporting occupational diseases that engages employers, employees, and healthcare providers.

Suggested Citation

  • Levina Chandra Khoe & Siti Rizny Fitriana Saldi & Marsen Isbayuputra & Muchtaruddin Mansyur & Virginia Wiseman & Augustine Asante, 2026. "Global reporting and underreporting of occupational diseases: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(3), pages 1-30, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0345318
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0345318
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0345318
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0345318&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0345318?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0345318. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.