Journal article Open Access

Medical Screening and Biological Monitoring: A Guide to the Literature for Physicians

Murthy, Leela I.; Halperin, William E.


MARC21 XML Export

<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<record xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">
  <leader>00000nam##2200000uu#4500</leader>
  <datafield tag="540" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="u">https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="260" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">1995-01-01</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <controlfield tag="005">20200120142208.0</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="001">1234834</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="909" ind1="C" ind2="O">
    <subfield code="p">openaire</subfield>
    <subfield code="o">oai:zenodo.org:1234834</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">The use of medical screening and biological monitoring has seen substantial changes in the past two decades specifically in the provision of occupational medical services. For example, national surveys of workplaces conducted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) showed that the provision of off-site medical care to workers increased from 19.6% in 1972-1974 to 57.8% in 1981- 1983, although the percent of workers receiving on-site services remained stable during the same period. After a recent survey in 1990—1991, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) estimated that 6.3% of US industries have a medical surveillance program at their individual establishment. We reviewed NIOSH documents, OSHA's Code of Federal Regulations, and texts on biological monitoring and medical screening for recommendations on medical surveillance of workers. This report summarizes the medical tests (including biologic monitoring) recommended or used by independent investigators and by the government for OSHA-regulated substances to provide guidance to physicians and occupational health professionals in accessing the pertinent literature; the utility of the recommendations is not evaluated.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Halperin, William E.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="s">1341497</subfield>
    <subfield code="z">md5:27441dff630366408c7b41903ba70abf</subfield>
    <subfield code="u">https://zenodo.org/record/1234834/files/article.pdf</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="542" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="l">open</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="980" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">publication</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">article</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Murthy, Leela I.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="024" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">10.1097/00043764-199502000-00016</subfield>
    <subfield code="2">doi</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Medical Screening and Biological Monitoring: A Guide to the Literature for Physicians</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1="1" ind2="7">
    <subfield code="a">cc-by</subfield>
    <subfield code="2">opendefinition.org</subfield>
  </datafield>
</record>
41
47
views
downloads
Views 41
Downloads 47
Data volume 63.1 MB
Unique views 41
Unique downloads 45

Share

Cite as