Effectiveness of Pre-Employment Medical Examinations in Preventing Occupational Injury and Disease: A Systematic Review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65759/881qjw47Keywords:
Pre-employment examination, preplacement assessment, occupational injury, occupational disease, fitness for workAbstract
Background: Pre-employment medical examinations are widely used to assess fitness for work. Identifying health abnormalities does not establish prevention of occupational harm. This review examined their effectiveness in reducing occupational injury, disease, and sickness absence, distinguishing programme evaluations from studies of predictive validity. Methods: Comparative and longitudinal research published through 31 August 2026 was considered. Contextual literature addressed screening validity and employment consequences. Fifteen original research reports were synthesized narratively because examination content, occupations, comparators, and outcomes differed substantially. Results: Ten reports evaluated screening programmes or subsequent risk mitigation, and five examined prediction of later injury or disease. General examinations offered no clear benefit for nonhazardous light-duty work. Selected job-specific programmes reported fewer musculoskeletal injuries, although historical comparisons, differences between workers, and concurrent interventions restricted causal interpretation. A military trial reported 648 versus 612 days fit for duty over two years. Functional testing predicted injury in some industrial cohorts, whereas testing among 538 paramedics did not distinguish subsequent injury risk. Nerve-conduction screening produced inconsistent prediction of carpal tunnel syndrome and low positive predictive values. Data concerning occupational disease was sparse and concentrated on asthma and carpal tunnel syndrome. Conclusions: Findings favour cautious, occupation-specific assessment linked to accommodation and risk reduction rather than universal medical exclusion. Reliable prevention estimates require prospective comparisons. Comparisons must measure subsequent health outcomes, rejected applicants, costs, and employment consequences.
References
1. Serra C, Rodriguez MC, Delclos GL, Plana M, Gómez López LI, Benavides FG. Criteria and methods used for the assessment of fitness for work: a systematic review. Occup Environ Med. 2007;64(5):304-312. doi:10.1136/oem.2006.029397.
2. Pachman J. Evidence base for pre-employment medical screening. Bull World Health Organ. 2009;87(7):529-534. doi:10.2471/BLT.08.052605.
3. de Kort W, van Dijk F. Preventive effectiveness of pre-employment medical assessments. Occup Environ Med. 1997;54(1):1-6. doi:10.1136/oem.54.1.1.
4. Madan I, Williams S. Is pre-employment health screening by questionnaire effective? Occup Med (Lond). 2012;62(2):112-116. doi:10.1093/occmed/kqr208.
5. Schaafsma FG, Mahmud N, Reneman MF, Fassier JB, Jungbauer FHW. Pre-employment examinations for preventing injury, disease and sick leave in workers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;1:CD008881. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008881.pub2.
6. Legge J. The evolving role of physiotherapists in pre-employment screening for workplace injury prevention: are functional capacity evaluations the answer? Phys Ther Rev. 2013;18(5):350-357. doi:10.1179/1743288X13Y.0000000101.
7. Renfrew B, Reis J, Hutton A, Stubbs M. Effectiveness of pre-employment assessments in improving worker health in the meat processing industry: a scoping review. J Public Health (Berl). Published online 2025. doi:10.1007/s10389-025-02488-z.
8. Alexander RW, Brennan JC, Maida AS, Walker RJ. The value of preplacement medical examinations for nonhazardous light duty work. J Occup Med. 1977;19(2):107-112. doi:10.1097/00043764-197702000-00001.
9. de Raad J, Redekop WK. A comparison between two systems for pre-employment medical assessment in the Royal Netherlands Army by a randomized, controlled study. Mil Med. 2004;169(6):437-443. doi:10.7205/MILMED.169.6.437.
10. Keyserling WM, Herrin GD, Chaffin DB. Isometric strength testing as a means of controlling medical incidents on strenuous jobs. J Occup Med. 1980;22(5):332-336. doi:10.1097/00043764-198005000-00006.
11. Rosenblum KE, Shankar A. A study of the effects of isokinetic pre-employment physical capability screening in the reduction of musculoskeletal disorders in a labor intensive work environment. Work. 2006;26(2):215-228. PMID:16477114.
12. Faris J. Lowering nursing injuries using post offer pre-employment testing. Work. 2008;31(1):39-45. PMID:18820419.
13. Harbin GL, Shenoy C, Garcia A, Olson JC. Shoulder injury reduction with post-offer testing. Work. 2011;39(2):113-123. doi:10.3233/WOR-2011-1158.
14. Nassau DW. The effects of prework functional screening on lowering an employer’s injury rate, medical costs, and lost work days. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999;24(3):269-274. doi:10.1097/00007632-199902010-00015.
15. De Looff AJ, Dijkmans AP, Sorgdrager B. Histamine provocation test: an effective pre-employment selection method for aluminium workers. Med Lav. 1992;83(5):422-427. PMID:1297051.
16. Nachreiner N, McGovern P, Kochevar LK, Lohman WH, Cato C, Ayers E. Preplacement assessments: impact on injury outcomes. AAOHN J. 1999;47(6):245-253. doi:10.1177/216507999904700602.
17. Knapik JJ, Darakjy S, Hauret KG, Canada S, Scott S, Rieger W, et al. Increasing the physical fitness of low-fit recruits before basic combat training: an evaluation of fitness, injuries, and training outcomes. Mil Med. 2006;171(1):45-54. doi:10.7205/MILMED.171.1.45.
18. Harbin G, Olson J. Post-offer, pre-placement testing in industry. Am J Ind Med. 2005;47(4):296-307. doi:10.1002/ajim.20150.
19. Legge J, Burgess-Limerick R, Peeters G. A new pre-employment functional capacity evaluation predicts longer-term risk of musculoskeletal injury in healthy workers: a prospective cohort study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(25):2208-2215. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000013.
20. Dale AM, Gardner BT, Zeringue A, Werner R, Franzblau A, Evanoff B. The effectiveness of post-offer pre-placement nerve conduction screening for carpal tunnel syndrome. J Occup Environ Med. 2014;56(8):840-847. doi:10.1097/JOM.0000000000000185.
21. Dale AM, Gardner BT, Buckner-Petty S, Strickland JR, Evanoff B. Postoffer pre-placement screening for carpal tunnel syndrome in newly hired manufacturing workers. J Occup Environ Med. 2016;58(12):1212-1216. doi:10.1097/JOM.0000000000000891.
22. Jenkins N, Smith G, Stewart S, Kamphuis C. Pre-Employment physical capacity testing as a predictor of musculoskeletal injury in Victorian paramedics. Work. 2021;70(1):263-270. doi:10.3233/WOR-213570.
23. Dale AM, Addison L, Lester J, Kaskutas V, Evanoff B. Weak grip strength does not predict upper extremity musculoskeletal symptoms or injuries among new workers. J Occup Rehabil. 2014;24(2):325-331. doi:10.1007/s10926-013-9460-y.
24. Dale AM, Descatha A, Coomes J, Franzblau A, Evanoff B. Physical examination has a low yield in screening for carpal tunnel syndrome. Am J Ind Med. 2011;54(1):1-9. doi:10.1002/ajim.20915.
25. de Kort WL, Fransman LG, van Dijk FJ. Preemployment medical examinations in a large occupational health service. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1991;17(6):392-397. doi:10.5271/sjweh.1688.
26. de Kort WL, Uiterweer HW, van Dijk FJ. Agreement on medical fitness for a job. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1992;18(4):246-251. doi:10.5271/sjweh.1582.
27. La Rocca H, Macnab I. Value of pre-employment radiographic assessment of the lumbar spine. CMAJ. 1969;101(7):49-54. PMID:5344990.
28. Lohiya GS, Tan-Figueroa L, Lohiya P, Bui D. The futility of universal pre-employment chest radiographs. J Natl Med Assoc. 2006;98(12):2019-2023. PMID:17225852.
29. Harbin G, Harbin A, Millican N, Pederson JM. Relation of pre-existing lower-back problems with post-offer pre-placement physical testing. Work. 2026;84(1):179-189. doi:10.1177/10519815251396722.
30. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71.
