The TNO review Essential interventions on Workers’ Health by Primary Health Care shows those interventions in primary, secondary and tertiary prevention are necessary and feasible but not yet satisfactorily evidence-based. Necessary, because primary or community health care covers about 80% of the world population, and can reach many of the 80 to 90% of the workers worldwide without any occupational health care at all, who nevertheless are the backbone of national economies. WHO is exploring such a strategy that can only succeed when PHC is well trained, equipped, supported and motivated to do this job – which mostly is not yet reality. Feasible, because our study, assigned by WHO, reports about a variety of primary health care activities for workers’ health in different regions in the world, varying form small-scale initiatives improving daily practice during office hours to large-scale programs involving thousands of professionals and millions of workers. Structured large-scale programs involving primary and community health care started only recently in e.g. Thailand, China, the UK and Indonesia, demonstrating the pioneering phase we are in. In other countries, many small-scale activities and interventions are noted, aiming to improve activities within existing primary health care practices aimed to improve workers’ health. We found reports underlining the need to develop good policies leading to programmatic conditions needed to implement structural essential interventions successfully. Investments are needed in four connected areas: policies, infrastructure, tools and education. In several initiatives we recognized the vital support role by experts of various disciplines in occupational health and safety. Not yet satisfactorily evidence-based because the level of evidence supporting especially the quality of concrete interventions - including the effect on working conditions and on the ality of enterprise policy, and on health, safety and work ability of the workers, is mostly not high. The level of evidence is many times low and sometimes even very low. Accordingly we strongly recommend developing and funding large research and development programs to support projects and programs with existing knowledge and experiences, and to deliver more scientifically sound evaluation studies to support adequate evidence-based policies Unexplored territory Because this is quite unexplored territory, we had to start with our own conceptual analysis of the domains, relations and interactions between primary or community and occupational health care, before we could describe essential interventions on three levels of prevention. Then we had to choose for the relatively new scoping review method as an adequate method different from the systematic review approach, related to a well explored territory. This method resulted in about 800 literature hits. We first selected 200 publications, later on reduced to few dozens described in Chapter 4 as our scientific building blocks. Our main conclusions regarding the three intervention levels are: Primary prevention activities – including workplace visits - can be part of PHC interventions on workers’ health in situations where the community has a dominant industry or where agriculture is dominant and when expert support is available. Serious limitations in PHC interventions can be found in more complex activities where experts are needed such as for most risk assessments and advises regarding more complicated improvements of working conditions. Education and training in prevention and health promotion can be executed by primary health care professionals. Secondary prevention in PHC may include periodic general health examinations to detect work-related health problems and occupational diseases. Screening tests as part of a workers’ health surveillance program such as for pesticide poisoning or exposure, can be performed by PHC under the condition of guidance by experts. Tools and education are available for primary health care to detect occupational diseases in daily practice. We did not find well-designed studies showing that better tools and education result in a better detection, individual therapy or support, screening or notification of occupational diseases. Tertiary prevention may include first aid services and emergency treatment by primary health care and consultations of working patients regarding their health and work ability. In several countries the attitude and communication skills of GPs regarding work have to improve. New tools can lead to more GP knowledge on the risks for long-term sickness absence and to better advices toward patients with a chronic disease and problems at work. Employment advisors and GPs with extra training in occupational medicine obtained good results while working within primary health care.