Occupational Exposure to Knee Loading and the Risk of Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Systematic Review and a Dose-Response Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis of the knee is considered to be related to knee straining activities at work. The objective of this review is to assess the exposure dose-response relation between kneeling or squatting, lifting, and climbing stairs at work, and knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: We included cohort and case-control studies. For each study that reported enough data, we calculated the odds ratio (OR) per 5,000 hours of cumulative kneeling and per 100,000 kg of cumulative lifting. We pooled these incremental ORs in a random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: We included 15 studies (2 cohort and 13 case-control studies) of which nine assessed risks in more than two exposure categories. We considered all but one study at high risk of bias. The incremental OR per 5,000 hours of kneeling was 1.26 (95% confidence interval 1.17-1.35, 5 studies, moderate quality evidence) for a log-linear exposure dose-response model. For lifting, there was no exposure dose-response per 100,000 kg of lifetime lifting (OR 1.00, 95% confidence interval 1.00-1.01). For climbing, an exposure dose-response could not be calculated. CONCLUSION: There is moderate quality evidence that longer cumulative exposure to kneeling or squatting at work leads to a higher risk of osteoarthritis of the knee. For other exposure, there was no exposure dose-response or there were insufficient data to establish this. More reliable exposure measurements would increase the quality of the evidence.

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff.

BACKGROUND: In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) or SARS, healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Contact precautions by means of personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to remove PPE, and how to make sure HCWs use PPE as instructed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate which type or component of full-body PPE and which method of donning or removing (doffing) PPE have the least risk of self-contamination or infection for HCWs, and which training methods most increase compliance with PPE protocols. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (PubMed up to 8 January 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Trials (CENTRAL up to 20 January 2016), EMBASE (embase.com up to 8 January 2016), CINAHL (EBSCOhost up to 20 January 2016), and OSH-Update up to 8 January 2016. We also screened reference lists of included trials and relevant reviews, and contacted NGOs and manufacturers of PPE. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all eligible controlled studies that compared the effect of types or components of PPE in HCWs exposed to highly infectious diseases with serious consequences, such as EVD and SARS, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. This included studies that simulated contamination with fluorescent markers or a non-pathogenic virus.We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or removing PPE, and the effects of various types of training in PPE use on the same outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included trials. We intended to perform meta-analyses but we did not find sufficiently similar studies to combine their results. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine studies with 1200 participants evaluating ten interventions. Of these, eight trials simulated the exposure with a fluorescent marker or virus or bacteria containing fluids. Five studies evaluated different types of PPE against each other but two did not report sufficient data. Another two studies compared different types of donning and doffing and three studies evaluated the effect of different types of training.None of the included studies reported a standardised classification of the protective properties against viral penetration of the PPE, and only one reported the brand of PPE used. None of the studies were conducted with HCWs exposed to EVD but in one study participants were exposed to SARS. Different types of PPE versus each otherIn simulation studies, contamination rates varied from 25% to 100% of participants for all types of PPE. In one study, PPE made of more breathable material did not lead to a statistically significantly different number of spots with contamination but did have greater user satisfaction (Mean Difference (MD) -0.46 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) -0.84 to -0.08, range 1 to 5, very low quality evidence). In another study, gowns protected better than aprons. In yet another study, the use of a powered air-purifying respirator protected better than a now outdated form of PPE. There were no studies on goggles versus face shields, on long- versus short-sleeved gloves, or on the use of taping PPE parts together. Different methods of donning and doffing procedures versus each otherTwo cross-over simulation studies (one RCT, one CCT) compared different methods for donning and doffing against each other. Double gloving led to less contamination compared to single gloving (Relative Risk (RR) 0.36; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.78, very low quality evidence) in one simulation study, but not to more noncompliance with guidance (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.67, very low quality evidence). Following CDC recommendations for doffing led to less contamination in another study (very low quality evidence). There were no studies on the use of disinfectants while doffing. Different types of training versus each otherIn one study, the use of additional computer simulation led to less errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7) and in another study additional spoken instruction led to less errors (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4). One retrospective cohort study assessed the effect of active training - defined as face-to-face instruction - versus passive training - defined as folders or videos - on noncompliance with PPE use and on noncompliance with doffing guidance. Active training did not considerably reduce noncompliance in PPE use (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.63; 95% CI 0.31 to 1.30) but reduced noncompliance with doffing procedures (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98, very low quality evidence). There were no studies on how to retain the results of training in the long term or on resource use.The quality of the evidence was very low for all comparisons because of high risk of bias in studies, indirectness of evidence, and small numbers of participants. This means that it is likely that the true effect can be substantially different from the one reported here. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low quality evidence that more breathable types of PPE may not lead to more contamination, but may have greater user satisfaction. We also found very low quality evidence that double gloving and CDC doffing guidance appear to decrease the risk of contamination and that more active training in PPE use may reduce PPE and doffing errors more than passive training. However, the data all come from single studies with high risk of bias and we are uncertain about the estimates of effects.We need simulation studies conducted with several dozens of participants, preferably using a non-pathogenic virus, to find out which type and combination of PPE protects best, and what is the best way to remove PPE. We also need randomised controlled studies of the effects of one type of training versus another to find out which training works best in the long term. HCWs exposed to highly infectious diseases should have their use of PPE registered and should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection.

Occupational safety and health enforcement tools for preventing occupational diseases and injuries.

BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty as to whether and what extent occupational safety and health regulation and legislation enforcement activities, such as inspections, are effective and efficient to improve workers' health and safety. We use the term regulation to refer both to regulation and legislation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of occupational safety and health regulation enforcement tools for preventing occupational diseases and injuries. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (embase.com), CINAHL (EBSCO), PsycINFO (Ovid), OSH update, HeinOnline, Westlaw International, EconLit and Scopus from the inception of each database until January 2013. We also checked reference lists of included articles and contacted study authors to identify additional published, unpublished and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before-after studies (CBAs), interrupted time series (ITS) and econometric panel studies of firms or workplaces evaluating inspections, warnings or orders, citations or fines, prosecution or firm closure by governmental representatives and if the outcomes were injuries, diseases or exposures.In addition, we included qualitative studies of workers' or employers' attitudes or beliefs towards enforcement tools. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of authors independently extracted data on the main characteristics, the risk of bias and the effects of the interventions. We expressed intervention effects as risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD). We recalculated other effect measures into RRs or MDs. We combined the results of similar studies in a meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We located 23 studies: two RCTs with 1414 workplaces, two CBAs with 9903 workplaces, one ITS with six outcome measurements, 12 panel studies and six qualitative studies with 310 participants. Studies evaluated the effects of inspections in general and the effects of their consequences, such as penalties. Studies on the effects of prosecution, warnings or closure were not available or were of such quality that we could not include their results. The effect was measured on injury rates, on exposure to physical workload and on compliance with regulation, with a follow-up varying from one to four years. All studies had serious limitations and therefore the quality of the evidence was low to very low. The injury rates in the control groups varied across studies from 1 to 23 injuries per 100 person-years and compliance rates varied from 40% to 75% being compliant.The effects of inspections were inconsistent in seven studies: injury rates decreased or stayed at a similar level compared to no intervention at short and medium-term follow-up. In studies that found a decrease the effect was small with a 10% decrease of the injury rate. At long-term follow-up, in one study there was a significant decrease of 23% (95% confidence interval 8% to 23%) in injury rates and in another study a substantial decrease in accident rates, both compared to no intervention.First inspections, follow-up inspections, complaint and accident inspections resulted in higher compliance rates compared to the average effect of any other type of inspections.In small firms, inspections with citations or with more penalties could result in fewer injuries or more compliance in the short term but not in the medium term.Longer inspections and more frequent inspections probably do not result in more compliance.In two studies, there was no adverse effect of inspections on firm survival, employment or sales.Qualitative studies show that there is support for enforcement among workers. However, workers doubt if the inspections are effective because inspections are rare and violations can be temporarily fixed to mislead inspectors. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that inspections decrease injuries in the long term but not in the short term. The magnitude of the effect is uncertain. There are no studies that used chemical or physical exposures as outcome. Specific, focused inspections could have larger effects than inspections in general. The effect of fines and penalties is uncertain. The quality of the evidence is low to very low and therefore these conclusions are tentative and can be easily changed by better future studies. There is an urgent need for better designed evaluations, such as pragmatic randomised trials, to establish the effects of existing and novel enforcement methods, especially on exposure and disorders.

Night-shift work and breast cancer--a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to synthesize the evidence on the potential relationship between nightshift work and breast cancer. METHODS: We searched multiple databases for studies comparing women in shift work to those with no-shift work reporting incidence of breast cancer. We calculated incremental risk ratios (RR) per five years of night-shift work and per 300 night shift increases in exposure and combined these in a random effects dose-response meta-analysis. We assessed study quality in ten domains of bias. RESULTS: We identified 16 studies: 12 case-control and 4 cohort studies. There was a 9% risk increase per five years of night-shift work exposure in case-control studies [RR 1.09, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.02-1.20; I (2) = 37%, 9 studies], but not in cohort studies (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97-1.05; I (2) = 53%, 3 studies). Heterogeneity was significant overall (I (2) = 55%, 12 studies). Results for 300 night shifts were similar (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.00-1.10; I (2) = 58%, 8 studies). Sensitivity analysis using exposure transformations such as cubic splines, a fixed-effect model, or including only better quality studies did not change the results. None of the 16 studies had a low risk of bias, and 6 studies had a moderate risk. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the low quality of exposure data and the difference in effect by study design, our findings indicate insufficient evidence for a link between night-shift work and breast cancer. Objective prospective exposure measurement is needed in future studies.

Social context for workplace health promotion: feasibility considerations in Costa Rica, Finland, Germany, Spain and Sweden.

We constructed a simple, flexible procedure that facilitates the pre-assessment of feasibility of workplace health promotion (WHP) programmes. It evaluates cancer hazards, workers' need for hazard reduction, acceptability of WHP, and social context. It was tested and applied in 16 workplace communities and among 1085 employees in industry, construction, transport, services, teaching and municipal works in Costa Rica, Finland, Germany, Spain and Sweden. Social context is inseparable from WHP. It covers workers' organizations and representatives, management, safety committees, occupational health services, health and safety enforcement agencies, general health services, non-government organizations, insurance systems, academic and other institutions, regulatory stipulations pertaining WHP, and material resources. Priorities, risk definitions, attitudes, hazard profiles, motivations and assessment methods were highly contextual. Management preferred passive interventions, helping cover expert costs, participating in planning and granting time. Trade unions, workers' representatives, safety committees and occupational health services appeared to be important operational partners. Occupational health services may however be loaded with curative and screening functions or be non-existent. We advocate participatory, multifaceted WHP based on the needs and empowerment of the workers themselves, integrating occupational and lifestyle hazards. Workforce in irregular and shift work, in agriculture, in small enterprises, in the informal sector, and immigrant, seasonal and temporary workers represent groups in need of particular strategies such as community health promotion. In a more general framework, social context itself may become a target for intervention.

Occupational exposures and gastrointestinal cancers among Finnish women.

A cohort including all female workers born 1906 through 1945 (n = 413,877) in Finland was identified through the Population Census of Finland of 1970. Incident cases of cancers of the gastrointestinal tract were explored during 1971 to 1995. Job titles in census records were converted to exposures of 31 occupational agents through a job-exposure matrix. For each agent, the product of level and probability of exposures was calculated and subdivided in three categories: zero, low and medium/high. Poisson regression models estimated relative risks (RR) for each agent, standardized for birth cohort, follow-up period, and socioeconomic status. Adjustment at job title level was done for alcohol use for cancers of the esophagus and liver and smoking for pancreatic cancer. The results showing either statistically significant RR at the medium/high level of exposure (RRH) or statistically significant trend (P < 0.05) over the exposure categories were considered as positive findings. Colon cancer risk (2009 cases) was positively associated with sedentary work (RRH 1.3, 95% CI = 1.1-1.6; P trend 0.001) and negatively associated with perceived workload (P trend = 0.007). For stomach cancer (1881 cases), we observed an association with exposure to electromagnetic fields (RRH 1.44, 95% CI = 1.01-2.05) and man-made vitreous fibers (MMVF) (p trend 0.03). Rectal cancer (1323 cases) showed an association with chromium (RRH 1.9, 95% CI = 1.2-3.1) and oil mist (RR 2.0; 95% CI = 1.0-3.9). For pancreas cancer (1302 cases) we found associations with exposure to chromium (RRH 1.8; 95% CI = 1.0-3.1; P trend 0.01), electromagnetic fields (RRH 1.8; 95% CI = 1.2-2.8; P trend 0.02), and sedentary work (RRH 1.3; 95% CI = 1.0-1.7; P trend 0.05). We found no significant associations between any FINJEM agents and cancers of the esophagus (389 cases), liver (389 cases), and gallbladder (651 cases). Having examined the associations between seven cancer sites and over 30 exposures there exists the real possibility that some of the associations detected are chance findings. Therefore, the associations observed should need to be confirmed in other studies.

Assessment of feasibility of workplace health promotion.

BACKGROUND: A simple empirically based method for assessment of the feasibility of workplace health promotion programs is described, focusing on cancer hazards (lifestyles, workplace hazards, deficient early detection). The basic components of feasibility are addressed: extent of hazards; needs of employees for hazard reduction and acceptability of WHP; and social context. METHODS: The procedure consists of six modules: guidelines on feasibility assessment; employee questionnaire; interview checklists for probing attitudes of management and partners (social context); data form; debriefing; and assessment of feasibility. Pretesting was completed in 16 workplace communities representing industry, construction, transport, telecommunications, health care, lodging and catering, teaching, and municipality jobs in five countries; a total of 1,085 subjects completed the employee questionnaire on health hazards, needs, and acceptability. RESULTS: The method demonstrated its utility in obtaining and summarizing the necessary data. Feasibility was assessed for the 16 test communities. CONCLUSION: The procedure can be customized; it has a high degree of face validity or understandability, and it is applicable in a wide variety of settings.

Cancer of the brain and nervous system and occupational exposures in Finnish women.

Occupational agents were evaluated for the risk of brain-nervous system cancer in a cohort of 413,877 Finnish women with blue-collar occupations in 1970. Observed and expected numbers of incident cases and the intensities of exposure to 25 agents were generated for 183 job titles from 1971 to 1995. Poisson regression models linked incidence and exposure data. Increased risks were found for medium/high intensities of iron (standardized incidence ratio [SIR], 2.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96 to 4.80), oil mist (1.95; 0.97 to 3.90), any chromium compounds (1.51; 0.85 to 2.67), electromagnetic fields (1.37; 0.98 to 2.10), aliphatic and alicyclic hydrocarbon compounds (1.34; 0.80 to 2.27), lead (1.27; 0.81 to 2.01), cadmium (1.26; 0.72 to 2.22), and aromatic hydrocarbon compounds (1.20; 0.71 to 2.03). Strengths of the study include fair number of cases, virtually complete case coverage, and a high-quality job exposure matrix. Ecological design and cross-sectional job assessment introduced exposure misclassification and tended to drive risk estimates toward unity.