Global, regional and national burdens of non-melanoma skin cancer attributable to occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation for 183 countries, 2000-2019: A systematic analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury.

BACKGROUND: A World Health Organization (WHO) and International Labour Organization (ILO) systematic review reported sufficient evidence for higher risk of non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) amongst people occupationally exposed to solar ultraviolet radiation (UVR). This article presents WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of global, regional, national and subnational occupational exposures to UVR for 195 countries/areas and the global, regional and national attributable burdens of NMSC for 183 countries, by sex and age group, for the years 2000, 2010 and 2019. METHODS: We calculated population-attributable fractions (PAFs) from estimates of the population occupationally exposed to UVR and the risk ratio for NMSC from the WHO/ILO systematic review. Occupational exposure to UVR was modelled via proxy of occupation with outdoor work, using 166 million observations from 763 cross-sectional surveys for 96 countries/areas. Attributable NMSC burden was estimated by applying the PAFs to WHO's estimates of the total NMSC burden. Measures of inequality were calculated. RESULTS: Globally in 2019, 1.6 billion workers (95 % uncertainty range [UR] 1.6-1.6) were occupationally exposed to UVR, or 28.4 % (UR 27.9-28.8) of the working-age population. The PAFs were 29.0 % (UR 24.7-35.0) for NMSC deaths and 30.4 % (UR 29.0-31.7) for disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). Attributable NMSC burdens were 18,960 deaths (UR 18,180-19,740) and 0.5 million DALYs (UR 0.4-0.5). Men and older age groups carried larger burden. Over 2000-2019, attributable deaths and DALYs almost doubled. CONCLUSIONS: WHO and the ILO estimate that occupational exposure to UVR is common and causes substantial, inequitable and growing attributable burden of NMSC. Governments must protect outdoor workers from hazardous exposure to UVR and attributable NMSC burden and inequalities.

The prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres (silica, asbestos and coal): A systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large number of individual experts. Evidence from human, animal and mechanistic data suggests that occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres (silica, asbestos and coal dust) causes pneumoconiosis. In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust. These estimates of prevalences and levels will serve as input data for estimating (if feasible) the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years that are attributable to occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust among working-age (≥ 15 years) workers. DATA SOURCES: We searched electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Ovid Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and CISDOC. We also searched electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consulted additional experts. STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA: We included working-age (≥ 15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but excluded children (< 15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. We included all study types with objective dust or fibre measurements, published between 1960 and 2018, that directly or indirectly reported an estimate of the prevalence and/or level of occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and/or coal dust. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, then data were extracted from qualifying studies. We combined prevalence estimates by industrial sector (ISIC-4 2-digit level with additional merging within Mining, Manufacturing and Construction) using random-effects meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias and all available authors assessed the quality of evidence, using the ROB-SPEO tool and QoE-SPEO approach developed specifically for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. RESULTS: Eighty-eight studies (82 cross-sectional studies and 6 longitudinal studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising > 2.4 million measurements covering 23 countries from all WHO regions (Africa, Americas, Eastern Mediterranean, South-East Asia, Europe, and Western Pacific). The target population in all 88 included studies was from major ISCO groups 3 (Technicians and Associate Professionals), 6 (Skilled Agricultural, Forestry and Fishery Workers), 7 (Craft and Related Trades Workers), 8 (Plant and Machine Operators and Assemblers), and 9 (Elementary Occupations), hereafter called manual workers. Most studies were performed in Construction, Manufacturing and Mining. For occupational exposure to silica, 65 studies (61 cross-sectional studies and 4 longitudinal studies) were included with > 2.3 million measurements collected in 22 countries in all six WHO regions. For occupational exposure to asbestos, 18 studies (17 cross-sectional studies and 1 longitudinal) were included with > 20,000 measurements collected in eight countries in five WHO regions (no data for Africa). For occupational exposure to coal dust, eight studies (all cross-sectional) were included comprising > 100,000 samples in six countries in five WHO regions (no data for Eastern Mediterranean). Occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust was assessed with personal or stationary active filter sampling; for silica and asbestos, gravimetric assessment was followed by technical analysis. Risk of bias profiles varied between the bodies of evidence looking at asbestos, silica and coal dust, as well as between industrial sectors. However, risk of bias was generally highest for the domain of selection of participants into the studies. The largest bodies of evidence for silica related to the industrial sectors of Construction (ISIC 41-43), Manufacturing (ISIC 20, 23-25, 27, 31-32) and Mining (ISIC 05, 07, 08). For Construction, the pooled prevalence estimate was 0.89 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.93, 17 studies, I2 91%, moderate quality of evidence) and the level estimate was rated as of very low quality of evidence. For Manufacturing, the pooled prevalence estimate was 0.85 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.91, 24 studies, I2 100%, moderate quality of evidence) and the pooled level estimate was rated as of very low quality of evidence. The pooled prevalence estimate for Mining was 0.75 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.82, 20 studies, I2 100%, moderate quality of evidence) and the pooled level estimate was 0.04 mg/m3 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.05, 17 studies, I2 100%, low quality of evidence). Smaller bodies of evidence were identified for Crop and animal production (ISIC 01; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); Professional, scientific and technical activities (ISIC 71, 74; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); and Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (ISIC 35; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level). For asbestos, the pooled prevalence estimate for Construction (ISIC 41, 43, 45,) was 0.77 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.87, six studies, I2 99%, low quality of evidence) and the level estimate was rated as of very low quality of evidence. For Manufacturing (ISIC 13, 23-24, 29-30), the pooled prevalence and level estimates were rated as being of very low quality of evidence. Smaller bodies of evidence were identified for Other mining and quarrying (ISIC 08; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (ISIC 35; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); and Water supply, sewerage, waste management and remediation (ISIC 37; very low quality of evidence for levels). For coal dust, the pooled prevalence estimate for Mining of coal and lignite (ISIC 05), was 1.00 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.00, six studies, I2 16%, moderate quality of evidence) and the pooled level estimate was 0.77 mg/m3 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.86, three studies, I2 100%, low quality of evidence). A small body of evidence was identified for Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (ISIC 35); with very low quality of evidence for prevalence, and the pooled level estimate being 0.60 mg/m3 (95% CI -6.95 to 8.14, one study, low quality of evidence). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, we judged the bodies of evidence for occupational exposure to silica to vary by industrial sector between very low and moderate quality of evidence for prevalence, and very low and low for level. For occupational exposure to asbestos, the bodies of evidence varied by industrial sector between very low and low quality of evidence for prevalence and were of very low quality of evidence for level. For occupational exposure to coal dust, the bodies of evidence were of very low or moderate quality of evidence for prevalence, and low for level. None of the included studies were population-based studies (i.e., covered the entire workers' population in the industrial sector), which we judged to present serious concern for indirectness, except for occupational exposure to coal dust within the industrial sector of mining of coal and lignite. Selected estimates of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to silica by industrial sector are considered suitable as input data for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates, and selected estimates of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to asbestos and coal dust may perhaps also be suitable for estimation purposes. Protocol identifier: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.06.005. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018084131.

New global indicator for workers' health: mortality rate from diseases attributable to selected occupational risk factors.

Through sustainable development goals 3 and 8 and other policies, countries have committed to protect and promote workers' health by reducing the work-related burden of disease. To monitor progress on these commitments, indicators that capture the work-related burden of disease should be available for monitoring workers' health and sustainable development. The World Health Organization and the International Labour Organization estimate that only 363 283 (19%) of 1 879 890 work-related deaths globally in 2016 were due to injuries, whereas 1 516 607 (81%) deaths were due to diseases. Most monitoring systems focusing on workers' health or sustainable development, such as the global indicator framework for the sustainable development goals, include an indicator on the burden of occupational injuries. Few such systems, however, have an indicator on the burden of work-related diseases. To address this gap, we present a new global indicator: mortality rate from diseases attributable to selected occupational risk factors, by disease, risk factor, sex and age group. We outline the policy rationale of the indicator, describe its data sources and methods of calculation, and report and analyse the official indicator for 183 countries. We also provide examples of the use of the indicator in national workers' health monitoring systems and highlight the indicator's strengths and limitations. We conclude that integrating the new indicator into monitoring systems will provide more comprehensive and accurate surveillance of workers' health, and allow harmonization across global, regional and national monitoring systems. Inequalities in workers' health can be analysed and the evidence base can be improved towards more effective policy and systems on workers' health.

Par le biais des objectifs de développement durable 3 et 8 ainsi que d'autres mesures, plusieurs pays se sont engagés à protéger et promouvoir la santé des travailleurs en réduisant l'impact des maladies liées au travail. Mais pour évaluer leurs progrès en la matière, il convient de mettre en place des indicateurs estimant l'impact des maladies liées au travail afin de placer le développement durable et la santé des travailleurs sous surveillance. D'après l'Organisation mondiale de la Santé et l'Organisation internationale du Travail, seulement 363 283 (19%) des 1 879 890 décès liés au travail dans le monde en 2016 découlaient de blessures, tandis que 1 516 607 (81%) d'entre eux étaient causés par des maladies. La plupart des systèmes de surveillance qui s'intéressent à la santé des travailleurs ou au développement durable, comme le cadre mondial d'indicateurs pour les objectifs de développement durable, comportent un indicateur relatif à l'impact des accidents de travail. Cependant, rares sont ceux qui possèdent un indicateur concernant l'impact des maladies professionnelles. Pour combler cette lacune, nous dévoilons un nouvel indicateur mondial: le taux de mortalité dû aux maladies attribuables à certains facteurs de risque professionnels classé par maladie, facteur de risque, sexe et catégorie d'âge. Nous exposons le motif politique de l'indicateur, décrivons l'origine des données et les méthodes de calcul, et communiquons et analysons l'indicateur officiel pour 183 pays. Nous fournissons également des exemples de la façon dont l'indicateur peut être utilisé dans des systèmes nationaux de surveillance de la santé des travailleurs et soulignons ses forces et faiblesses. Nous concluons en affirmant que l'intégration de ce nouvel indicateur dans les systèmes de surveillance offrira un suivi plus complet et précis de la santé des travailleurs et ouvrira la voie à une harmonisation des systèmes mondiaux, nationaux et régionaux. Il est possible d'analyser les inégalités en matière de santé des travailleurs et d'en améliorer les bases factuelles afin d'établir des politiques et systèmes plus efficaces dans ce domaine.

A través de los objetivos de desarrollo sostenible 3 y 8 y de otras políticas, los países se han comprometido a proteger y promover la salud de los trabajadores reduciendo la carga de morbilidad relacionada con el trabajo. Para supervisar los avances en el cumplimiento de estos compromisos, debería disponerse de indicadores que reflejen la carga de morbilidad relacionada con el trabajo, a fin de controlar la salud de los trabajadores y el desarrollo sostenible. La Organización Mundial de la Salud y la Organización Internacional del Trabajo estiman que solo 363 283 (19%) de las 1 879 890 muertes relacionadas con el trabajo a nivel mundial en 2016 se debieron a lesiones, mientras que 1 516 607 (81%) muertes se debieron a enfermedades. La mayoría de los sistemas de vigilancia centrados en la salud de los trabajadores o el desarrollo sostenible, como el marco de indicadores mundiales para los objetivos de desarrollo sostenible, incluyen un indicador sobre la carga de las lesiones laborales. No obstante, pocos de estos sistemas cuentan con un indicador sobre la carga de las enfermedades relacionadas con el trabajo. Para subsanar esta carencia, presentamos un nuevo indicador mundial: la tasa de mortalidad por enfermedades atribuibles a factores de riesgo laborales seleccionados, por enfermedad, factor de riesgo, sexo y grupo de edad. Describimos la justificación política del indicador, describimos sus fuentes de datos y métodos de cálculo, e informamos y analizamos el indicador oficial para 183 países. También proporcionamos ejemplos del uso del indicador en los sistemas nacionales de vigilancia de la salud de los trabajadores y destacamos las ventajas y las limitaciones del indicador. Concluimos que la integración del nuevo indicador en los sistemas de vigilancia proporcionará una vigilancia más exhaustiva y precisa de la salud de los trabajadores, y permitirá la armonización entre los sistemas de vigilancia mundiales, regionales y nacionales. Se podrán analizar las desigualdades en la salud de los trabajadores y se podrá mejorar la base de evidencias para lograr políticas y sistemas más eficaces en materia de salud de los trabajadores.

Estimating the population exposed to a risk factor over a time window: A microsimulation modelling approach from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury.

OBJECTIVES: Burden of disease estimation commonly requires estimates of the population exposed to a risk factor over a time window (yeart to yeart+n). We present a microsimulation modelling approach for producing such estimates and apply it to calculate the population exposed to long working hours for one country (Italy). METHODS: We developed a three-model approach: Model 1, a multilevel model, estimates exposure to the risk factor at the first year of the time window (yeart). Model 2, a regression model, estimates transition probabilities between exposure categories during the time window (yeart to yeart+n). Model 3, a microsimulation model, estimates the exposed population over the time window, using the Monte Carlo method. The microsimulation is carried out in three steps: (a) a representative synthetic population is initiated in the first year of the time window using prevalence estimates from Model 1, (b) the exposed population is simulated over the time window using the transition probabilities from Model 2; and (c) the population is censored for deaths during the time window. RESULTS: We estimated the population exposed to long working hours (i.e. 41-48, 49-54 and ≥55 hours/week) over a 10-year time window (2002-11) in Italy. We populated all three models with official data from Labour Force Surveys, United Nations population estimates and World Health Organization life tables. Estimates were produced of populations exposed over the time window, disaggregated by sex and 5-year age group. CONCLUSIONS: Our modelling approach for estimating the population exposed to a risk factor over a time window is simple, versatile, and flexible. It however requires longitudinal exposure data and Model 3 (the microsimulation model) is stochastic. The approach can improve accuracy and transparency in exposure and burden of disease estimations. To improve the approach, a logical next step is changing Model 3 to a deterministic microsimulation method, such as modelling of microflows.

The effect of occupational exposure to welding fumes on trachea, bronchus and lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are the producers of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates). Welding fumes have been classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1) by the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in IARC Monograph 118; this assessment found sufficient evidence from studies in humans that welding fumes are a cause of lung cancer. In this article, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of parameters for estimating the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer attributable to occupational exposure to welding fumes, to inform the development of WHO/ILO Joint Estimates on this burden of disease (if considered feasible). OBJECTIVES: We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of any (or high) occupational exposure to welding fumes, compared with no (or low) occupational exposure to welding fumes, on trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer (three outcomes: prevalence, incidence, and mortality). DATA SOURCES: We developed and published a protocol, applying the Navigation Guide as an organizing systematic review framework where feasible. We searched electronic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL and CISDOC. We also searched grey literature databases, Internet search engines, and organizational websites; hand-searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews; and consulted additional experts. STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA: We included working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any Member State of WHO and/or ILO but excluded children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. We included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the effect of any (or high) occupational exposure to welding fumes, compared with occupational exposure to no (or low) welding fumes, on trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer (prevalence, incidence, and mortality). STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first review stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. If studies reported odds ratios, these were converted to risk ratios (RRs). We combined all RRs using random-effects meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias, quality of evidence, and strength of evidence, using the Navigation Guide tools and approaches adapted to this project. Subgroup (e.g., by WHO region and sex) and sensitivity analyses (e.g., studies judged to be of "high"/"probably high" risk of bias compared with "low"/"probably low" risk of bias) were conducted. RESULTS: Forty-one records from 40 studies (29 case control studies and 11 cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising over 1,265,512 participants (≥22,761 females) in 21 countries in three WHO regions (Region of the Americas, European Region, and Western Pacific Region). The exposure and outcome were generally assessed by job title or self-report, and medical or administrative records, respectively. Across included studies, risk of bias was overall generally probably low/low, with risk judged high or probably high for several studies in the domains for misclassification bias and confounding. Our search identified no evidence on the outcome of having trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer (prevalence). Compared with no (or low) occupational exposure to welding fumes, any (or high) occupational exposure to welding fumes increased the risk of acquiring trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer (incidence) by an estimated 48 % (RR 1.48, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.29-1.70, 23 studies, 57,931 participants, I2 24 %; moderate quality of evidence). Compared with no (or low) occupational exposure to welding fumes, any (or high) occupational exposure to welding fumes increased the risk dying from trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer (mortality) by an estimated 27 % (RR 1.27, 95 % CI 1.04-1.56, 3 studies, 8,686 participants, I2 0 %; low quality of evidence). Our subgroup analyses found no evidence for difference by WHO region and sex. Sensitivity analyses supported the main analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, for incidence and mortality of trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer, we judged the existing body of evidence for human data as "sufficient evidence of harmfulness" and "limited evidence of harmfulness", respectively. Occupational exposure to welding fumes increased the risk of acquiring and dying from trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer. Producing estimates for the burden of trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer attributable to any (or high) occupational exposure to welding fumes appears evidence-based, and the pooled effect estimates presented in this systematic review could be used as input data for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. PROTOCOL IDENTIFIER: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106089.

Modelling the global economic costs of tobacco product waste.

Tobacco smoking continues to cause considerable premature mortality and morbidity worldwide. Most of the approximately six trillion cigarettes sold globally each year are discarded improperly as toxic environmental waste. Tobacco product waste, including cigarette butts, is the most commonly collected waste item worldwide. Of particular concern is the cellulose acetate filter, a poorly degradable plastic additive attached to most commercially manufactured cigarettes. This filter was introduced by the tobacco industry to reduce smokers' perception of harm and risk but it has no health benefit. To inform health policy and practice and improve public health outcomes, governments and society can benefit from cost estimates of preventing, properly disposing of and/or cleaning up tobacco product waste. Estimating the costs of tobacco product waste to communities and responsible authorities could encourage the development of health, environmental and fiscal policy interventions and shift accountability for the costs of tobacco product waste onto the global tobacco industry. To support health and environmental policy-making, we therefore propose an empirical approach to estimate the economic costs of tobacco product waste based on its negative environmental externalities. We first present general estimates for six representative countries and then identify data gaps that need to be addressed to develop global estimates. Interventions against tobacco product waste may be new channels to regulate tobacco products across sectors - for example, health, environment and finance - and consequently reduce overall tobacco use.

Le tabagisme continue à entraîner un taux de morbidité et de mortalité précoce considérable à travers le monde. La plupart des quelque six billions de cigarettes vendues chaque année à l'échelle planétaire ne sont pas correctement éliminées et deviennent une source de pollution environnementale toxique. Les déchets liés aux produits du tabac, notamment les mégots, sont les résidus les plus fréquemment collectés dans le monde. C'est surtout le filtre qui pose problème car il est composé d'acétate de cellulose, un additif plastique difficilement biodégradable que l'on retrouve dans la majorité des cigarettes commercialisées. Ce filtre a été introduit par l'industrie du tabac afin de donner aux fumeurs l'impression qu'ils courent moins de risques, alors qu'il n'a aucun effet bénéfique sur la santé. Les gouvernements et la société pourraient récolter les fruits d'une estimation des coûts engendrés par la prévention, l'élimination correcte et/ou le nettoyage des déchets liés aux produits du tabac, qui leur permettrait de mieux orienter les politiques et pratiques en la matière, mais aussi d'améliorer les résultats de santé publique. Estimer l'impact de ces déchets sur les communautés et les autorités compétentes pourrait encourager à adopter des mesures sanitaires, environnementales et fiscales, et pousser à responsabiliser davantage l'industrie mondiale du tabac vis-à-vis des coûts qu'ils entraînent. En vue de soutenir l'élaboration de politiques sanitaires et environnementales, nous proposons donc une approche empirique visant à déterminer les conséquences économiques des déchets générés par les produits du tabac en nous fondant sur l'influence néfaste qu'ils exercent sur l'environnement. Nous commençons par présenter des estimations globales pour six pays représentatifs, puis nous identifions les lacunes à combler dans les données afin de produire des estimations mondiales. Prendre des mesures de lutte contre ce type de déchets pourrait constituer un nouveau moyen de réglementer les produits du tabac dans différents secteurs comme la santé, l'environnement et les finances par exemple ­ et, par conséquent, faire diminuer la consommation de tabac en général.

El tabaquismo sigue causando una considerable tasa de mortalidad y morbilidad prematura en todo el mundo. La mayor parte de los casi seis billones de cigarrillos que se venden cada año en el mundo se desechan de forma inadecuada como residuos tóxicos para el medio ambiente. Los residuos de los productos del tabaco, incluidas las colillas, son los que más se recogen en todo el mundo. Un aspecto especialmente preocupante es el filtro de acetato de celulosa, un aditivo plástico poco degradable que se adhiere a la mayoría de los cigarrillos fabricados en el mercado. La industria del tabaco introdujo este filtro para reducir la percepción de daño y riesgo de los fumadores, pero no tiene ningún beneficio para la salud. A fin de fundamentar las políticas y prácticas sanitarias y mejorar los resultados en materia de salud pública, los gobiernos y la sociedad se pueden beneficiar de las estimaciones de costes de la prevención, la eliminación adecuada o la limpieza de los residuos de productos del tabaco. La estimación de los costes de los residuos de productos del tabaco para las comunidades y las autoridades responsables podría fomentar el desarrollo de intervenciones de política sanitaria, medioambiental y fiscal y trasladar la responsabilidad de los costes de los residuos de productos del tabaco a la industria del tabaco mundial. Para apoyar la elaboración de políticas sanitarias y medioambientales, se propone un enfoque empírico para estimar los costes económicos de los residuos de los productos del tabaco en función de sus consecuencias negativas para el medio ambiente. En primer lugar, se presentan estimaciones generales para seis países representativos y, a continuación, se identifican las deficiencias de información que se deben abordar para desarrollar estimaciones globales. Las intervenciones contra los residuos de productos del tabaco pueden constituir canales nuevos para regular los productos del tabaco en todos los sectores, por ejemplo, la salud, el medio ambiente y las finanzas, y, en consecuencia, reducir el consumo general de tabaco.

Towards a framework for systematic reviews of the prevalence of exposure to environmental and occupational risk factors.

Exposure prevalence studies (as here defined) record the prevalence of exposure to environmental and occupational risk factors to human health. Applying systematic review methods to the synthesis of these studies would improve the rigour and transparency of normative products produced based on this evidence (e.g., exposure prevalence estimates). However, a dedicated framework, including standard methods and tools, for systematically reviewing exposure prevalence studies has yet to be created. We describe the need for this framework and progress made towards it through a series of such systematic reviews that the World Health Organization and the International Labour Organization conducted for their WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates).We explain that existing systematic review frameworks for environmental and occupational health cannot be directly applied for the generation of exposure prevalence estimates because they seek to synthesise different types of evidence (e.g., intervention or exposure effects on health) for different purposes (e.g., identify intervention effectiveness or exposure toxicity or carcinogenicity). Concepts unique to exposure prevalence studies (e.g., "expected heterogeneity": the real, non-spurious variability in exposure prevalence due to exposure changes over space and/or time) also require new assessment methods. A framework for systematic reviews of prevalence of environmental and occupational exposures requires adaptation of existing methods (e.g., a standard protocol) and development of new tools or approaches (e.g., for assessing risk of bias and certainty of a body of evidence, including exploration of expected heterogeneity).As part of the series of systematic reviews for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates, the World Health Organization collaborating with partners has created a preliminary framework for systematic reviews of prevalence studies of exposures to occupational risk factors. This included development of protocol templates, data extraction templates, a risk of bias assessment tool, and an approach for assessing certainty of evidence in these studies. Further attention and efforts are warranted from scientific and policy communities, especially exposure scientists and policy makers, to establish a standard framework for comprehensive and transparent systematic reviews of studies estimating prevalence of exposure to environmental and occupational risk factors, to improve estimates, risk assessments and guidelines.

Unconditional cash transfers for reducing poverty and vulnerabilities: effect on use of health services and health outcomes in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Unconditional cash transfers (UCTs; provided without obligation) for reducing poverty and vulnerabilities (e.g. orphanhood, old age, or HIV infection) are a social protection intervention addressing a key social determinant of health (income) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The relative effectiveness of UCTs compared with conditional cash transfers (CCTs; provided only if recipients follow prescribed behaviours, e.g. use a health service or attend school) is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of UCTs on health services use and health outcomes in children and adults in LMICs. Secondary objectives are to assess the effects of UCTs on social determinants of health and healthcare expenditure, and to compare the effects of UCTs versus CCTs. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched 15 electronic academic databases, including CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EconLit, in September 2021. We also searched four electronic grey literature databases, websites of key organisations and reference lists of previous systematic reviews, key journals and included study records. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included both parallel-group and cluster-randomised controlled trials (C-RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cohort studies, controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs), and interrupted time series studies of UCT interventions in children (0 to 17 years) and adults (≥ 18 years) in LMICs. Comparison groups received either no UCT, a smaller UCT or a CCT. Our primary outcomes were any health services use or health outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened potentially relevant records for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We obtained missing data from study authors if feasible. For C-RCTs, we generally calculated risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes from crude frequency measures in approximately correct analyses. Meta-analyses applied the inverse variance or Mantel-Haenszel method using a random-effects model. Where meta-analysis was impossible, we synthesised results using vote counting based on effect direction. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 34 studies (25 studies of 20 C-RCTs, six CBAs, and three cohort studies) involving 1,140,385 participants (45,538 children, 1,094,847 adults) and 50,095 households in Africa, the Americas and South-East Asia in our meta-analyses and narrative syntheses. These analysed 29 independent data sets. The 24 UCTs identified, including one basic universal income intervention, were pilot or established government programmes or research experiments. The cash value was equivalent to 1.3% to 81.9% of the annualised gross domestic product per capita. All studies compared a UCT with no UCT; three studies also compared a UCT with a CCT. Most studies carried an overall high risk of bias (i.e. often selection or performance bias, or both). Most studies were funded by national governments or international organisations, or both. Throughout the review, we use the words 'probably' to indicate moderate-certainty evidence, 'may/maybe' for low-certainty evidence, and 'uncertain' for very low-certainty evidence. Health services use We assumed greater use of any health services to be beneficial. UCTs may not have impacted the likelihood of having used any health service in the previous 1 to 12 months, when participants were followed up between 12 and 24 months into the intervention (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.09; I2 = 2%; 5 C-RCTs, 4972 participants; low-certainty evidence). Health outcomes At one to two years, UCTs probably led to a clinically meaningful, very large reduction in the likelihood of having had any illness in the previous two weeks to three months (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.92; I2 = 53%; 6 C-RCTs, 9367 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). UCTs may have increased the likelihood of having been food secure over the previous month, at 13 to 36 months into the intervention (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.45; I2 = 85%; 5 C-RCTs, 2687 participants; low-certainty evidence). UCTs may have increased participants' level of dietary diversity over the previous week, when assessed with the Household Dietary Diversity Score and followed up 24 months into the intervention (mean difference (MD) 0.59 food categories, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.01; I2 = 79%; 4 C-RCTs, 9347 participants; low-certainty evidence). Despite several studies providing relevant evidence, the effects of UCTs on the likelihood of being moderately stunted and on the level of depression remain uncertain. We found no study on the effect of UCTs on mortality risk. Social determinants of health UCTs probably led to a clinically meaningful, moderate increase in the likelihood of currently attending school, when assessed at 12 to 24 months into the intervention (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.09; I2 = 0%; 8 C-RCTs, 7136 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). UCTs may have reduced the likelihood of households being extremely poor, at 12 to 36 months into the intervention (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.97; I2 = 63%; 6 C-RCTs, 3805 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was uncertain for whether UCTs impacted livestock ownership, participation in labour, and parenting quality. Healthcare expenditure Evidence from eight cluster-RCTs on healthcare expenditure was too inconsistent to be combined in a meta-analysis, but it suggested that UCTs may have increased the amount of money spent on health care at 7 to 36 months into the intervention (low-certainty evidence). Equity, harms and comparison with CCTs The effects of UCTs on health equity (or unfair and remedial health inequalities) were very uncertain. We did not identify any harms from UCTs. Three cluster-RCTs compared UCTs versus CCTs with regard to the likelihood of having used any health services or had any illness, or the level of dietary diversity, but evidence was limited to one study per outcome and was very uncertain for all three. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This body of evidence suggests that unconditional cash transfers (UCTs) may not impact a summary measure of health service use in children and adults in LMICs. However, UCTs probably or may improve some health outcomes (i.e. the likelihood of having had any illness, the likelihood of having been food secure, and the level of dietary diversity), two social determinants of health (i.e. the likelihoods of attending school and being extremely poor), and healthcare expenditure. The evidence on the relative effectiveness of UCTs and CCTs remains very uncertain.

Assessing the quality of evidence in studies estimating prevalence of exposure to occupational risk factors: The QoE-SPEO approach applied in the systematic reviews from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related burden of disease and Injury.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) have produced the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates). For these, systematic reviews of studies estimating the prevalence of exposure to selected occupational risk factors have been conducted to provide input data for estimations of the number of exposed workers. A critical part of systematic review methodology is to assess the quality of evidence across studies. In this article, we present the approach applied in these WHO/ILO systematic reviews for performing such assessments on studies of prevalence of exposure. It is called the Quality of Evidence in Studies estimating Prevalence of Exposure to Occupational risk factors (QoE-SPEO) approach. We describe QoE-SPEO's development to date, demonstrate its feasibility reporting results from pilot testing and case studies, note its strengths and limitations, and suggest how QoE-SPEO should be tested and developed further. METHODS: Following a comprehensive literature review, and using expert opinion, selected existing quality of evidence assessment approaches used in environmental and occupational health were reviewed and analysed for their relevance to prevalence studies. Relevant steps and components from the existing approaches were adopted or adapted for QoE-SPEO. New steps and components were developed. We elicited feedback from other systematic review methodologists and exposure scientists and reached consensus on the QoE-SPEO approach. Ten individual experts pilot-tested QoE-SPEO. To assess inter-rater agreement, we counted ratings of expected (actual and non-spurious) heterogeneity and quality of evidence and calculated a raw measure of agreement (Pi) between individual raters and rater teams for the downgrade domains. Pi ranged between 0.00 (no two pilot testers selected the same rating) and 1.00 (all pilot testers selected the same rating). Case studies were conducted of experiences of QoE-SPEO's use in two WHO/ILO systematic reviews. RESULTS: We found no existing quality of evidence assessment approach for occupational exposure prevalence studies. We identified three relevant, existing approaches for environmental and occupational health studies of the effect of exposures. Assessments using QoE-SPEO comprise three steps: (1) judge the level of expected heterogeneity (defined as non-spurious variability that can be expected in exposure prevalence, within or between individual persons, because exposure may change over space and/or time), (2) assess downgrade domains, and (3) reach a final rating on the quality of evidence. Assessments are conducted using the same five downgrade domains as the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach: (a) risk of bias, (b) indirectness, (c) inconsistency, (d) imprecision, and (e) publication bias. For downgrade domains (c) and (d), the assessment varies depending on the level of expected heterogeneity. There are no upgrade domains. The QoE-SPEO's ratings are "very low", "low", "moderate", and "high". To arrive at a final decision on the overall quality of evidence, the assessor starts at "high" quality of evidence and for each domain downgrades by one or two levels for serious concerns or very serious concerns, respectively. In pilot tests, there was reasonable agreement in ratings for expected heterogeneity; 70% of raters selected the same rating. Inter-rater agreement ranged considerably between downgrade domains, both for individual rater pairs (range Pi: 0.36-1.00) and rater teams (0.20-1.00). Sparse data prevented rigorous assessment of inter-rater agreement in quality of evidence ratings. CONCLUSIONS: We present QoE-SPEO as an approach for assessing quality of evidence in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors. It has been developed to its current version (as presented here), has undergone pilot testing, and was applied in the systematic reviews for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. While the approach requires further testing and development, it makes steps towards filling an identified gap, and progress made so far can be used to inform future work in this area.

Assessor burden, inter-rater agreement and user experience of the RoB-SPEO tool for assessing risk of bias in studies estimating prevalence of exposure to occupational risk factors: An analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury.

BACKGROUND: As part of the development of the World Health Organization (WHO)/International Labour Organization (ILO) Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury, WHO and ILO carried out several systematic reviews to determine the prevalence of exposure to selected occupational risk factors. Risk of bias assessment for individual studies is a critical step of a systematic review. No tool existed for assessing the risk of bias in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors, so WHO and ILO developed and pilot tested the RoB-SPEO tool for this purpose. Here, we investigate the assessor burden, inter-rater agreement, and user experience of this new instrument, based on the abovementioned WHO/ILO systematic reviews. METHODS: Twenty-seven individual experts applied RoB-SPEO to assess risk of bias. Four systematic reviews provided a total of 283 individual assessments, carried out for 137 studies. For each study, two or more assessors independently assessed risk of bias across the eight RoB-SPEO domains selecting one of RoB-SPEO's six ratings (i.e., "low", "probably low", "probably high", "high", "unclear" or "cannot be determined"). Assessors were asked to report time taken (i.e. indicator of assessor burden) to complete each assessment and describe their user experience. To gauge assessor burden, we calculated the median and inter-quartile range of times taken per individual risk of bias assessment. To assess inter-rater reliability, we calculated a raw measure of inter-rater agreement (Pi) for each RoB-SPEO domain, between Pi = 0.00, indicating no agreement and Pi = 1.00, indicating perfect agreement. As subgroup analyses, Pi was also disaggregated by systematic review, assessor experience with RoB-SPEO (≤10 assessments versus > 10 assessments), and assessment time (tertiles: ≤25 min versus 26-66 min versus ≥ 67 min). To describe user experience, we synthesised the assessors' comments and recommendations. RESULTS: Assessors reported a median of 40 min to complete one assessment (interquartile range 21-120 min). For all domains, raw inter-rater agreement ranged from 0.54 to 0.82. Agreement varied by systematic review and assessor experience with RoB-SPEO between domains, and increased with increasing assessment time. A small number of users recommended further development of instructions for selected RoB-SPEO domains, especially bias in selection of participants into the study (domain 1) and bias due to differences in numerator and denominator (domain 7). DISCUSSION: Overall, our results indicated good agreement across the eight domains of the RoB-SPEO tool. The median assessment time was comparable to that of other risk of bias tools, indicating comparable assessor burden. However, there was considerable variation in time taken to complete assessments. Additional time spent on assessments may improve inter-rater agreement. Further development of the RoB-SPEO tool could focus on refining instructions for selected RoB-SPEO domains and additional testing to assess agreement for different topic areas and with a wider range of assessors from different research backgrounds.

Occupational health outcomes among sanitation workers: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sanitation workers are essential to global public health and societal wellbeing. However, the health risks and outcomes associated with exposure to occupational risk factors among sanitation workers are neither well understood nor well quantified. We undertook a systematic review to (1) identify occupational risk factors among sanitation workers and (2) assess the effect of occupational exposure to human fecal sludge and wastewater on selected health outcomes among these workers. METHODS: We searched four databases (i.e., PubMED, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS) for eligible studies from inception through to January 01, 2020. The included population was workers ≥15 years engaged, formally or informally, in installing, operating, servicing, cleaning or emptying a sanitation technology at any step of the sanitation chain. The included comparator was workers in other occupations or the general population. Eligible outcomes were: mortality (any or all causes), gastroenteritis, occupational injuries, respiratory diseases, musculoskeletal disorders, and mental and social health conditions. Risk of bias was assessed separately on exposure assessment and health outcome using a modified Liverpool Quality Assessment Tool (LQAT). We pooled sufficiently homogenous studies using inverse variance meta-analysis with random effects. RESULTS: A total of 65 studies (9 cohort studies, 56 cross-sectional studies) met the inclusion criteria. One quarter of studies (n = 15) were from middle-income countries. Few studies assessed occupational risk factor exposures directly; most assigned exposure via proxy of occupation of sanitation worker. We judged nearly all studies to have "high risk of bias" in exposure and outcome assessment. Despite these limitations, the consistency of the overall evidence suggests that sanitation workers are at increased risk of gastroenteritis and respiratory conditions, and may be at increased risk of musculoskeletal disorders and mental/social health conditions. The pooled odds ratio for hepatitis A--the only outcome deemed suitable for meta-analysis--was 2.09 (95% Predicted Interval: 1.39-3.00, 12 studies). There was conflicting evidence from studies of increased risk of mortality; only one study reported on injuries. CONCLUSION: Despite a large number of studies, there is limited evidence to date of the health risks faced by sanitation workers, particularly among groups that may be at particular risk-- women, informal workers and those living in low-income countries. Nevertheless, the research to date provides suggestive evidence of elevated occupational risk among sanitation workers across a range of health condition. More research is needed to improve the current bodies of evidence for all included health outcomes to be able to quantify disease burden among this occupational group.

Global, regional and national burden of disease attributable to 19 selected occupational risk factors for 183 countries, 2000-2016: A systematic analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury.

OBJECTIVES: We provide a brief introduction to the objectives, data, methods and results of the World Health Organization (WHO)/International Labor Organization (ILO) Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), which estimated the burden attributable to 19 selected occupational risk factors. METHODS: The WHO/ILO Joint Estimates were produced within the global Comparative Risk Assessment framework, which attributes the burden of one specific health outcome (ie, disease/injury) to a specific occupational risk factor. For 39 established occupational risk factor-health outcome pairs, estimates are produced using population attributable fractions (PAF) from recent burden of disease estimates. For two additional pairs, PAF are calculated from new databases of exposure and risk ratios produced in WHO/ILO systematic reviews. Attributable disease burdens were estimated by applying the PAF to total disease burdens. RESULTS: Globally in 2016, it is estimated that 1.88 [95% uncertainty range (UR) 1.84-1.92] million deaths and 89.72 (95% UR 88.61-90.83) million disability-adjusted life years were attributable to the 19 selected occupational risk factors and their health outcomes. A disproportionately large work-related burden of disease is observed in the WHO African Region (for disability-adjusted life years), South-East Asia Region, and Western Pacific Region (for deaths), males and older age groups. CONCLUSIONS: The WHO/ILO Joint Estimates can be used for global monitoring of exposure to occupational risk factors and work-related burden of disease and to identify, plan, cost, implement and evaluate policies, programs and actions to prevent exposure to occupational risk factors and their associated burden.

Health service use and health outcomes among international migrant workers compared with non-migrant workers: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The review aimed to synthesise recent evidence on health service use and health outcomes among international migrant workers, compared with non-migrant workers. METHODS: A search was carried out in MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL for studies published between Jan 1, 2010, and Feb 29, 2020. Included outcomes were: occupational health service use, fatal occupational injury, HIV, and depression. Two authors independently screened records, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and judged quality of evidence. We meta-analysed estimates and conducted subgroup analyses by sex, geographical origin, geographical destination, and regularity of migration. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included comprising >17 million participants in 16 countries. Most studies investigated regular migrant workers in high-income destination countries. Compared with non-migrant workers, migrant workers were less likely to use health services (relative risk 0·55, 95% confidence interval 0·41 to 0·73, 4 studies, 3,804,131 participants, I2 100%, low quality of evidence). They more commonly had occupational injuries (1·27, 95% confidence interval 1·11 to 1·45, 7 studies, 17,100,626 participants, I2 96%, low quality of evidence). Relative risks differed by geographical origin and/or destination. There is uncertainty (very low quality of evidence) about occupational health service use (0 studies), fatal occupational injuries (5 studies, N = 14,210,820), HIV (3 studies, N = 13,775), and depression (2 studies, N = 7,512). CONCLUSIONS: Migrant workers may be less likely than non-migrant workers to use health services and more likely to have occupational injuries. More research is required on migrant workers from and in low- and middle-income countries, across migration stages, migrating irregularly, and in the informal economy.

The effect of exposure to long working hours on depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), supported by a large number of individual experts. Evidence from previous reviews suggests that exposure to long working hours may cause depression. In this article, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of parameters for estimating (if feasible) the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from depression that are attributable to exposure to long working hours, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of exposure to long working hours (three categories: 41-48, 49-54 and ≥55 h/week), compared with exposure to standard working hours (35-40 h/week), on depression (three outcomes: prevalence, incidence and mortality). DATA SOURCES: We developed and published a protocol, applying the Navigation Guide as an organizing systematic review framework where feasible. We searched electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including the WHO International Clinical Trial Registers Platform, Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CISDOC and PsycInfo. We also searched grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews; and consulted additional experts. STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA: We included working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but excluded children (aged <15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. We included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the effect of exposure to long working hours (41-48, 49-54 and ≥55 h/week), compared with exposure to standard working hours (35-40 h/week), on depression (prevalence, incidence and/or mortality). STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. Missing data were requested from principal study authors. We combined odds ratios using random-effects meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias, quality of evidence and strength of evidence, using Navigation Guide and GRADE tools and approaches adapted to this project. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies (all cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 109,906 participants (51,324 females) in 32 countries (as one study included multiple countries) in three WHO regions (Americas, Europe and Western Pacific). The exposure was measured using self-reports in all studies, and the outcome was assessed with a clinical diagnostic interview (four studies), interview questions about diagnosis and treatment of depression (three studies) or a validated self-administered rating scale (15 studies). The outcome was defined as incident depression in all 22 studies, with first time incident depression in 21 studies and recurrence of depression in one study. We did not identify any study on prevalence of depression or on mortality from depression. For the body of evidence for the outcome incident depression, we had serious concerns for risk of bias due to selection because of incomplete outcome data (most studies assessed depression only twice, at baseline and at a later follow-up measurement, and likely have missed cases of depression that occurred after baseline but were in remission at the time of the follow-up measurement) and due to missing information on life-time prevalence of depression before baseline measurement. Compared with working 35-40 h/week, we are uncertain about the effect on acquiring (or incidence of) depression of working 41-48 h/week (pooled odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.29, 8 studies, 49,392 participants, I2 46%, low quality of evidence); 49-54 h/week (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.21, 8 studies, 49,392 participants, I2 40%, low quality of evidence); and ≥ 55 h/week (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.24, 17 studies, 91,142 participants, I2 46%, low quality of evidence). Subgroup analyses found no evidence for statistically significant (P < 0.05) differences by WHO region, sex, age group and socioeconomic status. Sensitivity analyses found no statistically significant differences by outcome measurement (clinical diagnostic interview [gold standard] versus other measures) and risk of bias ("high"/"probably high" ratings in any domain versus "low"/"probably low" in all domains). CONCLUSIONS: We judged the existing bodies of evidence from human data as "inadequate evidence for harmfulness" for all three exposure categories, 41-48, 48-54 and ≥55 h/week, for depression prevalence, incidence and mortality; the available evidence is insufficient to assess effects of the exposure. Producing estimates of the burden of depression attributable to exposure to long working appears not evidence-based at this point. Instead, studies examining the association between long working hours and risk of depression are needed that address the limitations of the current evidence.

Global, regional, and national burdens of ischemic heart disease and stroke attributable to exposure to long working hours for 194 countries, 2000-2016: A systematic analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury.

BACKGROUND: World Health Organization (WHO) and International Labour Organization (ILO) systematic reviews reported sufficient evidence for higher risks of ischemic heart disease and stroke amongst people working long hours (≥55 hours/week), compared with people working standard hours (35-40 hours/week). This article presents WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of global, regional, and national exposure to long working hours, for 194 countries, and the attributable burdens of ischemic heart disease and stroke, for 183 countries, by sex and age, for 2000, 2010, and 2016. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We calculated population-attributable fractions from estimates of the population exposed to long working hours and relative risks of exposure on the diseases from the systematic reviews. The exposed population was modelled using data from 2324 cross-sectional surveys and 1742 quarterly survey datasets. Attributable disease burdens were estimated by applying the population-attributable fractions to WHO's Global Health Estimates of total disease burdens. RESULTS: In 2016, 488 million people (95% uncertainty range: 472-503 million), or 8.9% (8.6-9.1) of the global population, were exposed to working long hours (≥55 hours/week). An estimated 745,194 deaths (705,786-784,601) and 23.3 million disability-adjusted life years (22.2-24.4) from ischemic heart disease and stroke combined were attributable to this exposure. The population-attributable fractions for deaths were 3.7% (3.4-4.0) for ischemic heart disease and 6.9% for stroke (6.4-7.5); for disability-adjusted life years they were 5.3% (4.9-5.6) for ischemic heart disease and 9.3% (8.7-9.9) for stroke. CONCLUSIONS: WHO and ILO estimate exposure to long working hours (≥55 hours/week) is common and causes large attributable burdens of ischemic heart disease and stroke. Protecting and promoting occupational and workers' safety and health requires interventions to reduce hazardous long working hours.

The prevalence of occupational exposure to noise: A systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large network of individual experts. Evidence from mechanistic and human data suggests that occupational exposure to noise may cause cardiovascular disease. In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of occupational exposure to noise for estimating (if feasible) the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from cardiovascular disease that are attributable to exposure to this risk factor, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the prevalence of occupational exposure to noise. DATA SOURCES: We searched electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Ovid Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and CISDOC. We also searched electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines, and organizational websites; hand-searched reference list of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consulted additional experts. STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA: We included working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economies in any WHO Member and/or ILO member State, but excluded children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. We included all study types with an estimate of the prevalence of occupational exposure to noise, categorized into two levels: no (low) occupational exposure to noise (<85dBA) and any (high) occupational exposure to noise (≥85dBA). STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. We combined prevalence estimates using random-effect meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using the RoB-SPEO tool and QoE-SPEO approach developed specifically for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. RESULTS: Sixty-five studies (56 cross-sectional studies and nine cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising 157,370 participants (15,369 females) across 28 countries and all six WHO regions (Africa, Americas, Eastern Mediterranean, Europe, South-East Asia, and Western Pacific). For the main analyses, we prioritized the four included studies that surveyed national probability samples of general populations of workers over the 58 studies of workers in industrial sectors and/or occupations with relatively high occupational exposure to noise. The exposure was generally assessed with dosimetry, sound level meter, or official or company records; in the population-based studies, it was assessed with validated questions. Estimates of the prevalence of occupational exposure to noise are presented for all 65 included studies, by country, sex, 5-year age group, industrial sector, and occupation where feasible. The pooled prevalence of any (high) occupational exposure to noise (≥85dBA) among the general population of workers was 0.17 (95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.19, 4 studies, 108,256 participants, 38 countries, two WHO regions, I2 98%, low quality of evidence). Subgroup analyses showed that pooled prevalence differed substantially by WHO region, sex, industrial sector, and occupation. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review and meta-analysis found that occupational exposure to noise is prevalent among general populations of workers. The current body of evidence is, however, of low quality, due to serious concerns for risk of bias and indirectness. Producing estimates of occupational exposure to noise nevertheless appears evidence-based, and the pooled effect estimates presented in this systematic review are suitable as input data for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates (if feasible). Protocol identifier: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.09.040 PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018092272.