Effectiveness of workplace cancer screening interventions: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer cases are rising globally, with a noticeable rise in younger adults. Screening and early detection are effective in decreasing mortality. Workplaces can play a role in promoting cancer screening uptake. This systematic review investigated the effectiveness of workplace breast, lung, colorectal, and cervical cancer screening interventions, and the factors impacting their effectiveness. METHODOLOGY: Six databases (Embase, Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Scopus) were searched, and cancer screening promotion and cancer screening uptake was analysed using effect direction plots. Magnitude of effectiveness (i.e., change in knowledge or screening rate) was also evaluated. RESULTS: In total, 13,426 articles were identified. After screening and applying the eligibility criteria, 21 articles were included in the analysis. A positive effect direction was seen for all workplace cancer screening promotion interventions. Magnitude of effectiveness for cancer screening promotion interventions resulted in a > 30% change in knowledge or screening uptake in 4/7 of breast cancer, in 3/4 of cervical cancer and 1/3 colorectal cancer screening promotion interventions. For workplace cancer screening uptake interventions, a positive effect direction was observed for the majority (18/22). Cancer screening uptake interventions showed a > 30% change in magnitude of screening rate in 4/7 breast cancer, 5/10 colorectal cancer and in 1/5 cervical cancer workplace interventions. No studies for lung cancer were eligible. Factors positively influencing effectiveness included an interest in health and previous healthcare use, while fear of cancer and embarrassment of screening negatively influenced effectiveness. CONCLUSION: Workplace cancer screening promotion and uptake interventions can effectively improve cancer screening knowledge and increase uptake of screening tests.

Long COVID and financial outcomes: evidence from four longitudinal population surveys.

BACKGROUND: Long-term sequelae of COVID-19 (long COVID) include muscle weakness, fatigue, breathing difficulties and sleep disturbance over weeks or months. Using UK longitudinal data, we assessed the relationship between long COVID and financial disruption. METHODS: We estimated associations between long COVID (derived using self-reported length of COVID-19 symptoms) and measures of financial disruption (subjective financial well-being, new benefit claims, changes in household income) by analysing data from four longitudinal population studies, gathered during the first year of the pandemic. We employed modified Poisson regression in a pooled analysis of the four cohorts adjusting for a range of potential confounders, including pre-pandemic (pre-long COVID) factors. RESULTS: Among the 20 112 observations across four population surveys, 13% reported having COVID-19 with symptoms that impeded their ability to function normally-10.7% had such symptoms for <4 weeks (acute COVID-19), 1.2% had such symptoms for 4-12 weeks (ongoing symptomatic COVID-19) and 0.6% had such symptoms for >12 weeks (post-COVID-19 syndrome). We found that post-COVID-19 syndrome was associated with worse subjective financial well-being (adjusted relative risk ratios (aRRRs)=1.57, 95% CI=1.25, 1.96) and new benefit claims (aRRR=1.79, CI=1.27, 2.53). Associations were broadly similar across sexes and education levels. These results were not meaningfully altered when scaled to represent the population by age. CONCLUSIONS: Long COVID was associated with financial disruption in the UK. If our findings reflect causal effects, extending employment protection and financial support to people with long COVID may be warranted.

Group-level workplace interventions to improve mental health in low control, high-demand office-based jobs. A scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: Workplace psychosocial risk factors, including low autonomy and high demands, have negative consequences for employee mental health and wellbeing. There is a need to support employees experiencing mental health and well-being problems in these jobs. This scoping review aims to describe group-level workplace interventions and their approaches to improving the mental health and well-being of employees in office-based, low autonomy, and high demands jobs. METHODS: Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, a search was conducted across 4 databases (Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ASSIA). We explored studies presenting group-level interventions, mode of implementation, facilitators and barriers, and intervention effectiveness. The search was restricted to include office-based, low autonomy, and high-demands jobs. Primary outcome of interest was mental health and secondary outcomes were work-related and other well-being outcomes. RESULTS: Group-level workplace interventions include an array of organizational, relational, and individual components. Almost all included a training session or workshop for intervention delivery. Several had manuals but theories of change were rare. Most workplace interventions did not use participatory approaches to involve employees in intervention development, implementation and evaluation, and challenges and facilitators were not commonly reported. Key facilitators were shorter intervention duration, flexible delivery modes, and formalized processes (e.g. manuals). A key barrier was the changeable nature of workplace environments. All studies employing behavioural interventions reported significant improvements in mental health outcomes, while no clear pattern of effectiveness was observed for other outcomes or types of interventions employed. CONCLUSIONS: Group-based interventions in low-autonomy office settings can be effective but few studies used participatory approaches or conducted process evaluations limiting our knowledge of the determinants for successful group-based workplace interventions. Involving stakeholders in intervention development, implementation, and evaluation is recommended and can be beneficial for better articulation of the acceptability and barriers and facilitators for delivery and engagement.

Potential contribution of vaccination uptake to occupational differences in risk of SARS-CoV-2: analysis of the ONS COVID-19 Infection Survey.

OBJECTIVES: To assess variation in vaccination uptake across occupational groups as a potential explanation for variation in risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. DESIGN: We analysed data from the UK Office of National Statistics COVID-19 Infection Survey linked to vaccination data from the National Immunisation Management System in England from 1 December 2020 to 11 May 2022. We analysed vaccination uptake and SARS-CoV-2 infection risk by occupational group and assessed whether adjustment for vaccination reduced the variation in risk between occupational groups. RESULTS: Estimated rates of triple vaccination were high across all occupational groups (80% or above), but were lowest for food processing (80%), personal care (82%), hospitality (83%), manual occupations (84%) and retail (85%). High rates were observed for individuals working in health (95% for office based, 92% for those in patient-facing roles) and education (91%) and office-based workers not included in other categories (90%). The impact of adjusting for vaccination when estimating relative risks of infection was generally modest (ratio of hazard ratios across all occupational groups reduced from 1.37 to 1.32), but was consistent with the hypothesis that low vaccination rates contribute to elevated risk in some groups. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in vaccination coverage might account for a modest proportion of occupational differences in infection risk. Vaccination rates were uniformly very high in this cohort, which may suggest that the participants are not representative of the general population. Accordingly, these results should be considered tentative pending the accumulation of additional evidence.