Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros











Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Ann Work Expo Health ; 68(6): 562-580, 2024 Jul 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38815981

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: Within the scope of the Exposome Project for Health and Occupational Research on applying the exposome concept to working life health, we aimed to provide a broad overview of the status of knowledge on occupational exposures and associated health effects across multiple noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) to help inform research priorities. METHODS: We conducted a narrative review of occupational risk factors that can be considered to have "consistent evidence for an association," or where there is "limited/inadequate evidence for an association" for 6 NCD groups: nonmalignant respiratory diseases; neurodegenerative diseases; cardiovascular/metabolic diseases; mental disorders; musculoskeletal diseases; and cancer. The assessment was done in expert sessions, primarily based on systematic reviews, supplemented with narrative reviews, reports, and original studies. Subsequently, knowledge gaps were identified, e.g. based on missing information on exposure-response relationships, gender differences, critical time-windows, interactions, and inadequate study quality. RESULTS: We identified over 200 occupational exposures with consistent or limited/inadequate evidence for associations with one or more of 60+ NCDs. Various exposures were identified as possible risk factors for multiple outcomes. Examples are diesel engine exhaust and cadmium, with consistent evidence for lung cancer, but limited/inadequate evidence for other cancer sites, respiratory, neurodegenerative, and cardiovascular diseases. Other examples are physically heavy work, shift work, and decision latitude/job control. For associations with limited/inadequate evidence, new studies are needed to confirm the association. For risk factors with consistent evidence, improvements in study design, exposure assessment, and case definition could lead to a better understanding of the association and help inform health-based threshold levels. CONCLUSIONS: By providing an overview of knowledge gaps in the associations between occupational exposures and their health effects, our narrative review will help setting priorities in occupational health research. Future epidemiological studies should prioritize to include large sample sizes, assess exposures prior to disease onset, and quantify exposures. Potential sources of biases and confounding need to be identified and accounted for in both original studies and systematic reviews.


Assuntos
Neoplasias , Doenças não Transmissíveis , Exposição Ocupacional , Humanos , Exposição Ocupacional/efeitos adversos , Exposição Ocupacional/estatística & dados numéricos , Exposição Ocupacional/análise , Doenças não Transmissíveis/epidemiologia , Neoplasias/epidemiologia , Neoplasias/etiologia , Fatores de Risco , Doenças Cardiovasculares/etiologia , Doenças Cardiovasculares/epidemiologia , Doenças Musculoesqueléticas/etiologia , Doenças Musculoesqueléticas/epidemiologia , Doenças Profissionais/epidemiologia , Doenças Profissionais/etiologia , Doenças Neurodegenerativas/etiologia , Doenças Neurodegenerativas/epidemiologia , Doenças Respiratórias/epidemiologia , Doenças Respiratórias/etiologia , Expossoma , Transtornos Mentais/epidemiologia , Transtornos Mentais/etiologia
2.
Br J Cancer ; 127(10): 1816-1826, 2022 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35995936

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer screening participation is suboptimal in most settings. We assessed whether human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling may increase screening participation among long-term non-attenders in Norway. METHODS: A pragmatic randomised controlled trial with participation as the primary outcome was initiated in the national cervical screening programme in March 2019. A random sample of 6000 women aged 35-69 years who had not attended screening for at least 10 years were randomised 1:1:1 to receive either (i) a reminder to attend regular screening (control), (ii) an offer to order a self-sampling kit (opt-in) for HPV testing or (iii) a self-sampling kit unsolicited (send-to-all) for HPV testing. RESULTS: Total participation was 4.8%, 17.0% and 27.7% among control, opt-in and send-to-all (P < 0.0001; participation difference (%) send-to-all vs. control: 22.9 (95%CI: 20.7, 25.2); opt-in vs. control: 12.3 (95%CI: 10.3, 14.2); send-to-all vs. opt-in: 10.7 (95% CI: 8.0, 13.3)). High-risk HPV was detected in 11.5% of self-samples and 9.2% of clinician-collected samples (P = 0.40). Most women (92.5%) who returned a positive self-sample attended the clinic for triage testing. Of the 933 women screened, 33 (3.5%) had CIN2 + (1.1%, 3.7%, 3.8% among control, opt-in, and send-to-all, respectively), and 11 (1.2%) had cervical cancer (0%, 1.2%, 1.3% among control, opt-in, send-to-all, respectively). CONCLUSION: Opt-in and send-to-all self-sampling increased screening participation among long-term, higher-risk non-attenders. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03873376.


Assuntos
Alphapapillomavirus , Infecções por Papillomavirus , Neoplasias do Colo do Útero , Feminino , Humanos , Neoplasias do Colo do Útero/diagnóstico , Neoplasias do Colo do Útero/epidemiologia , Neoplasias do Colo do Útero/prevenção & controle , Papillomaviridae/genética , Detecção Precoce de Câncer , Infecções por Papillomavirus/diagnóstico , Manejo de Espécimes , Programas de Rastreamento , Esfregaço Vaginal
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA