Personal protective equipment for preventing asbestos exposure in workers.

BACKGROUND: Asbestos exposure can lead to asbestos-related diseases. The European Union (EU) has adopted regulations for workplaces where asbestos is present. The EU occupational exposure limit (OEL) for asbestos is 0.1 fibres per cubic centimetre of air (f/cm3) as an eight-hour average. Different types of personal protective equipment (PPE) are available to provide protection and minimise exposure; however, their effectiveness is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of personal protective equipment (PPE), including donning and doffing procedures and individual hygienic behaviour, compared to no availability and use of such equipment or alternative equipment, on asbestos exposure in workers in asbestos demolition and repair work. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and Scopus (September 2022), and we checked the reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that measured asbestos concentration outside and inside PPE (considering outside concentration a surrogate for no PPE), exposure to asbestos after doffing PPE, donning and doffing errors, nonadherence to regulations, and adverse effects of PPE. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using ROBINS-I. We categorised PPE as full-face filtering masks, supplied air respirators (SARs), and powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs). Values for asbestos outside and inside PPE were transformed to logarithmic values for random-effects meta-analysis. Pooled logarithmic mean differences (MDs) were exponentiated to obtain the ratio of means (RoM) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). The RoM shows the degree of protection provided by the respirators (workplace protection factor). Since the RoM is likely to be much higher at higher outside concentrations, we presented separate results according to the outside asbestos concentration, as follows. • Below 0.01 f/cm3 (band 1) • 0.01 f/cm3 to below 0.1 f/cm3 (band 2) • 0.1 f/cm3 to below 1 f/cm3 (band 3) • 1 f/cm3 to below 10 f/cm3 (band 4) • 10 f/cm3 to below 100 f/cm3 (band 5) • 100 f/cm3 to below 1000 f/cm3 (band 6) Additionally, we determined whether the inside concentrations per respirator and concentration band complied with the current EU OEL (0.1 f/cm3) and proposed EU OEL (0.01 f/cm3). MAIN RESULTS: We identified six studies that measured asbestos concentrations outside and inside respiratory protective equipment (RPE) and one cross-over study that compared the effect of two different coveralls on body temperature. No studies evaluated the remaining predefined outcomes. Most studies were at overall moderate risk of bias due to insufficient reporting. The cross-over study was at high risk of bias. Full-face filtering masks Two studies evaluated full-face filtering masks. They provided insufficient data for band 1 and band 6. The results for the remaining bands were as follows. • Band 2: RoM 19 (95% CI 17.6 to 20.1; 1 study, 3 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 3: RoM 69 (95% CI 26.6 to 175.9; 2 studies, 17 measurements; very low certainty) • Band 4: RoM 455 (95% CI 270.4 to 765.1; 1 study, 16 measurements; low certainty) • Band 5: RoM 2752 (95% CI 1236.5 to 6063.2;1 study, 3 measurements; low certainty) The inside measurements in band 5 did not comply with the EU OEL of 0.1 f/cm3, and no inside measurements complied with the proposed EU OEL of 0.01 f/cm3. Supplied air respirators Two studies evaluated supplied air respirators. They provided no data for band 6. The results for the remaining bands were as follows. • Band 1: RoM 11 (95% CI 7.6 to 14.9; 1 study, 134 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 2: RoM 63 (95% CI 43.8 to 90.9; 1 study, 17 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 3: RoM 528 (95% CI 368.7 to 757.5; 1 study, 38 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 4: RoM 4638 (95% CI 3071.7 to 7044.5; 1 study, 49 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 5: RoM 26,134 (16,647.2 to 41,357.1; 1 study, 22 measurements; moderate certainty) All inside measurements complied with the current OEL of 0.1 f/cm3 and the proposed OEL of 0.01 f/cm3. Powered air-purifying respirators Three studies evaluated PAPRs. The results per band were as follows. • Band 1: RoM 8 (95% CI 3.7 to 19.1; 1 study, 23 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 2: RoM 90 (95% CI 64.7 to 126.5; 1 study, 17 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 3: RoM 104 (95% CI 23.1 to 464.1; 3 studies, 14 measurements; very low certainty) • Band 4: RoM 706 (95% CI 219.2 to 2253.0; 2 studies, 43 measurements; very low certainty) • Band 5: RoM 1366 (544.6 to 3428.9; 2 studies, 8 measurements; low certainty) • Band 6: RoM 18,958 (95% CI 4023.9 to 90,219.4; 2 studies, 13 measurements; very low certainty) All inside measurements complied with the 0.1 f/cm3 OEL when the outside concentration was below 10 f/cm3 (band 1 to band 4). From band 3, no measurements complied with the proposed OEL of 0.01 f/cm3. Different types of coveralls One study reported the adverse effects of coveralls. A polyethylene suit may increase the body temperature more than a ventilated impermeable polyvinyl (PVC) coverall, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD 0.17 °C, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.42; 1 study, 11 participants; very low certainty). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Where the outside asbestos concentration is below 0.1 f/cm3, SARS and PAPRs likely reduce exposure to below the proposed OEL of 0.01 f/cm3. For outside concentrations up to 10 f/cm3, all respirators may reduce exposure below the current OEL, but only SAR also below the proposed OEL. In band 5 (10 to < 100 f/cm3), full-face filtering masks may not reduce asbestos exposure below either OEL, SARs likely reduce exposure below both OELs, and there were no data for PAPRs. In band 6 (100 f/cm3 to < 1000 f/cm3), PAPRs may not reduce exposure below either OEL, and there were no data for full-face filtering masks or SARs. Some coveralls may increase body temperature more than others. Randomised studies are needed to directly compare PAPRs and SARs at higher asbestos concentrations and to assess adverse effects. Future studies should assess the effects of doffing procedures.

Trends in Occupational Diseases in Italian Industry and Services From 2006 To 2019.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data on occupational disease incidence in Italy, and we analyzed the trend on time as an incidence rate ratio (IRR). METHODS: Occupational diseases reported to the Italian National Insurance for Occupational Diseases (INAIL) in industrial and services sectors from 2006 to 2019 were considered and analyzed. Annual case counts were analyzed using a Poisson regression model to estimate incidence trends. RESULTS: The incidence of occupational diseases in the industrial and services sectors in 2019 was 261 cases for 100,000 workers, with musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) representing 65% of the total cases, their incidence being 169.5 cases per 100,000 workers. The incidence of ear diseases (ED) decreased to 20.8 cases for 100,000 workers. The annual change in incidence (IRR) was 1.08 (CI 95% 1.07-1.11) for MSDs, 1.08 (CI 95% 1.06-1.10) for cancers, and 1.04 (CI 95% 1.03-1.06) for respiratory diseases. The trend was significantly negative for ear diseases, 0.96 (CI 95% 0.96-0.97), and skin diseases 0.93 (CI 95% 0.92-0.93). No changes were found for asbestos and mental diseases. CONCLUSIONS: During the study period, occupational diseases increased in Italy, mainly for MSDs, due to a changeover in eligibility criteria from 2008. However, the overall incidence was lower than in other EU Countries. More efforts are needed to harmonize the legislation for joint action in the prevention and recognition of occupational diseases.

Risk of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma due to occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Solar ultraviolet radiation (UVR) is the most significant occupational carcinogenic exposure in terms of the number of workers exposed (i.e., outdoor workers). Consequently, solar UVR-induced skin cancers are among the most common forms of occupational malignancies that are potentially expected globally. This systematic review is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021295221) and aims to assess the risk of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) associated to occupational solar UVR exposure. Systematic searches will be performed in three electronic literature databases (PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and Scopus). Further references will be retrieved by a manual search (e.g., in grey literature databases, internet search engines, and organizational websites). We will include cohort studies and case-control studies. Risk of Bias assessment will be conducted separately for case-control and cohort studies. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) will be used for the certainty of assessment. In case quantitative pooling is not feasible, a narrative synthesis of results will be performed.

Association of hairdressing with cancer and reproductive diseases: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To review recent epidemiological studies investigating carcinogenic or reprotoxic effects among hairdressers who seem to be at greater risk for systemic adverse effects of chemicals released from hair care products than consumers. METHODS: A systematic review according to the PRISMA-P guidelines was performed and included studies published from 2000 to August 2021, in which cancer or adverse reproductive effects were diagnosed in 1995 and onward. Data were synthetized qualitatively due to the small number of studies, heterogeneity of study designs, outcomes, and methods. RESULTS: Four studies investigating cancer frequencies and six studies investigating effects on reproduction among hairdressers were identified. All were of good quality and with low risk of bias. Only one of the four studies found an increased risk of cancer reporting nine times higher odds for bladder cancer in hairdressers than the population-based controls. Three other studies investigating bladder and lung cancer, and non-Hodgins lymphoma did not find an increased risk in hairdressers. Regarding reprotoxic effects, numerous outcomes were investigated including menstrual disorders, congenital malformations, fetal loss, small-for-gestational age newborns, preterm delivery, and infertility. Increased risk was found for ventricular septal defect in newborns of fathers working as hairdressers. Furthermore, several indices of poor neonatal or maternal health were significantly associated with mothers working as hairdresser. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the scarce evidence that hairdressers are at increased risk of carcinogenic or reprotoxic effects related to their trade, such health risks cannot be ruled out. Therefore, preventive efforts to diminish occupational exposures to hairdressing chemicals should be targeted.

Skin Toxicity of Selected Hair Cosmetic Ingredients: A Review Focusing on Hairdressers.

The safety assessment of cosmetics considers the exposure of a 'common consumer', not the occupational exposure of hairdressers. This review aims to compile and appraise evidence regarding the skin toxicity of cysteamine hydrochloride (cysteamine HCl; CAS no. 156-57-0), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP; CAS no. 9003-39-8), PVP copolymers (CAS no. 28211-18-9), sodium laureth sulfate (SLES; CAS no. 9004-82-4), cocamide diethanolamine (cocamide DEA; CAS no. 68603-42-9), and cocamidopropyl betaine (CAPB; CAS no. 61789-40-0). A total of 298 articles were identified, of which 70 were included. Meta-analysis revealed that hairdressers have a 1.7-fold increased risk of developing a contact allergy to CAPB compared to controls who are not hairdressers. Hairdressers might have a higher risk of acquiring quantum sensitization against cysteamine HCl compared to a consumer because of their job responsibilities. Regarding cocamide DEA, the irritant potential of this surfactant should not be overlooked. Original articles for PVP, PVP copolymers, and SLES are lacking. This systematic review indicates that the current standards do not effectively address the occupational risks associated with hairdressers' usage of hair cosmetics. The considerable irritant and/or allergenic potential of substances used in hair cosmetics should prompt a reassessment of current risk assessment practices.

Stimulating Sunscreen Use Among Outdoor Construction Workers: A Pilot Study.

Background: Outdoor workers (OW) receive a higher dose of ultraviolet radiation (UVR) compared to indoor workers (IW) which increases the risk of non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC). Regular sunscreen use reduces the NMSC risk, however, adequate sun-safety behavior among OW is poor. The main objective was to conduct method- and intervention-related elements of a future intervention trial among OW, based on providing sunscreen and assessing sunscreen use on group- and individual level. Methods: This pilot study was conducted at a construction site in the Netherlands from May-August 2021. Nine dispensers with sunscreen (SPF 50+) were installed at the worksite. OW (n = 67) were invited to complete two (cross-sectional) questionnaires on sun-safety behavior, before and after providing sunscreen. Stratum corneum (SC) samples for the assessment of UV-biomarkers were collected from the forehead and behind the ear from 15 OW and 15 IW. The feasibility of the following elements was investigated: recruitment, (loss to) follow-up, outcome measures, data collection, and acceptability of the intervention. Results: The first questionnaire was completed by 27 OW, the second by 17 OW. More than 75 percent of the OW were aware of the risks of sun exposure, and 63% (n = 17) found sunscreen use during worktime important. The proportion of OW never applying sunscreen in the past month was 44.4% (n = 12) before, and 35.3% (n = 6) after providing sunscreen. A majority of OW (59.3%, n = 16) found sunscreen provision encouraging for sunscreen use, the dispensers easy to use (64.7%, n = 17) and placed in practical spots (58.8%, n = 18). Collecting SC-samples was fast and easy, and several UV-biomarkers showed higher levels for sun-exposed compared to less exposed body parts. There was no significant difference in UV-biomarker levels between OW and IW. Conclusions: This pilot study revealed low sunscreen use among OW despite providing sunscreen, overall satisfaction with the sunscreen, and the sufficient awareness of the risks of UVR-exposure. Collecting SC-samples at the workplace is feasible and several UV-biomarkers showed to be promising in assessing UVR-exposure. The low participation rate and high loss to follow-up poses a challenge for future intervention studies.

Occupational Exposure of Hairdressers to Airborne Hazardous Chemicals: A Scoping Review.

INTRODUCTION: Exposure to hazardous chemicals released during hairdressing activities from hair care products puts hairdressers at risk of adverse health effects. Safety assessments of hair products are mainly focused on consumers, but exposure for professional hairdressers might be substantially higher. OBJECTIVE: To identify and assess available research data on inhalation exposures of professional hairdressers. METHODS: A systematic search of studies between 1 January 2000 and 30 April 2021 was performed in Medline, Embase, Web of Science and in Cochrane registry, toxicological dossiers of the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) of the European Commission as well as the German MAK Commission. Studies reporting quantitative data on airborne concentrations of chemicals in the hairdresser's workplace were considered. The outcome was an airborne concentration of chemicals in the working environment, which was compared, when possible, with current occupational exposure limits (OEL) or guidance levels. RESULTS: In total, 23 studies performed in 14 countries were included. The average number of hairdressing salons per study was 22 (range 1-62). Chemicals most frequently measured were formaldehyde (n = 8), ammonia (n = 5), total volatile organic compounds (TVOC) (n = 5), and toluene (n = 4). More than fifty other chemicals were measured in one to three studies, including various aromatic and aliphatic organic solvents, hydrogen peroxide, persulfate, and particulate matter. Most studies reported environmental air concentrations, while personal exposure was measured only in seven studies. The measured air concentrations of formaldehyde, ammonia, and TVOC exceeded OEL or guidance values in some studies. There was large variability in measuring conditions and reported air concentrations differed strongly within and between studies. CONCLUSION: Hairdressers are exposed to a wide spectrum of hazardous chemicals, often simultaneously. Airborne concentrations of pollutants depend on salon characteristics such as ventilation and the number of customers but also on used products that are often country- or client-specific. For exposure to formaldehyde, ammonia, and TVOC exceeding OELs or guidance values for indoor air was observed. Therefore, occupational exposure should be taken into account by safety regulations for hair care products.

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.

Stratum corneum biomarkers after in vivo repeated exposure to sub-erythemal dosages of ultraviolet radiation in unprotected and sunscreen (SPF 50+) protected skin.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for non-invasive biomarkers to assess in vivo efficacy of protective measures aiming at reducing ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure. Stratum corneum (SC) biomarkers showed to be promising markers for internal UVR dose and immune response. PURPOSE: To establish a dose-response relationship for SC biomarkers and explore their suitability for in vivo assessment of the blocking effect of two sunscreens with a high sun protection factor (SPF) (50+). METHODS: Twelve volunteers were exposed to a broad-spectrum UVB (280-320 nm), five times a week, during one week. Unprotected back skin was irradiated with 0.24, 0.48, 0.72 and 1.44 standard erythema dose (SED) and sunscreen-protected skin with 3.6 SED. SC samples for determination of the relative amount of cis-urocanic acid (cUCA) and thirteen immunological makers including cytokines and matrix metalloproteinases (MMP) were collected after each irradiation. RESULTS: cUCA sharply increased after the first irradiation in a dose-dependent fashion. However, it levelled-off after subsequent exposures and reached a plateau for the highest UV-dose after the third irradiation. None of the immunological markers showed dose-dependency. However, MMP-9, IL-1ß and CCL27 increased gradually from baseline during repetitive exposures to the highest UV-dose. Assessed from cUCA, both sunscreens blocked >98% of the applied UV-dose. CONCLUSIONS: cUCA is a sensitive, non-invasive marker of the internal UVR dose enabling in vivo assessment of the blocking effect of high SPF sunscreens in the UVB-region. Immunological SC markers show low sensitivity in detecting immune response at sub-erythemal UVR dosages, suggesting they might be suitable only at higher and/or repetitive UVR exposure.

Protection Against Solar Ultraviolet Radiation in Outdoor Construction Workers: Study Protocol for a Non-randomized Controlled Intervention Study.

Introduction: Non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) incidence is increasing, and occupational solar exposure contributes greatly to the overall lifetime ultraviolet radiation (UVR) dose. This is reflected in an excess risk of NMSC showing up to three-fold increase in outdoor workers. Risk of NMSC can be reduced if appropriate measures to reduce UVR-exposure are taken. Regular use of sunscreens showed reduced risk of NMSC. However, sun-safety behavior in outdoor workers is poor. The objective of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of an intervention aiming at increasing sunscreen use by construction workers. Methods: This non-randomized controlled intervention study is comprised of two intervention and two control groups recruited at four different construction sites in the Netherlands. The study population comprises ~200 construction workers, aged 18 years or older, followed during 12 weeks. The intervention consists of providing dispensers with sunscreens (SPF 50+) at construction sites and regular feedback on the application achieved by continuous electronic monitoring. All groups will receive basic information on UV-exposure and skin protection. Stratum corneum (SC) samples will be collected for measurement of biomarkers to assess internal UV-dose. External UV-dose will be assessed by personal UV-sensors worn by the workers during work-shifts in both groups. To detect presence of actinic keratosis (AK) or NMSC, a skin check of body parts exposed to the sun will be performed at the end of the study. The effect of the intervention will be assessed from data on self-reported sunscreen use by means of questionnaires collected on baseline and after 12 weeks of intervention (primary outcome). Levels of SC biomarkers of internal UV-dose, external UV-dose, number of sunburn episodes, and prevalence of NMSC including AK will be assessed as secondary outcomes. The electronically monitored sunscreen consumption will be assessed as process outcome. Discussion: This study is intended to provide evidence of the effectiveness of a technology-driven intervention to increase sunscreen use in outdoor construction workers. Furthermore, it will increase insight in the UV-protective behavior, external and internal UV-exposure, and the prevalence of NMSC, including AK, in construction workers. Trial Registration: The Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NL8462 Registered on March 19, 2020.

The effect of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors on osteoarthritis of hip or knee and selected other musculoskeletal diseases: 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 experts. Evidence from mechanistic data suggests that occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors may cause selected other musculoskeletal diseases, other than back or neck pain (MSD) or osteoarthritis of hip or knee (OA). In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of parameters for estimating the number of disability-adjusted life years from MSD or OA that are attributable to occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors (force exertion, demanding posture, repetitiveness, hand-arm vibration, lifting, kneeling and/or squatting, and climbing) on MSD and OA (two outcomes: prevalence and incidence). 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 International Trials Register, Ovid Medline, 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 economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State 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 occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors (any exposure to force exertion, demanding posture, repetitiveness, hand-arm vibration, lifting, kneeling and/or squatting, and climbing ≥ 2 h/day) compared with no or low exposure to the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (<2 h/day) on the prevalence or incidence of MSD or OA. 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-effect meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using Navigation Guide tools adapted to this project. RESULTS: In total eight studies (4 cohort studies and 4 case control studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 2,378,729 participants (1,157,943 females and 1,220,786 males) in 6 countries in 3 WHO regions (Europe, Eastern Mediterranean and Western Pacific). The exposure was measured using self-reports in most studies and with a job exposure matrix in one study and outcome was generally assessed with physician diagnostic records or administrative health data. Across included studies, risk of bias was generally moderate. Compared with no or low exposure (<2 h per day), any occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors increased the risk of acquiring MSD (odds ratio (OR) 1.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14 to 2.72, 4 studies, 2,376,592 participants, I2 70%); and increased the risk of acquiring OA of knee or hip (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.42 to 3.40, 3 studies, 1,354 participants, I2 13%); Subgroup analysis for MSD found evidence for differences by sex, but indicated a difference in study type, where OR was higher among study participants in a case control study compared to study participants in cohort studies. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, for both outcomes, the main body of evidence was assessed as being of low quality. Occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors increased the risk of acquiring MSD and of acquiring OA of knee or hip. We judged the body of human evidence on the relationship between exposure to occupational ergonomic factors and MSD as "limited evidence of harmfulness" and the relationship between exposure to occupational ergonomic factors and OA also as "limited evidence of harmfulness". These relative risks might perhaps be suitable as input data for WHO/ILO modelling of work-related burden of disease and injury. Protocol identifier: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.09.053 PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018102631.

The prevalence of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors: 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 experts. Evidence from mechanistic and human data suggests that occupational exposure to ergonomic (or physical) risk factors may cause osteoarthritis and other musculoskeletal diseases (excluding rheumatoid arthritis, gout, and back and neck pain). In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of occupational exposure to physical ergonomic risk factors for estimating the number of disability-adjusted life years from these diseases 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 ergonomic risk factors for osteoarthritis and other musculoskeletal diseases. DATA SOURCES: We searched electronic bibliographic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Ovid Medline, 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 economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but excluded children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. The exposure was defined as any occupational exposure to one or more of: force exertion, demanding posture, repetitive movement, hand-arm vibration, kneeling or squatting, lifting, and/or climbing. We included all study types with an estimate of the prevalence of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors. 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: Five studies (three cross-sectional studies and two cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising 150,895 participants (81,613 females) in 36 countries in two WHO regions (Africa, Europe). The exposure was generally assessed with questionnaire data about self-reported exposure. Estimates of the prevalence of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors are presented for all five included studies, disaggregated by country, sex, 5-year age group, industrial sector or occupational group where feasible. The pooled prevalence of any occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors was 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.69 to 0.84, 3 studies, 148,433 participants, 35 countries in the WHO Europe region, I2 100%, low quality of evidence). Subgroup analyses found no statistically significant differences in exposure by sex but differences by age group, occupation and country. No evidence was found for publication bias. We assessed this body evidence to be of low quality, based on serious concerns for risk of bias due to exposure assessment only being based on self-report and for indirectness due to evidence from two WHO regions only. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review and meta-analysis found that occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors is highly prevalent. The current body of evidence is, however, limited, especially by risk of bias and indirectness. Producing estimates for the burden of disease attributable to occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors appears evidence-based, and the pooled effect estimates presented in this systematic review may perhaps be used as input data for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. Protocol identifier:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.09.053. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018102631.

Trends in occupational diseases in the Italian agricultural sector, 2004-2017.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incidence of, trends in and effect of change in reporting rules on occupational diseases (ODs) in the Italian agricultural sector. METHODS: Over a 14-year period (2004-2017), ODs among Italian agricultural workers were diagnosed by physicians and reported to the National Institute for Insurance against Workplace Accidents and Occupational Diseases. OD was defined as a disease with a specific clinical diagnosis (International Classification of Diseases) and was predominantly caused by work-related factors. Trends in incidence and effects of changed eligibility criteria for reporting occupational musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) and noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) were estimated using a Poisson regression model. RESULTS: In 2017, the incidence of all ODs was 1295 per 100 000 agricultural workers. MSDs (961 per 100 000 workers) were the most frequently occurring ODs. MSDs and NIHL showed statistically significant increasing time trends, 26% and 7% annual increase, respectively, during the 2004-2017 period. There was no statistically significant change in the incidence of occupational respiratory, skin and cancer diseases during the 14-year period. After changes in reporting rules, the incidence of MSDs showed an immediate increased effect, with an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 2.9 (95% CI 2.65 to 3.14) and a significant annual decreasing trend of -9% (95% CI -6% to -12%) over the years after the changed reporting rules (from 2008 to 2017), and an immediate effect on NIHL with an IRR of 1.3 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.53). CONCLUSION: In total, 1.3% of the Italian agricultural workers were diagnosed in 2017 as having an OD. Over a 14-year period, the annual incidence of ODs showed a considerable increasing trend consistent with changed eligibility reporting criteria for occupational MSDs and to a lesser extent for NIHL.

Occupational Diseases: From Cure to Prevention.

Occupational diseases are broadly defined as diseases with a specific clinical diagnosis associated with work-related factors[...].

How to improve the assessment of the impact of occupational diseases at a national level? The Netherlands as an example.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the impact of occupational diseases (ODs) through estimations of population attributable fractions (PAFs) in a national context. METHODS: PAFs were calculated for eight prevalent ODs using existing data on the prevalence of exposure to risk factors at work and the strength of their association with diseases based on systematic reviews. Six systematic reviews with meta-analyses and two overview papers were selected. All addressed the relationship between occupational exposure to work-related risk factors for these eight prevalent ODs. Prevalence figures for exposure to work-related risk factors were retrieved from the Dutch National Working Conditions Survey (NWCS) based on self-reports by approximately 40 000 workers. The specific risk factors retrieved from the reviews were matched with the available and dichotomised self-reported exposure items from the NWCS by two authors. RESULTS: The eight frequently reported ODs among the Dutch working population revealed PAFs varying between 3% and 25%. Lateral epicondylitis and distress/burnout had the highest attributable fractions, with percentages of 25% and 18%, respectively. For knee osteoarthritis (13%), shoulder soft tissue disorders (10%) and non-specific low back pain (10%) approximately 1 in 10 cases were attributable to work. PAFs for irritant contact dermatitis, noise-induced hearing loss and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were 15%, 6% and 3%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Data from systematic reviews and self-reported data on exposure provide opportunities to estimate the impact of ODs. For the Netherlands, they revealed substantial and varying attributions of work for prevalent diseases.

WHO/ILO work-related burden of disease and injury: Protocol for systematic reviews of exposure to occupational ergonomic risk factors and of the effect of exposure to occupational ergonomic risk factors on osteoarthritis of hip or knee and selected other musculoskeletal diseases.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing a joint methodology for estimating the national and global work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO joint methodology), with contributions from a large network of experts. In this paper, we present the protocol for two systematic reviews of parameters for estimating the number of disability-adjusted life years from osteoarthritis of hip or knee, and selected other musculoskeletal diseases respectively, attributable to exposure to occupational ergonomic risk factors to inform the development of the WHO/ILO joint methodology. OBJECTIVES: We aim to systematically review studies on exposure to occupational ergonomic risk factors (Systematic Review 1) and systematically review and meta-analyze estimates of the effect of exposure to occupational ergonomic risk factors on osteoarthritis of the hip or knee, and selected other musculoskeletal diseases respectively (Systematic Review 2), applying the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology as an organizing framework, conducting both systematic reviews in tandem and in a harmonized way. DATA SOURCES: Separately for Systematic Reviews 1 and 2, we will search electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science and CISDOC. We will also search electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-search reference lists of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consult additional experts. STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA: We will include working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State, but exclude children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. The included occupational ergonomic risk factors will be any exposure to one or more of: force exertion; demanding posture; repetitiveness; hand-arm vibration; lifting; kneeling and/or squatting; and climbing. Included outcomes will be (i) osteoarthritis and (ii) other musculoskeletal diseases (i.e., one or more of: rotator cuff syndrome; bicipital tendinitis; calcific tendinitis; shoulder impingement; bursitis shoulder; epicondylitis medialis; epicondylitis lateralis; bursitis elbow; bursitis hip; chondromalacia patellae; meniscus disorders; and/or bursitis knee). For Systematic Review 1, we will include quantitative prevalence studies of any exposure to occupational ergonomic risk factors stratified by country, gender, age and industrial sector or occupation. For Systematic Review 2, we will include randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control-studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the relative effect of any exposure with occupational ergonomic risk factors on the prevalence or incidence of osteoarthritis and/or selected musculoskeletal diseases, compared with the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (i.e., no exposure). STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: At least two review authors will independently screen 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. At least two review authors will assess risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using the most suited tools currently available. For Systematic Review 2, if feasible, we will combine relative risks using meta-analysis. We will report results using the guidelines for accurate and transparent health estimates reporting (GATHER) for Systematic Review 1 and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines (PRISMA) for Systematic Review 2. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018102631.

Occupational Diseases among Workers in Lower and Higher Socioeconomic Positions.

Background: To determine differences between workers in lower and higher socioeconomic positions (SEP) in incidences of occupational disease (OD) and incapacity for work due to ODs. Methods: From a Dutch dynamic prospective cohort of occupational physicians (OPs), ODs assessed by OPs were retrieved for lower and higher SEP groups. Results: Among the lower SEP, musculoskeletal disorders, and noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) comprised two-thirds of the OD diagnoses. Among the higher SEP, stress/burnout comprised 60% of the OD diagnoses. Temporary and permanent incapacity for work due to work-related lower back disorders and repetitive strain injuries differed significantly between workers in lower compared to higher SEP. Conclusions: Occupational diseases occur at a 2.7 higher incidence rate for workers in lower SEP compared with higher SEP. Incapacity for work varies between the type of OD and the level of SEP.

Exploring Study Designs for Evaluation of Interventions Aimed to Reduce Occupational Diseases and Injuries.

Effective interventions to reduce work-related exposures are available for many types of work-related diseases or injuries. However, knowledge of the impact of these interventions on injury or disease outcomes is scarce due to practical and methodological reasons. Study designs are considered for the evaluation of occupational health interventions on occupational disease or injury. Latency and frequency of occurrence of the health outcomes are two important features when designing an evaluation study with occupational disease or occupational injury as an outcome measure. Controlled evaluation studies-giving strong indications for an intervention effect-seem more suitable for more frequently occurring injuries or diseases. Uncontrolled evaluation time or case series studies are an option for evaluating less frequently occurring injuries or diseases. Interrupted time series offer alternatives to experimental randomized controlled trials to give an insight into the effectiveness of preventive actions in the work setting to decision and policy makers.