Autoantibodies and cancer among asbestos-exposed cohorts in Western Australia.

Asbestos exposure is associated with many adverse health conditions including malignant mesothelioma and lung cancer as well as production of autoantibodies. Autoantibodies may serve as biomarkers for asbestos exposure in patients with cancer, and autoimmune dysfunction has been linked to increased rates of various cancers. The aim of this study was to examine the hypothesis that autoantibodies are more frequent in asbestos-exposed individuals with either lung cancer or mesothelioma than those without these conditions. Asbestos-exposed individuals from Western Australia who had lung cancer (n = 24), malignant mesothelioma (n = 24), or no malignancy (n = 51) were tested for antinuclear autoantibodies (ANA) using indirect immunofluorescence and specific extractable nuclear autoantibodies (ENA) employing a multiplexed addressable laser bead immunoassay. Contrary to the hypothesis, data demonstrated that individuals without malignancy were more likely to be positive for ANA compared to those with cancer. However, autoantibodies to histone and Ro-60 were found to be associated with lung cancer. These results support a possible predictive value for specific autoantibodies in the early detection of lung cancer and/or in our understanding of the role of autoimmune processes in cancer. However, further studies are needed to identify specific target antigens for the antibodies.

Prevalence of exposure to multiple occupational carcinogens among exposed workers in Australia.

OBJECTIVES: Workers can be exposed to a range of different carcinogenic agents in the workplace. However, previous studies have often focused on prevalence of exposure to a single carcinogen, resulting in substantial knowledge gaps regarding the extent of multiple exposures in the workplace. This study aims to investigate the current prevalence of occupational exposure to multiple carcinogens among exposed workers in Australia. METHODS: The data for this study come from the Australian Work Exposures Study, a nationwide cross-sectional telephone survey of Australian workers aged between 18 and 65. Information was collected about the respondents' current employment and numerous demographic factors using a web-based application (Occupational Integrated Database Exposure Assessment System) to conduct the interview, with predefined algorithms used to automatically assign exposures to carcinogens based on the respondents' job tasks. RESULTS: The majority (81%) of exposed respondents were assessed as being probably exposed to more than one carcinogen, and 26% reported exposure to five or more carcinogens. We found that after adjusting for occupation, exposure to multiple carcinogens was more likely among male respondents, while older workers (aged between 55 and 65) were less likely to be exposed to multiple carcinogens. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides information on the prevalence of exposure to multiple carcinogens in the general population that has not previously been reported. This information could be useful for the intervention and control of occupational exposures to the prioritised carcinogens identified in this study.

The estimated prevalence of exposure to carcinogens, asthmagens, and ototoxic agents among healthcare workers in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers are occupationally exposed to various hazardous chemicals and agents that can potentially result in long-term adverse health effects. These exposures have not been comprehensively examined at a population level. The aim of this study was to examine occupational exposures to a wide range of asthmagens, carcinogens, and ototoxic agents among healthcare workers in Australia. METHODS: Data were collected as part of the Australian Work Exposures Studies, which were computer-assisted telephone surveys conducted in 2011, 2014, and 2016 to assess the prevalence of occupational exposures to carcinogens, asthmagens, and ototoxic agents, respectively, among Australian workers. Using data on healthcare workers, the prevalence of exposures to these agents was calculated and associations of demographic variables and occupation groups with exposure status were examined. RESULTS: The prevalence of exposure to at least one asthmagen, carcinogen, and ototoxic agent was 92.3%, 50.7%, and 44.6%, respectively. The most common exposures were to (a) cleaning and sterilizing agents in the asthmagen group; (b) shift work in the carcinogen group; and (c) toluene and p-xylene among ototoxic agents. Exposure varied by occupation, with exposure to carcinogens and ototoxic agents highest among personal carers and exposure to carcinogens most likely among nursing professionals and health and welfare support workers. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate that a substantial proportion of Australian healthcare workers are occupationally exposed to asthmagens, carcinogens, and ototoxic agents. These exposures are more common among certain occupational groups. The information provided by this study will be useful in prioritizing and implementing control strategies.

Lifestyle and occupational factors associated with participation in colorectal cancer screening among men and women in Australia.

This study explores the associations between lifestyle and occupational factors and participation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among men and women aged 50 and over and living in Australia. We used weighted data from the Australian National Health Survey 2014-15 to produce population estimates. Lifestyle variables investigated were smoking, physical activity, alcohol consumption, fruit and vegetable consumption, and body mass index, while the occupational variables were labour force status, occupation, and participation in shift work. Using weighted data, 1,990,287 men (55%) and 1,898,232 women (49%) reported ever-screening for CRC. Female current smokers were less likely to report ever-screening for CRC (adjusted RR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.96), as were men who were less physically active (aRR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.78-0.97), reported no alcohol consumption (aRR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.59-0.91), and reported eating more vegetables (aRR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.72-0.99). When lifestyle behaviours were combined into a healthy lifestyle index score, a significant trend was observed for both men and women, whereby those who reported engaging in more healthy behaviours were more likely to have ever-screened for CRC (p = .027 men; p < .001 women). No associations were observed between CRC screening and occupational variables. This is the first comprehensive assessment of the lifestyle and occupational factors associated with participation in CRC screening among men and women in Australia. Participation in CRC screening was greater among those engaging in more healthy behaviours, suggesting that an individual's pattern of lifestyle behaviours may be important in determining screening participation. These results have important implications for public health strategies on improving CRC screening participation.

Variations in exposure to carcinogens among shift workers and non-shift workers.

BACKGROUND: There is limited information on whether the prevalence of exposure to workplace carcinogens varies among shift workers and non-shift workers. METHODS: This analysis used data from the Australian Work Exposures Study-Cancer, a telephone survey which examined exposure to carcinogens in the workplace. Workers were classified as shift workers if they indicated that their usual roster ever included work between the hours of midnight and 5 am. Modified Poisson regression was used to estimate the adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) and 95% confidence internals (CIs). RESULTS: Among the 5425 workers, 6.88% reported being exposed to shift work. Overall, shift workers were more likely to be exposed to any carcinogen (aPR = 1.16; 95% 1.06-1.26) and to specific carcinogens such as asbestos (aPR = 1.93; 95% 1.33-2.83) than non-shift workers. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that there are differences in exposure to carcinogenic agents among shift and non-shift workers, and so there is a need for prevention programs in order to reduce these discrepancies.

Association between shiftwork and the risk of colorectal cancer in females: a population-based case-control study.

OBJECTIVE: Research indicates that shiftwork may be associated with increased risks of adverse health outcomes, including some cancers. However, the evidence of an association between shiftwork and colorectal cancer risk is limited and inconclusive. Further, while several possible pathways through which shiftwork might result in cancer have been proposed, few studies have taken these factors into account. We investigated the association between two types of shiftwork (graveyard shiftwork and early-morning shiftwork) and six mechanistic shiftwork variables (including light at night and phase shift) and the risk of colorectal cancer among females in an Australian population-based case-control study. Graveyard shiftwork was the primary exposure of interest. METHODS: Participants (350 cases and 410 controls) completed a lifetime occupational history, and exposure to each of the eight shiftwork variables was assigned to participants through a job exposure matrix. We used logistic regression to calculate odds ratios (OR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association between different shiftwork variables and the risk of colorectal cancer, adjusting for potential demographic, lifestyle and medical confounders. RESULTS: Working in an occupation involving long-term exposure (>7.5 years) to graveyard shiftwork was not associated with colorectal cancer risk (adjusted OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.58). Similarly, no increased risks of colorectal cancer were seen for any of the other seven shiftwork variables examined. CONCLUSIONS: No evidence of an increased risk of colorectal cancer among females who had worked in occupations involving shiftwork was observed in this study.

Prevalence of occupational exposure to asthmagens derived from animals, fish and/or shellfish among Australian workers.

OBJECTIVE: Several animal, fish and/or shellfish derived substances encountered in the workplace can initiate or exacerbate asthma. The aims of this study were: to produce a population-based estimate of the current prevalence of occupational exposure to animal, fish and/or shellfish derived asthmagens, to identify the main circumstances of exposures and to identify occupations with the highest proportions of exposed respondents. METHODS: We used data from the Australian Work Exposure Study-Asthma, a national telephone survey that investigated the current prevalence of occupational exposure to asthmagens among Australian workers. A web-based tool was used to collect job task information and assign exposure to asthmagens, including animal, fish and/or shellfish derived asthmagens. Prevalence ratios to determine risk factors for exposure were estimated using modified Poisson regression. RESULTS: Of the 4878 respondents, 12.4% were exposed to asthmagens derived from animals, fish and/or shellfish. Exposure to these asthmagens was significantly higher in workers residing in regional and remote areas, compared with major cities. The main circumstance of exposure to animal derived asthmagens was through cleaning up rat/mice infestations, while the main circumstance of exposure to fish and/or shellfish derived asthmagens was through preparing and cooking salmon. Occupational groups with the highest proportion of exposure to animal or fish and/or shellfish derived asthmagens were farmers/animal workers and food workers, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study investigating occupational exposure to animal, fish and/or shellfish derived asthmagens in a nationwide working population. The results of this study can be used to inform the direction of occupational interventions and policies to reduce work-related asthma.

The prevalence of exposure to high molecular weight asthmagens derived from plants among workers in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Limited information is available on exposure to high molecular weight (HMW) asthmagens derived from plants and on the main occupations and tasks that result in such exposure among workers. METHODS: Data were collected as part of the Australian Work Exposures Study-Asthma. We estimated adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) using modified Poisson regression models to determine which factors were associated with exposure. RESULTS: A 12.8% of 4878 workers were exposed to HMW asthmagens derived from plants. The highest prevalence of exposure was found among farmers/animal workers, education workers, and food processing workers. The main circumstances of exposure were through handling flour, freesias, or through raising livestock. Exposure was more common among female workers (aPR = 1.26, 1.10-1.43) than males, while it was lower among workers born overseas (aPR = 0.70, 0.57-0.86) than those born in Australia. CONCLUSION: Prevention of exposure to HMW asthmagens derived from plants requires a broad strategy targeting different tasks and occupations.

Prevalence of exposure to occupational carcinogens among farmers.

INTRODUCTION: Farmers experience a range of carcinogenic exposures, including some pesticides, fuels, engine exhausts, metals, some organic solvents, silica, wood dusts and solar radiation. However many studies investigating the risk of cancer in farmers focus on pesticide exposure alone. The aim of this study was to determine which carcinogens Australian farmers are exposed to, the prevalence and circumstances of those exposures, and the use of protective equipment. METHODS: The study used data from the Australian Work Exposures Study (AWES) a cross-sectional study conducted in 2012 that investigated the prevalence of carcinogen exposure among Australian workers. This was supplemented with data from AWES-Western Australia (WA), conducted in 2013, which followed the same methodology but in Western Australian workers only. A total of 5498 Australian workers were interviewed about the tasks they carry out in their workplace. The 166 participants who worked in farming (126 men and 40 women, with an age range of 18-65 years) are the focus of this article. RESULTS: On average, farmers had been exposed to five different carcinogens. Highest numbers of exposures occurred among men and those working on mixed crop and livestock farms. Solar radiation, diesel engine exhaust and certain solvents were the most prevalent exposures, each with over 85% of farmers exposed. The main tasks leading to exposure were working outdoors, using and repairing farming equipment and burning waste. Sun protection and closed cabs on machinery were the most frequently used forms of protection. CONCLUSIONS: Farmers are a high risk group in relation to carcinogen exposure. The variation in tasks that they undertake results in exposure to a wide variety of different carcinogens that require similarly varied control measures.

Australian work exposures studies: occupational exposure to pesticides.

BACKGROUND: Pesticides are widely used in some occupational settings. Some pesticides have been classified as carcinogens; however, data on the number of workers exposed to pesticides are not available in Australia. The main aim of this study was to estimate the current prevalence of pesticide exposure in Australian workplaces. METHODS: The analysis used data from the Australian Work Exposures Study, a series of nationwide telephone surveys which investigated work-related prevalence and exposure to carcinogens and asthmagens, including pesticides, among current Australian workers. Information about the respondents' current job and various demographic factors was collected in a telephone interview using the web-based tool OccIDEAS. Workers were considered exposed to pesticides if they reported applying or mixing pesticides in their current job. RESULTS: Of the 10 371 respondents, 410 (4%) respondents were assessed as being exposed to pesticides in the workplace, with exposure being more likely among males, individuals born in Australia, individuals with lower education level and those residing in regional or remote areas. Glyphosate was the most common active ingredient used by workers. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to describe the prevalence of occupational pesticide exposure in Australia and one of the few recent studies internationally.

The Australian Work Exposures Study: Occupational Exposure to Lead and Lead Compounds.

INTRODUCTION: The aims of this study were to produce a population-based estimate of the prevalence of work-related exposure to lead and its compounds, to identify the main circumstances of exposures, and to collect information on the use of workplace control measures designed to decrease those exposures. METHODS: Data came from the Australian Workplace Exposures Study, a nationwide telephone survey which investigated the current prevalence and circumstances of work-related exposure to 38 known or suspected carcinogens, including lead, among Australian workers aged 18-65 years. Using the web-based tool, OccIDEAS, semi-quantitative information was collected about exposures in the current job held by the respondent. Questions were addressed primarily at tasks undertaken rather than about self-reported exposures. RESULTS: A total of 307 (6.1%) of the 4993 included respondents were identified as probably being exposed to lead in the course of their work. Of these, almost all (96%) were male; about half worked in trades and technician-related occupations, and about half worked in the construction industry. The main tasks associated with probable exposures were, in decreasing order: soldering; sanding and burning off paint while painting old houses, ships, or bridges; plumbing work; cleaning up or sifting through the remains of a fire; radiator-repair work; machining metals or alloys containing lead; mining; welding leaded steel; and working at or using indoor firing ranges. Where information on control measures was available, inconsistent use was reported. Applied to the Australian working population, approximately 6.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 5.6-7.0] of all workers (i.e. 631000, 95% CI 566000-704000 workers) were estimated to have probable occupational exposure to lead. CONCLUSIONS: Lead remains an important exposure in many different occupational circumstances in Australia and probably other developed countries. This information can be used to support decisions on priorities for intervention and control of occupational exposure to lead and estimates of burden of cancer arising from occupational exposure to lead.

The Australian Work Exposures Study: Occupational Exposure to Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons.

INTRODUCTION: The aims of this study were to produce a population-based estimate of the prevalence of work-related exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), to identify the main circumstances of exposure and to describe the use of workplace control measures designed to decrease those exposures. METHODS: The analysis used data from the Australian Workplace Exposures Study, a nationwide telephone survey which investigated the current prevalence and exposure circumstances of work-related exposure to 38 known or suspected carcinogens, including PAHs, among Australian workers aged 18-65 years. Using the web-based tool OccIDEAS, semi-quantitative information was collected about exposures in the current job held by the respondent. Questions were addressed primarily at tasks undertaken rather than about self-reported exposures. RESULTS: Of the 4,993 included respondents, 297 (5.9%) were identified as probably being exposed to PAHs in their current job [extrapolated to 6.7% of the Australian working population-677 000 (95% confidence interval 605 000-757 000) workers]. Most (81%) were male; about one-third were farmers and about one-quarter worked in technical and trades occupations. In the agriculture industry about half the workers were probably exposed to PAHs. The main exposure circumstances were exposure to smoke through burning, fighting fires or through maintaining mowers or other equipment; cleaning up ash after a fire; health workers exposed to diathermy smoke; cooking; and welding surfaces with a coating. Where information on control measures was available, their use was inconsistent. CONCLUSION: Workers are exposed to PAHs in many different occupational circumstances. Information on the exposure circumstances can be used to support decisions on appropriate priorities for intervention and control of occupational exposure to PAHs, and estimates of burden of cancer arising from occupational exposure to PAHs.

The Australian Work Exposures Study: Prevalence of Occupational Exposure to Formaldehyde.

INTRODUCTION: The aims of this study were to produce a population-based estimate of the prevalence of work-related exposure to formaldehyde, to identify the main circumstances of exposure and to describe the use of workplace control measures designed to decrease those exposures. METHODS: The analysis used data from the Australian Workplace Exposures Study, a nationwide telephone survey, which investigated the current prevalence and exposure circumstances of work-related exposure to 38 known or suspected carcinogens, including formaldehyde, among Australian workers aged 18-65 years. Using the web-based tool OccIDEAS, semi-quantitative information was collected about exposures in the current job held by the respondent. Questions were addressed primarily at tasks undertaken rather than about self-reported exposures. RESULTS: Of the 4993 included respondents, 124 (2.5%) were identified as probably being exposed to formaldehyde in the course of their work [extrapolated to 2.6% of the Australian working population-265 000 (95% confidence interval 221 000-316 000) workers]. Most (87.1%) were male. About half worked in technical and trades occupations. In terms of industry, about half worked in the construction industry. The main circumstances of exposure were working with particle board or plywood typically through carpentry work, building maintenance, or sanding prior to painting; with the more common of other exposures circumstances being firefighters involved in fighting fires, fire overhaul, and clean-up or back-burning; and health workers using formaldehyde when sterilizing equipment or in a pathology laboratory setting. The use of control measures was inconsistent. CONCLUSION: Workers are exposed to formaldehyde in many different occupational circumstances. Information on the exposure circumstances can be used to support decisions on appropriate priorities for intervention and control of occupational exposure to formaldehyde, and estimates of burden of cancer arising from occupational exposure to formaldehyde.

The Australian Work Exposures Study: Prevalence of Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica.

BACKGROUND: Respirable crystalline silica (RCS) is a biologically active dust that can accumulate in the lung and induce silicosis and lung cancer. Despite occupational exposure being the predominant source, no study has described current occupational RCS exposure on a national scale in Australia. The aim of this study is to estimate the characteristics of those exposed and the circumstances of RCS exposure in Australian workplaces. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of the Australian working population (18-65 years old) was conducted. Information about the respondents' current job and their demographic characteristics was collected in a telephone interview. Occupational exposure to RCS was determined based on preprogrammed decision rules regarding potential levels of exposure associated with self-reported tasks. RESULTS: Overall, 6.4% of respondents were deemed exposed to RCS at work in 2012 (3.3% were exposed at a high level). The exposure varied with sex, state of residence, and socioeconomic status. Miners and construction workers were most likely to be highly exposed to RCS when performing tasks with concrete or cement or working near crushers that create RCS-containing dusts. When extrapolated to the entire Australian working population, 6.6% of Australian workers were exposed to RCS and 3.7% were highly exposed when carrying out tasks at work. CONCLUSION: This is the first study investigating occupational RCS exposure in an entire national working population. The information about occupational tasks that lead to high level RCS exposure provided by this study will inform the direction of occupational interventions and policies.

The future excess fraction model for calculating burden of disease.

BACKGROUND: Estimates of the burden of disease caused by a particular agent are used to assist in making policy and prioritizing actions. Most estimations have employed the attributable fraction approach, which estimates the proportion of disease cases or deaths in a specific year which are attributable to past exposure to a particular agent. While this approach has proven extremely useful in quantifying health effects, it requires historical data on exposures which are not always available. METHODS: We present an alternative method, the future excess fraction method, which is based on the lifetime risk approach, and which requires current rather than historical exposure data. This method estimates the future number of exposure-related disease cases or deaths occurring in the subgroup of the population who were exposed to the particular agent in a specific year. We explain this method and use publically-available data on current asbestos exposure and mesothelioma incidence to demonstrate the use of the method. CONCLUSIONS: Our approach to modelling burden of disease is useful when there are no historical measures of exposure and where future disease rates can be projected on person years at risk.

The estimated prevalence of exposure to asthmagens in the Australian workforce, 2014.

BACKGROUND: There is very little information available on a national level as to the number of people exposed to specific asthmagens in workplaces. METHODS: We conducted a national telephone survey in Australia to investigate the prevalence of current occupational exposure to 277 asthmagens, assembled into 27 groups. Demographic and current job information were obtained. A web-based tool, OccIDEAS, was used to collect job task information and assign exposure to each asthmagen group. RESULTS: In the Australian Workplace Exposure Study - Asthma (AWES- Asthma) we interviewed 4878 participants (2441 male and 2437 female). Exposure to at least one asthmagen was more common among men (47%) than women (40%). Extrapolated to the Australian population, approximately 2.8 million men and 1.7 million women were estimated to be exposed. Among men, the most common exposures were bioaerosols (29 %) and metals (27%), whilst the most common exposures among women were latex (25%) and industrial cleaning and sterilising agents (20%). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides information about the prevalence of exposure to asthmagens in Australian workplaces which will be useful in setting priorities for control and prevention of occupational asthma.

Demographic and Occupational Differences Between Ethnic Minority Workers Who Did and Did Not Complete the Telephone Survey in English.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Limited research indicates that using English language only surveys in prevalence studies conducted in the general population or in specific ethnic populations may result in unrepresentative samples and biased results. In this study, we investigated whether participants from ethnic minorities who chose to answer a study interview in a language other than English (LOTE) differed from those who completed the interview in English. METHODS: This study was conducted within an Australian population-based telephone survey that assessed the prevalence of occupational exposure to carcinogens among 749 ethnic minority workers. We used modified Poisson regression to determine the factors associated with completing the interview in a LOTE. RESULTS: Participants who elected to complete the interview in a LOTE differed from those who completed it in English on several factors, including sex, country of birth, education, occupation, and occupational exposure to carcinogens (40% compared with 29%, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The participants who chose to complete the study interview in their native language had several demographic differences from those participants who completed it in English, and were more likely to be exposed to carcinogens at work. Prevalence studies that offer only English language study instruments are unlikely to produce representative samples of minority groups, and may therefore produce biased results.

The Australian Work Exposures Study: prevalence of occupational exposure to diesel engine exhaust.

BACKGROUND: Diesel engines are widely used in occupational settings. Diesel exhaust has been classified as a lung carcinogen, but data on number of workers exposed to different levels of diesel exhaust are not available in Australia. The aim of this study was to estimate the current prevalence of exposure to diesel engine exhaust in Australian workplaces. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of Australian males and females (18-65 years old) in current paid employment was undertaken. Information about the respondents' current job and various demographic factors was collected in a telephone interview using the web-based tool OccIDEAS. Semi-quantitative occupational exposure levels to diesel exhaust were assigned using programmed decision rules and numbers of workers exposed in Australia in 2011 were estimated. We defined substantial exposure as exposed at a medium or high level, for at least 5h per week. RESULTS: Substantial occupational exposure to diesel exhaust was experienced by 13.4% of the respondents in their current job. Exposure prevalence varied across states, ranging from 6.4% in the Australian Capital Territory to 17.0% in Western Australia. Exposures occurred mainly in the agricultural, mining, transport and construction industries, and among mechanics. Men (20.4%) were more often exposed than women (4.7%). Extrapolation to the total working population indicated that 13.8% (95% confidence interval 10.0-20.4) of the 2011 Australian workforce were estimated to be substantially exposed to diesel exhaust, and 1.8% of the workers were estimated to experience high levels of exposures in their current job. CONCLUSION: About 1.2 million Australian workers were estimated to have been exposed to diesel exhaust in their workplace in 2011. This is the first study to describe the prevalence of occupational diesel exhaust exposure in Australia and will enable estimation of the number of lung cancers attributable to diesel exhaust exposure in the workplace.

Prevalence of occupational exposure to carcinogens among workers of Arabic, Chinese and Vietnamese ancestry in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Although job-related diseases result in more deaths per year than job-related injuries, most research concerning ethnic minority workers has concerned accidents and injuries rather than disease-causing exposures such as carcinogens. METHODS: We conducted a telephone-based cross-sectional survey to estimate the prevalence of occupational exposure to carcinogens among a sample of ethnic minority workers in Australia, and compared their exposure prevalence to that of a sample of the general Australian-born working population ('Australian workers'). RESULTS: One-third of the ethnic minority workers were exposed to at least one carcinogen at work. The likelihood of exposure to carcinogens was not significantly different from that of Australian workers, although the likelihood of exposure to individual carcinogens varied by ethnicity. CONCLUSION: Knowing the prevalence of exposure to carcinogens in the workplace in different ethnic groups will allow better targeted and informed occupational health and safety measures to be implemented where necessary.

Estimated prevalence of exposure to occupational carcinogens in Australia (2011-2012).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although past studies of workplace exposures have contributed greatly to our understanding of carcinogens, significant knowledge gaps still exist with regard to the actual extent of exposure among current workers, with no routinely collected population-based data being available in most countries. This study, the Australian Work Exposures Study (AWES), aimed to investigate the current prevalence of occupational exposure to carcinogens. METHODS: A random sample of men and women aged between 18 and 65, who were currently in paid employment, were invited to participate in a telephone interview collecting information about their current job and various demographic factors. Interviews were conducted using a web-based application (OccIDEAS). OccIDEAS uses the expert exposure method in which participants are asked about their job tasks and predefined algorithms are used to automatically assign exposures. Responses were obtained from 5023 eligible Australian residents, resulting in an overall response rate of 53%. RESULTS: 1879 respondents (37.6%) were assessed as being exposed to at least one occupational carcinogen in their current job. Extrapolation of these figures to the Australian working population suggested 3.6 million (40.3%) current workers could be exposed to carcinogens in their workplace. Exposure prevalence was highest among farmers, drivers, miners and transport workers, as well as men and those residing in regional areas. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates a practical, web-based approach to collecting population information on occupational exposure to carcinogens and documents the high prevalence of current exposure to occupational carcinogens in the general population.