Associations between light exposure and sleep timing and sleepiness while awake in a sample of UK adults in everyday life.

Experimental and interventional studies show that light can regulate sleep timing and sleepiness while awake by setting the phase of circadian rhythms and supporting alertness. The extent to which differences in light exposure explain variations in sleep and sleepiness within and between individuals in everyday life remains less clear. Here, we establish a method to address this deficit, incorporating an open-source wearable wrist-worn light logger (SpectraWear) and smartphone-based online data collection. We use it to simultaneously record longitudinal light exposure (in melanopic equivalent daylight illuminance), sleep timing, and subjective alertness over seven days in a convenience sample of 59 UK adults without externally imposed circadian challenge (e.g., shift work or jetlag). Participants reliably had strong daily rhythms in light exposure but frequently were exposed to less light during the daytime and more light in pre-bedtime and sleep episodes than recommended [T. M. Brown et al., PLoS Biol. 20, e3001571 (2022)]. Prior light exposure over several hours was associated with lower subjective sleepiness with, in particular, brighter light in the late sleep episode and after wake linked to reduced early morning sleepiness (sleep inertia). Higher pre-bedtime light exposure was associated with longer sleep onset latency. Early sleep timing was correlated with more reproducible and robust daily patterns of light exposure and higher daytime/lower night-time light exposure. Our study establishes a method for collecting longitudinal sleep and health/performance data in everyday life and provides evidence of associations between light exposure and important determinants of sleep health and performance.

Trends in occupational and work-related contact dermatitis attributed to nickel, chromium and cobalt in the UK: findings from The Health and Occupation Research network 1996-2019.

BACKGROUND: Occupational exposure to metals such as nickel, chromium and cobalt can be associated with contact dermatitis, which can adversely affect an individual's health, finances and employment. Despite this, little is known about the incidence of metal-related occupational contact dermatitis over prolonged periods of time. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the medically reported trends in the incidence of work-related contact dermatitis attributed to nickel, chromium and cobalt in the UK. METHODS: Incidence and trends in cases of occupational contact dermatitis caused by nickel, chromium or cobalt between 1996 and 2019 (inclusive), reported to the EPIDERM surveillance scheme, were investigated and compared with trends in the incidence of occupational contact dermatitis attributed to agents other than the aforementioned metals. A sensitivity analysis restricting the study cohort to cases attributed to only one type of metal was also conducted. RESULTS: Of all cases reported to EPIDERM during the study period, 2374 (12%) were attributed to nickel, chromium or cobalt. Cases predominantly comprised females (59%), with a mean (SD) age (males and females) of 38 (13) years. Cases were most frequently reported in manufacturing, construction, and human health and social activity industries. The most frequently reported occupations were hairdressing, and sales and retail (assistants, cashiers and checkout operators). The highest annual incidence rate of contact dermatitis was observed in females (2.60 per 100 000 persons employed per year), with the first and second peak seen in those aged 16-24 and ≥ 65 years, respectively. A statistically significant decrease in the incidence of occupational contact dermatitis attributed to metals over the study period was observed for all occupations (annual average change -6.9%, 95% confidence interval -7.8 to -5.9), with much of the decrease occurring between 1996 and 2007. Similar findings were obtained in the sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Over a period of 24 years, there has been a statistically significant decline in the incidence of metal-related occupational contact dermatitis in the UK. This could be attributed not only to improvements in working conditions, which have reduced metal exposure, but could also be due to the closure of industries in the UK that might have generated cases of contact dermatitis owing to metal exposure.

Trends in work-related respiratory diseases attributed to nickel, chromium and cobalt in the UK: descriptive findings from The Health and Occupation Research (THOR) network 1996-2019.

BACKGROUND: Occupational exposure to metals can be associated with respiratory diseases which can adversely affect the individual's health, finances and employment. Despite this, little is known about the incidence of these respiratory conditions over prolonged periods of time. AIMS: This study aimed to investigate the trends in the incidence of work-related respiratory diseases attributed to nickel, chromium and cobalt in the UK. METHODS: Cases of occupational respiratory diseases caused by nickel, chromium or cobalt reported to Surveillance of Work-related and Occupational Respiratory Disease (SWORD), the UK-based surveillance scheme between 1996 and 2019 (inclusive), were extracted and grouped into six 4-year time periods. Cases were characterised by causative metal exposure, occupational and industrial sector. Incidence rates diseases (adjusted for physician participation and response rate) were calculated using ONS employment data. RESULTS: Of cases reported to SWORD during the study period, 1% (173 actual cases) of respiratory problems were attributed to nickel, chromium or cobalt. Diagnoses of asthma compromised the largest proportion of diagnoses (74.4%), followed by lung cancer (8.9%) and pneumoconiosis (6.7%). Cases had a mean age of 47 years (SD 13); 93% were men. The annual incidence fell from 1.6 per million employed in the first 4-year period, to 0.2 in the most recent period. CONCLUSIONS: Over 24 years, a decline in the incidence of metal-related occupational respiratory diseases was observed in the UK. This could be attributed to improvements in working conditions which resulted in reduced metal exposure but could also be due to closure of industries that might have generated case returns.

Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection at a UK electricity-generating company: a test-negative design case-control study.

OBJECTIVES: Identify workplace risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection, using data collected by a UK electricity-generating company. METHODS: Using a test-negative design case-control study, we estimated the OR of infection by job category, site, test reason, sex, vaccination status, vulnerability, site outage and site COVID-19 weekly risk rating, adjusting for age, test date and test type. RESULTS: From an original 80 077 COVID-19 tests, there were 70 646 included in the final analysis. Most exclusions were due to being visitor tests (5030) or tests after an individual first tested positive (2968).Women were less likely to test positive than men (OR=0.71; 95% CI 0.58 to 0.86). Test reason was strongly associated with positivity and although not a cause of infection itself, due to differing test regimes by area, it was a strong confounder for other variables. Compared with routine tests, tests due to symptoms were highest risk (94.99; 78.29 to 115.24), followed by close contact (16.73; 13.80 to 20.29) and broader-defined work contact 2.66 (1.99 to 3.56). After adjustment, we found little difference in risk by job category, but some differences by site with three sites showing substantially lower risks, and one site showing higher risks in the final model. CONCLUSIONS: In general, infection risk was not associated with job category. Vulnerable individuals were at slightly lower risk, tests during outages were higher risk, vaccination showed no evidence of an effect on testing positive, and site COVID-19 risk rating did not show an ordered trend in positivity rates.

Factors influencing occupational exposure to pyrethroids and glyphosate: An analysis of urinary biomarkers in Malaysia, Uganda and the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Long-term exposure to pesticides is often assessed using semi-quantitative models. To improve these models, a better understanding of how occupational factors determine exposure (e.g., as estimated by biomonitoring) would be valuable. METHODS: Urine samples were collected from pesticide applicators in Malaysia, Uganda, and the UK during mixing/application days (and also during non-application days in Uganda). Samples were collected pre- and post-activity on the same day and analysed for biomarkers of active ingredients (AIs), including synthetic pyrethroids (via the metabolite 3-phenoxybenzoic acid [3-PBA]) and glyphosate, as well as creatinine. We performed multilevel Tobit regression models for each study to assess the relationship between exposure modifying factors (e.g., mixing/application of AI, duration of activity, personal protective equipment [PPE]) and urinary biomarkers of exposure. RESULTS: From the Malaysia, Uganda, and UK studies, 81, 84, and 106 study participants provided 162, 384 and 212 urine samples, respectively. Pyrethroid use on the sampling day was most common in Malaysia (n = 38; 47%), and glyphosate use was most prevalent in the UK (n = 93; 88%). Median pre- and post-activity 3-PBA concentrations were similar, with higher median concentrations post-compared to pre-activity for glyphosate samples in the UK (1.7 to 0.5 µg/L) and Uganda (7.6 to 0.8 µg/L) (glyphosate was not used in the Malaysia study). There was evidence from individual studies that higher urinary biomarker concentrations were associated with mixing/application of the AI on the day of urine sampling, longer duration of mixing/application, lower PPE protection, and less education/literacy, but no factor was consistently associated with exposure across biomarkers in the three studies. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest a need for AI-specific interpretation of exposure modifying factors as the relevance of exposure routes, levels of detection, and farming systems/practices may be very context and AI-specific.

Utility of the capabilities, opportunities, motivations model for understanding changes in behavior.

BACKGROUND: Wearing face coverings to prevent airborne viral transmission has at times been legally mandated, followed by periods when rules were relaxed. The present study tracks changes in face covering and the impacts on people's perceptions of their capabilities, opportunities and motivations. METHODS: Three-wave survey. At wave 1 (25 January-6 February 2022), 10 622 UK adults reported: (a) sociodemographic characteristics; (b) face covering in work, public transport and indoor leisure settings and (c) capabilities, opportunities and motivations. Measures were repeated 1-18 March 2022 and 20 May-6 June 2022. Data were analyzed descriptively, within-participants analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and multiple linear regression. RESULTS: Face covering decreased over time as rules around the wearing of face coverings relaxed. Perceptions of capabilities, opportunities and motivations to wear face coverings were consistently associated with the actual wearing of face coverings, with marked decreases in motivations over time. CONCLUSIONS: Decreases in motivations seem to explain best the reasons for declining levels of face covering. Further work is required to develop interventions to change people's motivations and promote the wearing of face coverings, should they be required in the future.

Theory-based Trial to Promote Uptake and Sustained Use of Face Coverings During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Transmission of airborne viruses can be mitigated by wearing face coverings but evidence suggests that face covering declines with the removal of relevant legislation, partly due to low automatic motivation. PURPOSE: Test whether an intervention based on implementation intentions could support people's automatic motivation and promote face covering during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Randomized controlled design. At baseline (May 20 to June 6, 2022), 7,835 UK adults reported how much time they spent wearing face coverings in work, public transport, and indoor leisure settings as well as their capabilities, opportunities, and motivations. 3,871 participants were randomized to form implementation intentions; 3,964 control participants completed questionnaires only. Measures were repeated 6 months postbaseline (November 1 to November 14, 2022). Data were analyzed using mixed measures ANOVAs and Bayes Factors to examine whether the observed data supported the experimental hypothesis. RESULTS: The proportion of time spend wearing face coverings declined substantially across the 6-month study period, from 15.28% to 9.87% in work settings, 38.31% to 24.55% on public transport, and 9.58% to 7.85% in leisure settings. Bayes Factors indicated moderate relative evidence of no effect of implementation intentions on behavior in work and leisure settings, and inconclusive evidence of a positive effect on public transport. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of declining COVID-19 rates and removal of legal mandates, implementation intentions were not effective in sustaining face covering. Further research is required to ensure that evidence-based interventions are prepared and deployed in the event of future pandemics.

The spread of viruses through the air can be reduced by people wearing face coverings. The evidence suggests that face covering reduces with the removal of relevant legislation, partly due to habits not being formed. The aim of the present study was to test whether an intervention designed to help people to form new habits could support people's face covering during the COVID-19 pandemic. We asked 7,835 UK adults how much time they spent wearing face coverings in work, public transport, and indoor leisure settings. We chose 3,871 participants at random to form new habits; 3,964 participants completed questionnaires only. Measures were repeated 6 months later. The proportion of time spend wearing face coverings declined sharply across the 6-month study period, from 15.28% to 9.87% in work settings, 38.31% to 24.55% on public transport, and 9.58% to 7.85% in leisure settings. Our analyses showed a small positive effect of forming new habits on wearing face coverings in public transport settings. In the context of declining COVID-19 rates and the removal of legal mandates, our intervention was not effective in sustaining face covering. Further research is required to ensure that evidence-based interventions are prepared and deployed in the event of future pandemics.

Irritant asthma and work: cases from the UK SWORD reporting scheme from 1999 to 2018.

BACKGROUND: Acute irritant asthma is a preventable health consequence of a workplace exposure and has a number of adverse outcomes. While cases and case series are reported, little is known about the causes and incidence of this condition over prolonged periods of time. AIMS: We aimed to estimate the reported incidence of irritant asthma referred to a national reporting scheme, and how this has changed over time. METHODS: Cases of irritant asthma reported to SWORD, the UK-based Surveillance of Work-related Occupational Respiratory Diseases scheme, were grouped into four 5-year time periods from 1999 onwards. Likely causative exposures, job, work sector and incidence rates were analysed over time. RESULTS: 307 actual cases equated to 1066 estimated cases; actual cases had a mean age of 46 years (SD 17.8); 70.7% were male. The annual incidence fell from 1.98 per million employed in the first 5-year period, to 0.56 in the most recent. Eleven occupational codes were associated with six or more attributed cases, and between them accounted for 38% of all cases. Thirteen exposure categories were associated with five or more cases. These were formaldehyde (n=5), cutting oils and coolants (n=6), isocyanates (n=6), pesticides and herbicides (n=6), welding fumes (n=7), paints (n=7), solder and colophony (n=7), solvents (n=9), fuel oil, diesel and ill-defined fumes (n=10), chlorine and hypochlorites (n=15), acids (n=23), smoke (n=25) and cleaning products and sterilising agents (n=39). CONCLUSIONS: While the incidence of irritant asthma may have fallen, cases are persistently attributed to well-described causes. A persistence of cases attributed to cleaning agents was seen.

Improving trends estimates for specific work-related ill-health conditions when excess zeros are present in a voluntary health reporting scheme.

BACKGROUND: Trends in occupational disease incidence are estimated in voluntary reporting schemes such as The Health and Occupational Reporting (THOR) Network in the UK. Voluntary reporting schemes request responses even if no cases are observed to reduce uncertainty in non-response. This may result in false zeros that bias trends estimates. Analysis using zero-inflated models is unsuitable for specific health outcomes due to overestimates of the excess zeros. Here, we attempt to account for excess zeros while investigating condition-specific trends. METHODS: Zero-inflated negative binomial (ZINB) models were fitted to three THOR work-related ill health surveillance schemes Occupational Skin Disease Surveillance (437 reporters between 1996 and 2019), Occupational Physicians Reporting Activity (1094 between 1996 and 2019) and Surveillance of Work-Related and Occupational Respiratory Disease (878 between 1999 and 2019). The probability associated with a response being a false zero was estimated and applied in weighted negative binomial (wgt-NB) models fitted to specific ill-heath conditions. Three ill-health conditions from the three THOR schemes were considered; contact dermatitis, musculoskeletal and asthma, respectively. RESULTS: Wgt-NB models approximately estimated the incidence rate ratios reported by the ZINB models (eg, EPIDERM; ZINB=0.969, NB=0.963, wgt-NB=0.968) for all health outcome annual trends. This was consistent for specific health outcomes which also tended towards the null (eg, contact dermatitis; NB=0.964, wgt-NB=0.969), indicating potentially overestimated downward trends. Though as the ratio of excess zeros to true zeros decreased in rarer health outcomes, the influence on trends also decreased. CONCLUSIONS: Through weighting, we were able to adjust for excess zeros in health outcome-specific trends estimates. Though uncertainty is still present in underlying reporter behaviour meaning caution should be applied with interpretation of any results.

Contact patterns of UK home delivery drivers and their use of protective measures during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify contact patterns of UK home delivery drivers and identify protective measures adopted during the pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey to measure the interactions of 170 UK delivery drivers during a working shift between 7 December 2020 and 31 March 2021. RESULTS: Delivery drivers had a mean number of 71.6 (95% CI 61.0 to 84.1) customer contacts per shift and 15.0 (95% CI 11.2 to 19.2) depot contacts per shift. Maintaining physical distancing with customers was more common than at delivery depots. Prolonged contact (more than 5 min) with customers was reported by 5.4% of drivers on their last shift. We found 3.0% of drivers had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 since the start of the pandemic and 16.8% of drivers had self-isolated due to a suspected or confirmed case of COVID-19. In addition, 5.3% (95% CI 2.3% to 10.2%) of participants reported having worked while ill with COVID-19 symptoms, or with a member of their household having a suspected or confirmed case of COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Delivery drivers had a large number of face-to-face customer and depot contacts per shift compared with other working adults during this time. However, transmission risk may be curtailed as contact with customers was of short duration. Most drivers were unable to maintain physical distance with customers and at depots at all times. Usage of protective items such as face masks and hand sanitiser was widespread.

Occupational differences in the prevalence and severity of long-COVID: analysis of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey.

OBJECTIVES: To establish whether prevalence and severity of long-COVID symptoms vary by industry and occupation. METHODS: We used Office for National Statistics COVID-19 Infection Survey (CIS) data (February 2021-April 2022) of working-age participants (16-65 years). Exposures were industry, occupation and major Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) group. Outcomes were self-reported: (1) long-COVID symptoms and (2) reduced function due to long-COVID. Binary (outcome 1) and ordered (outcome 2) logistic regression were used to estimate odds ratios (OR)and prevalence (marginal means). RESULTS: Public facing industries, including teaching and education, social care, healthcare, civil service, retail and transport industries and occupations, had the highest likelihood of long-COVID. By major SOC group, those in caring, leisure and other services (OR 1.44, 95% CIs 1.38 to 1.52) had substantially elevated odds than average. For almost all exposures, the pattern of ORs for long-COVID symptoms followed SARS-CoV-2 infections, except for professional occupations (eg, some healthcare, education, scientific occupations) (infection: OR<1 ; long-COVID: OR>1). The probability of reporting long-COVID for industry ranged from 7.7% (financial services) to 11.6% (teaching and education); whereas the prevalence of reduced function by 'a lot' ranged from 17.1% (arts, entertainment and recreation) to 22%-23% (teaching and education and armed forces) and to 27% (not working). CONCLUSIONS: The risk and prevalence of long-COVID differs across industries and occupations. Generally, it appears that likelihood of developing long-COVID symptoms follows likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection, except for professional occupations. These findings highlight sectors and occupations where further research is needed to understand the occupational factors resulting in long-COVID.

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.

how these findings canPublic transport: lessons learned by the sector through the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on the operations and functionality of the public transport sector in the UK. This paper reflects on the experience of this sector through the pandemic period, and considers recommendations for any future mitigations required for either new COVID-19 waves or a different public health emergency. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were carried out with public transport experts, organisational leaders, workers and passengers in two phases: Phase 1 from January to May 2021, and Phase 2 from December 2021 to February 2022. Interviews were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Using the 'What? So What? Now What?' reflective model, ideas are drawn out to describe (a) what changes occurred, (b) what effects these changes had on service provision as well as perceptions of risk and mitigation and (c) what lessons have been learned and how these findings can feed into pandemic preparedness for the future. Respondent reflections focussed on the importance of communication, leadership, and maintaining compliance. CONCLUSIONS: The wealth of experience gained through the COVID-19 pandemic in the public transport sector is extremely valuable. Through reflection on this experience, specific recommendations are made relating to these factors, covering: maintaining links across industry, access to information and data, understanding of mitigation effectiveness, improving messaging, challenges of behavioural mitigations, and clear lines of accountability. The recommendations made on the basis of this reflective process will help to improve public health strategy within the public transport sector.

Areas of enduring COVID-19 prevalence: drivers of prevalence and mitigating strategies.

BACKGROUND: UK local authorities that experienced sustained high levels of COVID-19 between 1st March 2020 and 28th February 2021 were described by the UK Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies as areas of enduring prevalence. This research was carried out in order to examine the views of local authority Directors of Public Health, who played a crucial role in the local response to COVID-19, on reasons for sustained high levels of prevalence in some areas, alongside an investigation of the mitigation strategies that they implemented during the course of the pandemic. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with Directors of Public Health in 19 local authority areas across England, between July and November 2021. This included nine areas identified as areas of enduring prevalence and ten 'comparison' areas. RESULTS: The outcomes of this study suggests that the geographical differences in prevalence rates are strongly influenced by health inequalities. Structural factors including deprivation, employment, and housing, due to their disproportionate impact on specific groups, converged with demographic factors, including ethnicity and age, and vaccination rates, and were identified as the main drivers of enduring prevalence. There are key differences in these drivers both within and, to a lesser extent, between local authorities. Other than these structural barriers, no major differences in facilitators or barriers to COVID-19 mitigation were identified between areas of varying prevalence. The main features of successful mitigation strategies were a locally tailored approach and partnership working involving local authority departments working with local health, community, voluntary and business organisations. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to add the voices of Directors of Public Health, who played a crucial role in the local COVID-19 response. Areas of enduring prevalence existed during the pandemic which were caused by a complex mix of structural factors related to inequalities. Participants advised that more research is needed on the effectiveness of mitigation strategies and other measures to reduce the impact of structural inequalities, to better understand the factors that drive prevalence. This would include an assessment of how these factors combine to predict transmission and how this varies between different areas.

Relative contribution of essential and non-essential activities to SARS-CoV-2 transmission following the lifting of public health restrictions in England and Wales.

PURPOSE: We aimed to understand which non-household activities increased infection odds and contributed greatest to SARS-CoV-2 infections following the lifting of public health restrictions in England and Wales. PROCEDURES: We undertook multivariable logistic regressions assessing the contribution to infections of activities reported by adult Virus Watch Community Cohort Study participants. We calculated adjusted weighted population attributable fractions (aPAF) estimating which activity contributed greatest to infections. FINDINGS: Among 11 413 participants (493 infections), infection was associated with: leaving home for work (aOR 1.35 (1.11-1.64), aPAF 17%), public transport (aOR 1.27 (1.04-1.57), aPAF 12%), shopping once (aOR 1.83 (1.36-2.45)) vs. more than three times a week, indoor leisure (aOR 1.24 (1.02-1.51), aPAF 10%) and indoor hospitality (aOR 1.21 (0.98-1.48), aPAF 7%). We found no association for outdoor hospitality (1.14 (0.94-1.39), aPAF 5%) or outdoor leisure (1.14 (0.82-1.59), aPAF 1%). CONCLUSION: Essential activities (work and public transport) carried the greatest risk and were the dominant contributors to infections. Non-essential indoor activities (hospitality and leisure) increased risk but contributed less. Outdoor activities carried no statistical risk and contributed to fewer infections. As countries aim to 'live with COVID', mitigating transmission in essential and indoor venues becomes increasingly relevant.

Occupational inhalational accidents: analysis of cases from the UK SWORD reporting scheme from 1999 to 2018.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the reported UK incidence of occupational inhalation accidents, and to consider changes of incidence and potential causes over time. METHODS: Cases of occupational inhalation accident reported to Surveillance of Work Related Occupational Respiratory Diseases (SWORD) over 20 years were grouped into four 5-year time periods. Cases were characterised by causative exposure, occupation and industrial sector. Incidence rates were calculated using Office of National Statistics employment data. RESULTS: The 172 actual cases reported to SWORD equated to an estimated 502 cases after adjusting for reporting frequency. Their mean age was 41.3 years (SD 12.3); 77% were male. The annual incidence fell from 1.7 per million employed in the first 5-year period, to 0.5 in the most recent. The most common occupations, responsible for 35% of all cases, were in descending order (number, % of total cases): Labourers in process and plant operations (8, 4.7), welding trades (8, 4.7), fire service officers (8, 4.7), heavy goods vehicle drivers (7, 4.1), metal working production and maintenance fitters (7, 4.1), civil service administrative officers and assistants (7, 4.1), food, drink and tobacco process operatives (6, 3.5), and three summated categories of elementary and service occupations including cleaners and domestics (10, 5.8).Three of 40 exposure categories were common to all time periods; acids (19.6% of all cases 1999-2004, 2.3% 2005-2009, 6.3% 2010-2013, 6.3% 2014-2018), chlorine/hypochlorites (7.2%, 7.0%, 2.5%, 6.3%, respectively) and solvents (14.4%, 11.6%, 12.5%, 6.3%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of inhalation accidents appears to have fallen, although certain exposures appear to be persistently linked to cases.

Risks of COVID-19 by occupation in NHS workers in England.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify occupational risks of COVID-19 among healthcare staff during the first wave (9 March 2020-31 July 2020) of the pandemic in England. METHODS: We used pseudonymised data on 902 813 individuals employed by 191 National Health Service trusts to explore demographic and occupational risk factors for sickness absence ascribed to COVID-19 (n=92 880). We estimated ORs by multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: With adjustment for employing trust, demographic characteristics and previous frequency of sickness absence, risk relative to administrative/clerical occupations was highest in 'additional clinical services' (care assistants and other occupations directly supporting those in clinical roles) (OR 2.31 (2.25 to 2.37)), registered nursing and midwifery professionals (OR 2.28 (2.23 to 2.34)) and allied health professionals (OR 1.94 (1.88 to 2.01)) and intermediate in doctors and dentists (OR 1.55 (1.50 to 1.61)). Differences in risk were higher after the employing trust had started to care for documented patients with COVID-19, and were reduced, but not eliminated, following additional adjustment for exposure to infected patients or materials, assessed by a job-exposure matrix. For prolonged COVID-19 sickness absence (episodes lasting >14 days), the variation in risk by staff group was somewhat greater. CONCLUSIONS: After allowance for possible bias and confounding by non-occupational exposures, we estimated that relative risks for COVID-19 among most patient-facing occupations were between 1.5 and 2.5. The highest risks were in those working in additional clinical services, nursing and midwifery and in allied health professions. Better protective measures for these staff groups should be a priority. COVID-19 may meet criteria for compensation as an occupational disease in some healthcare occupations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN36352994.

Occupation and COVID-19 mortality in England: a national linked data study of 14.3 million adults.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate occupational differences in COVID-19 mortality and test whether these are confounded by factors such as regional differences, ethnicity and education or due to non-workplace factors, such as deprivation or prepandemic health. METHODS: Using a cohort study of over 14 million people aged 40-64 years living in England, we analysed occupational differences in death involving COVID-19, assessed between 24 January 2020 and 28 December 2020.We estimated age-standardised mortality rates (ASMRs) per 100 000 person-years at risk stratified by sex and occupation. We estimated the effect of occupation on COVID-19 mortality using Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for confounding factors. We further adjusted for non-workplace factors and interpreted the residual effects of occupation as being due to workplace exposures to SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: In men, the ASMRs were highest among those working as taxi and cab drivers or chauffeurs at 119.7 deaths per 100 000 (95% CI 98.0 to 141.4), followed by other elementary occupations at 106.5 (84.5 to 132.4) and care workers and home carers at 99.2 (74.5 to 129.4). Adjusting for confounding factors strongly attenuated the HRs for many occupations, but many remained at elevated risk. Adjusting for living conditions reduced further the HRs, and many occupations were no longer at excess risk. For most occupations, confounding factors and mediators other than workplace exposure to SARS-CoV-2 explained 70%-80% of the excess age-adjusted occupational differences. CONCLUSIONS: Working conditions play a role in COVID-19 mortality, particularly in occupations involving contact with patients or the public. However, there is also a substantial contribution from non-workplace factors.

Impact of occupational pesticide exposure assessment method on risk estimates for prostate cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and Parkinson's disease: results of three meta-analyses.

Assessment of occupational pesticide exposure in epidemiological studies of chronic diseases is challenging. Biomonitoring of current pesticide levels might not correlate with past exposure relevant to disease aetiology, and indirect methods often rely on workers' imperfect recall of exposures, or job titles. We investigated how the applied exposure assessment method influenced risk estimates for some chronic diseases. In three meta-analyses the influence of exposure assessment method type on the summary risk ratio (sRR) of prostate cancer (PC) (25 articles), non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) (29 articles) and Parkinson's disease (PD) (32 articles) was investigated. Exposure assessment method types analysed were: group-level assessments (eg, job titles), self-reported exposures, expert-level assessments (eg, job-exposure matrices) and biomonitoring (eg, blood, urine). Additionally, sRRs were estimated by study design, publication year period and geographic location where the study was conducted. Exposure assessment method types were not associated with statistically significant different sRRs across any of the health outcomes. Heterogeneity in results varied from high in cancer studies to moderate and low in PD studies. Overall, case-control designs showed significantly higher sRR estimates than prospective cohort designs. Later NHL publications showed significantly higher sRR estimates than earlier. For PC, studies from North America showed significantly higher sRR estimates than studies from Europe. We conclude that exposure assessment method applied in studies of occupational exposure to pesticides appears not to have a significant effect on risk estimates for PC, NHL and PD. In systematic reviews of chronic health effects of occupational exposure to pesticides, epidemiological study design, publication year and geographic location, should primarily be considered.

Mitigating the impact of air pollution on dementia and brain health: Setting the policy agenda.

BACKGROUND: Emerging research suggests exposure to high levels of air pollution at critical points in the life-course is detrimental to brain health, including cognitive decline and dementia. Social determinants play a significant role, including socio-economic deprivation, environmental factors and heightened health and social inequalities. Policies have been proposed more generally, but their benefits for brain health have yet to be fully explored. OBJECTIVE AND METHODS: Over the course of two years, we worked as a consortium of 20+ academics in a participatory and consensus method to develop the first policy agenda for mitigating air pollution's impact on brain health and dementia, including an umbrella review and engaging 11 stakeholder organisations. RESULTS: We identified three policy domains and 14 priority areas. Research and Funding included: (1) embracing a complexities of place approach that (2) highlights vulnerable populations; (3) details the impact of ambient PM2.5 on brain health, including current and historical high-resolution exposure models; (4) emphasises the importance of indoor air pollution; (5) catalogues the multiple pathways to disease for brain health and dementia, including those most at risk; (6) embraces a life course perspective; and (7) radically rethinks funding. Education and Awareness included: (8) making this unrecognised public health issue known; (9) developing educational products; (10) attaching air pollution and brain health to existing strategies and campaigns; and (11) providing publicly available monitoring, assessment and screening tools. Policy Evaluation included: (12) conducting complex systems evaluation; (13) engaging in co-production; and (14) evaluating air quality policies for their brain health benefits. CONCLUSION: Given the pressing issues of brain health, dementia and air pollution, setting a policy agenda is crucial. Policy needs to be matched by scientific evidence and appropriate guidelines, including bespoke strategies to optimise impact and mitigate unintended consequences. The agenda provided here is the first step toward such a plan.