Despite mandated primary series, health care personnel still hesitant about COVID-19 vaccine and immunizing children.

IMPORTANCE: Healthcare personnel (HCP) are important messengers for promoting vaccines, for both adults and children. Our investigation describes perceptions of fully vaccinated HCP about COVID-19 vaccine for themselves and primary series for their children. OBJECTIVE: To determine associations between sociodemographic, employment characteristics and perceptions of COVID-19 vaccines among HCP overall and the subset of HCP with children, who were all mandated to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, in a large US metropolitan region. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of fully vaccinated HCP from a large integrated health system. SETTING: Participants were electronically enrolled within a multi-site NYS healthcare system from December 21, 2021, to January 21, 2022. PARTICIPANTS: Of 78,000 employees, approximately one-third accessed promotional emails; 6,537 employees started surveys and 4165 completed them. Immunocompromised HCP (self-reported) were excluded. EXPOSURE(S) (FOR OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES): We conducted a survey with measures including demographic variables, employment history, booster status, child vaccination status; vaccine recommendation, confidence, and knowledge. MAIN OUTCOME(S) AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy for all dose types - primary series or booster doses - among HCP. RESULTS: Findings from 4,165 completed surveys indicated that almost 17.2 % of all HCP, including administrative and clinical staff, were hesitant or unsure about receiving a COVID-19 vaccine booster, despite the NYS recommendation to do so. Depending on age group, between 20 % and 40 % of HCP were hesitant about having their children vaccinated for COVID-19, regardless of clinical versus non-clinical duties. In multivariable regression analyses, lack of booster dose, unvaccinated children, females, income less than $50,000, and residence in Manhattan remained significantly associated with vaccine hesitancy. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Despite mandated COVID-19 vaccination, a substantial proportion of HCP remained vaccine hesitant towards adult booster doses and pediatric COVID-19 vaccination. While provider recommendation has been the mainstay of combatting COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, a gap exists between HCP-despite clinical or administrative status-and the ability to communicate the need for vaccination in a healthcare setting. While previous studies describe the HCP vaccine mandate as a positive force to overcome vaccine hesitancy, we have found that despite a mandate, there is still substantial COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, misinformation, and reluctance to vaccinate children.

Association between prolonged exposure to long working hours and stroke subtypes in the CONSTANCES cohort.

BACKGROUND: Though there is increasing evidence on the effect of long working hours (LWH) and stroke, few studies have distinguished stroke subtypes. We examined the associations between LWH and ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors. METHODS: From a national population-based cohort CONSTANCES, baseline questionnaires and initial health examinations were used to retrieve sociodemographic and cardiovascular risk factors from 2012 to 2018. LWH were defined as self-reported working time≥10 hours daily for at least 50 days per year. Incident cases of stroke were collected using International Classification of Disease codes recorded in the National Health Data System. Associations between LWH and stroke were investigated using multinomial models adjusted for cardiovascular risk factors. RESULTS: Among the 160 751 participants who were free from stroke at baseline, exposure to LWH≥10 years was reported by 20 723 participants, and 190 incident cases of stroke were identified, including 134 ischaemic and 56 haemorrhagic. Exposure to LWH was associated with an elevated odds of ischaemic stroke (OR=1.61 (1.04-2.49)) and haemorrhagic stroke (OR=2.50 (1.38-4.53)) in unadjusted models. In adjusted multivariable models, only the LWH association with haemorrhagic stroke remained significant (aOR=1.92 (1.01-3.09)). CONCLUSIONS: LWH were associated with stroke, though it remained significant for haemorrhagic stroke only after adjustments. Differences in direct and indirect biological pathways and lack of power in the ischaemic subgroup may explain these results and further studies on the impact of mediating and effect measure modifying factors are needed. Nevertheless, policies that attenuate effects of both LWH and cardiovascular risks factor are warranted.

Comparison of different estimators of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic activity on geographical and temporal levels.

Background: Studies began investigating occupational exposures as a source of contamination to SARS-CoV-2, yet few considered the variation in SARS-Cov2 pandemic activity for these exposures. Several indicators were built to assess SARS-Cov2 activity though they usually serve a specific purpose and have limitations. The aim was to compare qualitatively different estimators of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic activity and to create an estimator of pandemic activity level based on daily hospital admissions for job-exposure matrices (JEM) usage. Methods: From publicly available French databases, we retrieved all data from March 19, 2020 (first day available) to March 25, 2021 (day of data collection) on four different estimators: percentage of intensive care bed occupied, reproductive number, tests' positive rate and number positive tests. An indicator based on new daily hospital admissions was created for a COVID JEM. Due to the heterogeneity of the estimators, a qualitative comparison was carried out. Results: During the study period, three major outbreaks took place. Though the number of positive tests was the first indicator to worsen during the 2nd outbreak, it failed to identify variation during the outbreak. Though each indicators behaved differently during the study period, the indicator based on new daily hospital admissions and the positive rate seemed to be the closest to one another. Conclusion: This study highlights the heterogeneity of the indicators used during the first and second SARS-Cov2 outbreaks in France. An indicator based on new daily hospital admissions seems to be a good candidate for estimating SARS-CoV-2 epidemic activity for COVID JEMs and is easily available in countries where usual indicators are not commonly accessible.

Association between COVID-19 infection and work exposure assessed by the Mat-O-Covid job exposure matrix in the CONSTANCES cohort.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has brought to light a new occupational health threat. We aimed to evaluate the association between COVID-19 infection and work exposure to SARS-CoV-2 assessed by a job-exposure matrix (JEM), in a large population cohort. We also estimated the population-attributable fraction among exposed subjects. METHODS: We used the SAPRIS-SERO sample of the CONSTANCES cohort, limited to subjects actively working, and with a job code available and a questionnaire on extra work activities. The following outcomes were assessed: COVID-19 diagnosis was made by a physician; a seropositivity to the ELISA-S test ('serology strict') and ELISA-S test intermediate with positive ELISA-NP or a positive neutralising antibodies SN ('serology large'). Job exposure was assessed using Mat-O-Covid, an expert-based JEM with an Index used as a continuous variable and a threshold at 13/1000. RESULTS: The sample included 18 999 subjects with 389 different jobs, 47.7% were men with a mean age of 46.2 years (±9.2 years). The Mat-O-Covid index taken as a continuous variable or with a threshold greater than 13/1000 was associated with all the outcomes in bivariable and multivariable logistic models. ORs were between 1.30 and 1.58, and proportion of COVID-19 attributable to work among exposed participants was between 20% and 40%. DISCUSSION: Using the Mat-O-Covid JEM applied to a large population, we found a significant association between work exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 infection, though the estimation of attributable fraction among exposed people remained low to moderate. Further studies during other exposed periods and with other methods are necessary.

Association between reported work in cold environments and stroke occurrence in the CONSTANCES cohort: a prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: Cold environments are a potential risk factor for stroke. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between performing work tasks in cold environments and the occurrence of a first stroke event. METHODS: From the French population-based cohort CONSTANCES ('Cohorte des consultants des Centres d'examens de santé' in French), we collected data from baseline questionnaires along with medical interviews on cardiovascular risk factors and reported exposure to cold temperatures (<10°C) at work. Exposures were categorised as rare (<2 hours/day), often (≥2 and <4 hours/day) and almost always (≥4 hours/day). Incidence of stroke was retrieved from the French National Health database. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the association between working in cold environments and the incidence of stroke. Stratified analyses on stroke types were also conducted. RESULTS: There were 160 782 participants and 224 strokes (168 ischaemic and 76 haemorrhagic) included in our study. No significant increase in stroke was found for working in cold environments; the adjusted OR for often or almost always exposed was 1.14 (95% CI 0.46 to 2.84). CONCLUSIONS: This study did not reveal a significant excess risk of stroke for occupational exposures to low temperatures. Further studies are needed to better assess the effect of preventive measures and very low temperature on occurrence of cardiovascular diseases.

Mat-O-Covid: Validation of a SARS-CoV-2 Job Exposure Matrix (JEM) Using Data from a National Compensation System for Occupational COVID-19.

Background. We aimed to assess the validity of the Mat-O-Covid Job Exposure Matrix (JEM) on SARS-CoV-2 using compensation data from the French National Health Insurance compensation system for occupational-related COVID-19. Methods. Deidentified compensation data for occupational COVID-19 in France were obtained between August 2020 and August 2021. The case acceptance was considered as the reference. Mat-O-Covid is an expert-based French JEM on workplace exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Bi- and multivariable models were used to study the association between the exposure assessed by Mat-O-Covid and the reference, as well as the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratios. Results. In the 1140 cases included, there was a close association between the Mat-O-Covid index and the reference (p < 0.0001). The overall predictivity was good, with an AUC of 0.78 and an optimal threshold at 13 per thousand. Using Youden's J statistic resulted in 0.67 sensitivity and 0.87 specificity. Both positive and negative likelihood ratios were significant: 4.9 [2.4−6.4] and 0.4 [0.3−0.4], respectively. Discussion. It was possible to assess Mat-O-Covid's validity using data from the national compensation system for occupational COVID-19. Though further studies are needed, Mat-O-Covid exposure assessment appears to be accurate enough to be used in research.

Associations of employment status with opioid misuse: Evidence from a nationally representative survey in the U.S.

The opioid crisis in the United States (U.S.) is widespread and increasing in severity, and psychosocial exposures have been identified as potential risk factors. We examined associations of employment status with opioid misuse in a large, nationally representative, population-based sample in the U.S. Data were from the 2019 National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), an annual cross-sectional survey. The association of employment status with opioid misuse in 40,143 participants was examined by multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, marital status, household income, educational attainment, medical insurance status, physical health conditions and depression. Analyses were weighted to represent a nationally representative sample of adults in the U.S. In NSDUH 2019, 3.82% of American individuals reported past-year opioid misuse. After taking relevant variables into account, compared to workers who were employed with normal working hours (35-40 h/week), those who were currently unemployed had higher odds of opioid misuse (fully adjusted odds ratio and 95% confidence interval were 1.40 [1.09, 1.79]). Compared to workers employed with normal working hours, those who were in school/training or retired had lower odds of opioid misuse. Short or long working hours were not associated with opioid misuse. Government and employer policy interventions may benefit from emphasizing stable employment as a major social determinant of health in the context of the opioid crisis.

Human chlorine gas exposition and its management - an umbrella review on human data.

Even though exposure to chlorine gas has been quite frequent in the past few decades, no specific antidotes exist. This umbrella review aimed to investigate possible recommendations for treatment after a chlorine gas exposure. A published systematic review protocol that adapted the existing Navigation Guide methodology was used for including studies without comparator. Using PubMed, Web of Science, Google scholar for all potentially relevant systematic reviews, two authors independently included papers and extracted data. The risk of bias and quality of evidence was assessed by two independent review teams blinded to each other. A qualitative summary of the study findings was conducted for this overview. There were a total of 31 studies, from 4 systematic reviews, that met the inclusion criteria, comprising 3567 reported cases, with only two studies with comparators. Six studies reported pre-hospital management of patients after exposure to chlorine gas. With respect to the treatment, the most used were oxygen therapy, endotracheal intubation, ß2-agonists, and corticosteroids. This review found a high quality of evidence for the effectiveness of pre-hospital management (i.e. exposure cessation) on survival at hospital discharge after exposure to chlorine gas. Oxygen administration was effective with moderate quality of evidence, as well as other types of treatment (e.g. ß2, corticosteroids), but with a low level of evidence. This umbrella review highlighted the low level of evidence for existing treatments of chlorine gas poisoning. This project was supported by the French Pays de la Loire region and Angers Loire Métropole (TEC-TOP project). There is no award/grant number. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO under the registration number CRD42021231524.

Ergonomic exposures and control measures associated with mass fatality decedent handling in morgues and body collection points in a New York healthcare system during COVID-19: A case series.

INTRODUCTION: In April 2020, novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) produced an ongoing mass fatality event in New York. This overwhelmed hospital morgues necessitating emergent expansion of capacity in the form of refrigerated trucks, trailers, and shipping containers referred to as body collection points (BCPs). The risks for musculoskeletal injury during routine and mass fatality mortuary operations and experiences of decedent handlers throughout the "first wave" of COVID-19 are presented along with mitigation strategies. METHODS: Awareness of the high rates of musculoskeletal injury among health care workers due to ergonomic exposures from patient handling, including heavy and repetitive manual lifting, prompted safety walkthroughs of mortuary operations at multiple hospitals within a health system in New York State by workforce safety specialists. Site visits sought to identify ergonomic exposures and ameliorate risk for injury associated with decedent handling by implementing engineering, work practice, and administrative controls. RESULTS: Musculoskeletal exposures included manual lifting of decedents to high and low surfaces, non-neutral postures, maneuvering of heavy equipment, and push/pull forces associated with the transport of decedents. DISCUSSION: Risk mitigation strategies through participatory ergonomics, education on body mechanics, development of novel handling techniques implementing friction-reducing aides, procurement of specialized equipment, optimizing BCP design, and facilitation of communication between hospital and system-wide departments are presented along with lessons learned. After-action review of health system workers' compensation data found over four thousand lost workdays due to decedent handling related incidents, which illuminates the magnitude of musculoskeletal injury risk to decedent handlers.

Assessor burden, inter-rater agreement and user experience of the RoB-SPEO tool for assessing risk of bias in studies estimating prevalence of exposure to occupational risk factors: An analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury.

BACKGROUND: As part of the development of the World Health Organization (WHO)/International Labour Organization (ILO) Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury, WHO and ILO carried out several systematic reviews to determine the prevalence of exposure to selected occupational risk factors. Risk of bias assessment for individual studies is a critical step of a systematic review. No tool existed for assessing the risk of bias in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors, so WHO and ILO developed and pilot tested the RoB-SPEO tool for this purpose. Here, we investigate the assessor burden, inter-rater agreement, and user experience of this new instrument, based on the abovementioned WHO/ILO systematic reviews. METHODS: Twenty-seven individual experts applied RoB-SPEO to assess risk of bias. Four systematic reviews provided a total of 283 individual assessments, carried out for 137 studies. For each study, two or more assessors independently assessed risk of bias across the eight RoB-SPEO domains selecting one of RoB-SPEO's six ratings (i.e., "low", "probably low", "probably high", "high", "unclear" or "cannot be determined"). Assessors were asked to report time taken (i.e. indicator of assessor burden) to complete each assessment and describe their user experience. To gauge assessor burden, we calculated the median and inter-quartile range of times taken per individual risk of bias assessment. To assess inter-rater reliability, we calculated a raw measure of inter-rater agreement (Pi) for each RoB-SPEO domain, between Pi = 0.00, indicating no agreement and Pi = 1.00, indicating perfect agreement. As subgroup analyses, Pi was also disaggregated by systematic review, assessor experience with RoB-SPEO (≤10 assessments versus > 10 assessments), and assessment time (tertiles: ≤25 min versus 26-66 min versus ≥ 67 min). To describe user experience, we synthesised the assessors' comments and recommendations. RESULTS: Assessors reported a median of 40 min to complete one assessment (interquartile range 21-120 min). For all domains, raw inter-rater agreement ranged from 0.54 to 0.82. Agreement varied by systematic review and assessor experience with RoB-SPEO between domains, and increased with increasing assessment time. A small number of users recommended further development of instructions for selected RoB-SPEO domains, especially bias in selection of participants into the study (domain 1) and bias due to differences in numerator and denominator (domain 7). DISCUSSION: Overall, our results indicated good agreement across the eight domains of the RoB-SPEO tool. The median assessment time was comparable to that of other risk of bias tools, indicating comparable assessor burden. However, there was considerable variation in time taken to complete assessments. Additional time spent on assessments may improve inter-rater agreement. Further development of the RoB-SPEO tool could focus on refining instructions for selected RoB-SPEO domains and additional testing to assess agreement for different topic areas and with a wider range of assessors from different research backgrounds.

Job-Exposure Matrix: A Useful Tool for Incorporating Workplace Exposure Data Into Population Health Research and Practice.

Workplace exposures to physical, chemical, and psychosocial factors account for a large burden of chronic diseases. Obtaining useful estimates of current and past workplace exposures is challenging, particularly in large general population studies. Job-exposure matrices (JEMs) are a useful tool for exposure assessment, particularly when no individual level exposure data are available. A JEM provides a cross-tabulation of job titles (sometimes combined with industry) and estimated exposures to workers carrying out these jobs during different time periods. The major limitation of JEMs is that they do not account for individual variation in exposures within the same job. This limitation is offset by the advantages of low cost, wide applicability, lack of bias from self-reporting, and the ability to estimate exposures based on job titles when no other exposure data exist. There is growing use of JEMs in research examining the role of workplace exposures in the development of chronic diseases, and interest in their application to public health practice. This paper provides a scoping review of JEM use, some examples of JEMs, and brief guidance for the application of JEMs in epidemiological research. In conclusion, JEMs provide a useful tool for researchers and public health practitioners to estimate occupational exposures in large scale epidemiological studies relevant to many health conditions.

A Protocol for the Use of Case Reports/Studies and Case Series in Systematic Reviews for Clinical Toxicology.

Introduction: Systematic reviews are routinely used to synthesize current science and evaluate the evidential strength and quality of resulting recommendations. For specific events, such as rare acute poisonings or preliminary reports of new drugs, we posit that case reports/studies and case series (human subjects research with no control group) may provide important evidence for systematic reviews. Our aim, therefore, is to present a protocol that uses rigorous selection criteria, to distinguish high quality case reports/studies and case series for inclusion in systematic reviews. Methods: This protocol will adapt the existing Navigation Guide methodology for specific inclusion of case studies. The usual procedure for systematic reviews will be followed. Case reports/studies and case series will be specified in the search strategy and included in separate sections. Data from these sources will be extracted and where possible, quantitatively synthesized. Criteria for integrating cases reports/studies and case series into the overall body of evidence are that these studies will need to be well-documented, scientifically rigorous, and follow ethical practices. The instructions and standards for evaluating risk of bias will be based on the Navigation Guide. The risk of bias, quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations will be assessed by two independent review teams that are blinded to each other. Conclusion: This is a protocol specified for systematic reviews that use case reports/studies and case series to evaluate the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in disciplines like clinical toxicology, where case reports/studies are the norm.

Patterns of negative seroconversion in ongoing surveys of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among workers in New York's largest healthcare system.

OBJECTIVES: Given the importance of continued COVID-19 surveillance, our objective was to present findings from a short follow-up survey of workforce SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing in previously seropositive participants and describe associations between work locations and negative seroconversion. METHODS: We conducted a follow-up cross-sectional survey on previously seropositive healthcare workers, using questionnaires and serology testing. Eligible employees previously consented to be contacted were invited by email to participate in a survey and laboratory blood draws. SAS V.9.4 was used to describe employee characteristics and seroconversion status. Binomial regression models were used to calculate unadjusted and adjusted prevalence ratios (PRs) of seronegativity. The multivariable analyses included age, gender, race/ethnicity, region of residence, work location, prior diagnosis/PCR results and days between antibody tests. Unadjusted and adjusted PRs 95% CIs and p values were reported. RESULTS: Of the 3990 employees emailed in the follow-up, 1631 completed an exposure survey and generated a blood-draw requisition form. Average time between serology testing was 4 months. Of the 955 employees with complete serology results, 79.1% were female, 53.4% were white and 46.4% resided in Long Island; 176 participants seroconverted to negative. In multivariable regression analyses adjusted for gender, race/ethnicity and region of residence, younger employees (<20-30 years), intensive care unit workers and those with no/negative prior PCR results were more likely to have negative seroconversion. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Patterns of negative seroconversion showed significant differences by sociodemographic and workplace characteristics. These results contribute information to workplace serosurveillance.

The effect of exposure to long working hours on depression: 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 the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), supported by a large number of individual experts. Evidence from previous reviews suggests that exposure to long working hours may cause depression. In this article, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of parameters for estimating (if feasible) the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from depression that are attributable to exposure to long working hours, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of exposure to long working hours (three categories: 41-48, 49-54 and ≥55 h/week), compared with exposure to standard working hours (35-40 h/week), on depression (three outcomes: prevalence, incidence and mortality). 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 WHO International Clinical Trial Registers Platform, Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CISDOC and PsycInfo. We also searched grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews; 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 (aged <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 exposure to long working hours (41-48, 49-54 and ≥55 h/week), compared with exposure to standard working hours (35-40 h/week), on depression (prevalence, incidence and/or mortality). 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-effects meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias, quality of evidence and strength of evidence, using Navigation Guide and GRADE tools and approaches adapted to this project. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies (all cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 109,906 participants (51,324 females) in 32 countries (as one study included multiple countries) in three WHO regions (Americas, Europe and Western Pacific). The exposure was measured using self-reports in all studies, and the outcome was assessed with a clinical diagnostic interview (four studies), interview questions about diagnosis and treatment of depression (three studies) or a validated self-administered rating scale (15 studies). The outcome was defined as incident depression in all 22 studies, with first time incident depression in 21 studies and recurrence of depression in one study. We did not identify any study on prevalence of depression or on mortality from depression. For the body of evidence for the outcome incident depression, we had serious concerns for risk of bias due to selection because of incomplete outcome data (most studies assessed depression only twice, at baseline and at a later follow-up measurement, and likely have missed cases of depression that occurred after baseline but were in remission at the time of the follow-up measurement) and due to missing information on life-time prevalence of depression before baseline measurement. Compared with working 35-40 h/week, we are uncertain about the effect on acquiring (or incidence of) depression of working 41-48 h/week (pooled odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.29, 8 studies, 49,392 participants, I2 46%, low quality of evidence); 49-54 h/week (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.21, 8 studies, 49,392 participants, I2 40%, low quality of evidence); and ≥ 55 h/week (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.24, 17 studies, 91,142 participants, I2 46%, low quality of evidence). Subgroup analyses found no evidence for statistically significant (P < 0.05) differences by WHO region, sex, age group and socioeconomic status. Sensitivity analyses found no statistically significant differences by outcome measurement (clinical diagnostic interview [gold standard] versus other measures) and risk of bias ("high"/"probably high" ratings in any domain versus "low"/"probably low" in all domains). CONCLUSIONS: We judged the existing bodies of evidence from human data as "inadequate evidence for harmfulness" for all three exposure categories, 41-48, 48-54 and ≥55 h/week, for depression prevalence, incidence and mortality; the available evidence is insufficient to assess effects of the exposure. Producing estimates of the burden of depression attributable to exposure to long working appears not evidence-based at this point. Instead, studies examining the association between long working hours and risk of depression are needed that address the limitations of the current evidence.

The effect of exposure to long working hours on alcohol consumption, risky drinking and alcohol use disorder: 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 exposure to long working hours may increase alcohol consumption and cause alcohol use disorder. In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of parameters for estimating the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from alcohol consumption and alcohol use disorder that are attributable to exposure to long working hours, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of exposure to long working hours (three categories: 41-48, 49-54 and ≥55 h/week), compared with exposure to standard working hours (35-40 h/week), on alcohol consumption, risky drinking (three outcomes: prevalence, incidence and mortality) and alcohol use disorder (three outcomes: prevalence, incidence and mortality). DATA SOURCES: We developed and published a protocol, applying the Navigation Guide as an organizing systematic review framework where feasible. We searched electronic bibliographic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including the WHO International Clinical Trials Register, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and CISDOC on 30 June 2018. Searches on PubMed were updated on 18 April 2020. 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 considered for inclusion randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the effect of exposure to long working hours (41-48, 49-54 and ≥55 h/week), compared with exposure to standard working hours (35-40 h/week), on alcohol consumption (in g/week), risky drinking, and alcohol use disorder (prevalence, incidence or mortality). 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 publications related to qualifying studies. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias, quality of evidence and strength of evidence, using Navigation Guide and GRADE tools and approaches adapted to this project. RESULTS: Fourteen cohort studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 104,599 participants (52,107 females) in six countries of three WHO regions (Americas, South-East Asia, and Europe). The exposure and outcome were assessed with self-reported measures in most studies. Across included studies, risk of bias was generally probably high, with risk judged high or probably high for detection bias and missing data for alcohol consumption and risky drinking. Compared to working 35-40 h/week, exposure to working 41-48 h/week increased alcohol consumption by 10.4 g/week (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.59-15.20; seven studies; 25,904 participants, I2 71%, low quality evidence). Exposure to working 49-54 h/week increased alcohol consumption by 17.69 g/week (95% confidence interval (CI) 9.16-26.22; seven studies, 19,158 participants, I2 82%, low quality evidence). Exposure to working ≥55 h/week increased alcohol consumption by 16.29 g/week (95% confidence interval (CI) 7.93-24.65; seven studies; 19,692 participants; I2 82%, low quality evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of exposure to working 41-48 h/week, compared with working 35-40 h/week on developing risky drinking (relative risk 1.08; 95% CI 0.86-1.36; 12 studies; I2 52%, low certainty evidence). Working 49-54 h/week did not increase the risk of developing risky drinking (relative risk 1.12; 95% CI 0.90-1.39; 12 studies; 3832 participants; I2 24%, moderate certainty evidence), nor working ≥55 h/week (relative risk 1.11; 95% CI 0.95-1.30; 12 studies; 4525 participants; I2 0%, moderate certainty evidence). Subgroup analyses indicated that age may influence the association between long working hours and both alcohol consumption and risky drinking. We did not identify studies for which we had access to results on alcohol use disorder. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, for alcohol consumption in g/week and for risky drinking, we judged this body of evidence to be of low certainty. Exposure to long working hours may have increased alcohol consumption, but we are uncertain about the effect on risky drinking. We found no eligible studies on the effect on alcohol use disorder. Producing estimates for the burden of alcohol use disorder attributable to exposure to long working hours appears to not be evidence-based at this time. PROTOCOL IDENTIFIER: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.07.025. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018084077.

Cumulative Exposure to Long Working Hours and Occurrence of Ischemic Heart Disease: Evidence From the CONSTANCES Cohort at Inception.

Background Long-working hours (LWH) are a probable risk factor for ischemic heart diseases (IHD); however, no previous study has considered duration of exposure to LWH when addressing this topic. We aimed to determine the association between cumulative exposure to LWH and IHD while accounting for relevant confounders. Methods and Results In this retrospective study, we included all baseline participants from the French population-based cohort CONSTANCES. Part-time employees and those who reported a cardiac event in the 5 years before LWH exposure were excluded. From self-administered questionnaires and clinical examinations, we obtained participants' age, sex, body mass index, occupational status, smoking habits, high blood pressure, diabetes mellitus, familial history of cardiovascular disease, dyslipidemia, exposure to LWH, and its duration. We defined LWH as working for >10 hours daily for at least 50 days per year. The main outcome was reported history of IHD, ie, myocardial infarction or angina pectoris, during a clinical examination. Of 137 854 included participants, 69 774 were men. There were 1875 cases (1.36%) of IHD, and exposure to LWH was reported by 42 462 subjects (30.8%) among whom 14 474 (10.50%) reported exposure for at least 10 years. Overall, exposure to LWH for ≥10 years was associated with an increased risk of IHD, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.24 (1.08-1.43), P=0.0021. In stratified analyses, this effect was not observed in women, but was significant amongst men, aOR 1.28 (1.11-1.48), P=0.0008. Conclusions This large population-based study supports an association between cumulative exposure to LWH and IHD in men. Future research should consider relevant strategies for reducing LWH exposure and duration.