[Expectations And Motivations Of Young Occupational Medical Physicians: A Quantitative Survey Of Five German Academies]. / Erwartungen und Motive des arbeitsmedizinischen Nachwuchses: eine quantitative Befragung in fünf deutschen Akademien.

STUDY AIM: The aim of this study was to describe the characteristics of future occupational physicians and to evaluate their expectations from and motivations for undertaking postgraduate medical education courses in occupational medicine. This will provide a basis for further increasing the attractiveness of occupational medicine as a discipline in preventive medicine and counteracting the shortage of occupational medical physicians. METHODS: At five locations in Germany, physicians in postgraduate medical education courses in occupational medicine were asked about their expectations from occupational medicine, their reasons for starting postgraduate medical education courses, and their assessment of these courses. The survey took place between 2018 and 2021. The data were analysed descriptively, and a cluster analysis was applied to identify the types of motives for continuing postgraduate medical education courses in occupational medicine. RESULTS: Of the 233 respondents, the majority were female (68.5%) and the mean age was 43.1 years (SD 7.9 years). The response at the State Chamber of Physicians of Saxony was 50% and at the remaining four academies was between 18% and 23%. The analysis revealed four different types of motives: "career & interest", "work & life balance", "self-employment" and "desire for change". Two-thirds of the participants were in favour of a greater integration of occupational medicine into medical school curriculum. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that there are different motives that lead physicians to pursue continuing education in occupational medicine. These motives should be considered when recruiting young occupational physicians.

Occupational psychosocial exposures and chronic low-back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the association between occupational psychosocial exposures and chronic low-back pain (LBP) by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: The research protocol was registered in PROSPERO. A systematic literature search was performed in six databases, identifying articles complying with predefined inclusion criteria. In our PECOS, we defined outcome as chronic LBP ≥3 months, exposures as occupational psychosocial exposures, and restricted study design to case-control and cohort studies. Two authors independently excluded articles, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and graded evidence levels. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models. RESULTS: The 20 included articles encompassed six different occupational psychosocial exposures (job control, demand, strain, support, stress, and satisfaction), only 1 had low risk of bias. For all occupational psychosocial exposures, odds ratios ranged from 0.8 to 1.1. Sensitivity analyses based on risk of bias was conducted for two outcomes ie, job control and job demand, finding no differences between high and low-to-moderate risk of bias studies. Using GRADE, we found a very low level of evidence of the association for all occupational psychosocial exposures. CONCLUSION: In this study, we found no association between occupational psychosocial exposures and chronic LBP. However, it is important to underline that the level of evidence was very low. High quality studies are highly warranted.

Hip osteoarthritis and occupational mechanical exposures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the association between occupational mechanical exposures and hip osteoarthritis. METHODS: The study was registered in PROSPERO. A systematic literature search was conducted in six databases to identify relevant articles. Two authors independently excluded articles, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias of each included article, and graded the level of evidence. We conducted a meta-analysis using random-effects model and performed a sensitivity analysis stratifying articles based on the risk of bias assessment, study design, and the outcome measurement. RESULTS: Twenty-four articles were eligible for inclusion. The highest pooled odds ratio (OR) was found for combined mechanical exposures [OR 1.7, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4-2.0], non-neutral postures (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.4-2.1), lifting/carrying loads (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.3-1.9), and climbing stairs (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.2). The range of pooled OR for the remaining mechanical exposures (eg, standing, walking, kneeling, squatting, and sitting) was 0.6-1.6. Grading the quality of evidence, a moderate level of evidence was found for the combined mechanical exposures and for lifting/carrying loads. The remaining exposure categories were graded as having either low or very low levels of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable heterogeneity was observed across the included studies, and high-quality literature using objective exposure measurements is warranted. Despite various limitations affecting the comparability, occupational mechanical exposures seem to influence the likelihood of developing hip osteoarthritis.

Impact of sitting at work on musculoskeletal complaints of German workers - results from the study on mental health at work (S-MGA).

INTRODUCTION: Sedentary behavior (including prolonged sitting) is a form of physical inactivity that has a negative impact on health, possibly including musculoskeletal complaints (MSCs). The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which time spent sitting at work is associated with the one-year prevalence of MSCs in the neck, shoulder, upper back/thoracic spine, and lower back among workers from the Study of Mental Health in the Workplace (S-MGA). In addition, the study also examined whether leisure time, physical activity, and sex modify the relationship between occupational sitting and MSCs. METHODS: For this analysis, we used the S-MGA, a 5-year prospective study in Germany. The S-MGA is a nationwide representative employee cohort study with a baseline survey in 2012 and a follow-up survey in 2017. Sitting at work was measured using a question asked at baseline. The Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire was used to determine the one-year prevalence of MSCs in the neck, shoulder, upper back, and lower back pain (yes/no). The assessment of MSCs was only conducted at the 2017 follow-up. Adjusted Poisson regression models were used to determine the association of baseline level of weekly hours spent sitting at work with MSCs during follow-up. In addition to unadjusted models, models were adjusted for demographic (age, sex, body mass index and occupational skill level), occupational (heavy lifting at work), psychological disorders and lifestyle factors (smoking status and leisure time physical activity), as well as preexisting musculoskeletal conditions reported at baseline. To examine whether the relationship between sitting time and pain was modified by sex and leisure time physical activity, the models were stratified for both these variables. RESULTS: Among the participants analyzed (n = 2,082), 49.8% were male, while 50.2% were female, and more than 60% of the study population spent over half of their working hours in a sitting position. Exposure to increased sitting at work reported at baseline was not consistently associated with 12-month prevalence of MSCs in the upper body at follow-up. However, differences in the association between occupational sitting and MSCs were dependent on the intensity of leisure time physical activity. Prevalence ratios (PRs) indicated an increased prevalence of MSC in the neck (PR = 1.46; 95% CI = 1.18-1.80) and shoulder (PR = 1.30; 95% CI = 1.03-1.64) in workers without leisure time physical activity who spent 25 to < 35 weekly working hours sitting. DISCUSSION: These findings suggest that leisure time physical activity interacts with the relationship between sitting at work and MSCs. The relationship between sitting at work and musculoskeletal pain needs further investigation, but we found indications that leisure time physical activity may counter the effects of sitting at work.

Night shift work and cardiovascular diseases among employees in Germany: five-year follow-up of the Gutenberg Health Study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine if there is an increased risk of incident cardiovascular diseases (CVD) resulting from cumulative night shift work in the German population-based Gutenberg Health Study (GHS). METHODS: We examined working participants of the GHS at baseline and after five years. Cumulative night shift work in the 10 years before baseline was assessed and categorized as low (1-220 nights ≙ up to 1 year), middle (221-660 nights ≙ 1-3 years), and high (>660 nights ≙ more than 3 years) night shift exposure. Hazard ratios (HR) were estimated for incident "quality-assured CVD events" using Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: At baseline, 1092 of 8167 working participants performed night shift work. During the follow-up, 202 incident cardiovascular events occurred. The crude incidence rates for CVD per 1000 person-years were 6.88 [95% confidence interval (CI) 4.80-9.55] for night shift workers and 5.19 (95% CI 4.44-6.04) for day workers. Cumulative incidence curves showed a higher cumulative incidence in workers exposed to night shift work compared to day workers after five years. The adjusted HR for incident CVD events were 1.26 (95% CI 0.68-2.33), 1.37 (95% CI 0.74-2.53) and 1.19 (95% CI 0.67-2.12) for employees in the low, middle and high night shift categories compared to employees without night shift work, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The observed tendencies indicate that night shift work might be negatively associated with cardiovascular health. We expect the continued follow-up will clarify the long-term impact of night shift work.

Dose-response-relationship between occupational exposure to diesel engine emissions and lung cancer risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In 2012, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that diesel engine emissions (DEE) emissions cause cancer in humans. However, there is still controversy surrounding this conclusion, due to several studies since the IARC decision citing a lack of evidence of a dose-response relationship. OBJECTIVES: Through a systematic review, we aimed to evaluate all evidence on the association between occupational DEE and lung cancer to investigate whether there is an increased risk of lung cancer for workers exposed to DEE and if so, to describe the dose-response relationship. METHODS: We registered the review protocol with PROSPERO and searched for observational studies in relevant literature databases. Two independent reviewers screened the studies' titles/abstracts and full texts, and extracted and assessed their quality. Studies with no direct DEE measurement but with information on length of exposure for high-risk occupations were assigned exposure values based on the DEE Job-Exposure-Matrix (DEE-JEM). After assessing quality and informativeness, we selected appropriate studies for the dose-response meta-analysis. RESULTS: Sixty-five reports (from thirty-seven studies) were included in the review; one had a low risk of bias (RoB) (RR per 10 µg/m3-years: 1.014 [95%CI 1.007-1.021]). There was an increased, statistically significant risk of lung cancer with increasing DEE exposure for all studies (RR per 10 µg/m3-years = 1.013 [95%CI 1.004-1.021]) as well as for studies with a low RoB in the exposure category (RR per 10 µg/m3-years = 1.008 [95% CI1.001-1.015]). We obtained a doubling dose of 555 µg/m3-years for all studies and 880 µg/m3-years for studies with high quality in the exposure assessment. DISCUSSION: We found a linear positive dose-response relationship for studies with high quality in the exposure domain, even though all studies had an overall high risk of bias. Current threshold levels for DEE exposure at the workplace should be reconsidered.

[The Role of Specific Study-Related Demands and Resources to Student Health and Life Satisfaction]. / Die Bedeutung spezifischer studienbedingter Anforderungen und Ressourcen für die Gesundheit und Lebenszufriedenheit von Studierenden.

BACKGROUND: Studies report an association between study conditions and student health outcomes. The aim was to investigate the influence of specific study-related demands and resources on self-assessed health. METHOD: Students of the Technical University of Dresden were surveyed online about their health and their studies. Referring to the Study Demands-Resources Model descriptive and regression analytic methods were applied. RESULTS: 1,312 students were included in the analyses. About one-fifth of participants reported low life satisfaction and high exhaustion. Time and cognitive demands were associated with poorer health, social support and time margin in studies were linked to better health. This relationship was particularly evident with a combination of high demands and low resources. CONCLUSION: The results provide approaches for preventive measures to strengthen the health of students.

Socioeconomic differences in the utilization of diagnostic imaging and non-pharmaceutical conservative therapies for spinal diseases.

BACKGROUND: A different utilization of health care services due to socioeconomic status on the same health plan contradicts the principle of equal treatment. We investigated the presence and magnitude of socioeconomic differences in utilization of diagnostic imaging and non-pharmaceutical conservative therapies for patients with spinal diseases. METHODS: The cohort study based on routine healthcare data from Germany with 11.7 million patient-years between 2012 and 2016 for patients with physician-confirmed spinal diseases (ICD-10: M40-M54), occupation and age 20 to 64 years. A Poisson model estimated the effects of the socioeconomic status (school education, professional education and occupational position) for the risk ratio of receiving diagnostic imaging (radiography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging) and non-pharmaceutical conservative therapies (physical therapy including exercise therapy, manual therapy and massage, spinal manipulative therapy, acupuncture). RESULTS: Patients received diagnostic imaging in 26%, physical therapy in 32%, spinal manipulative therapy in 25%, and acupuncture in 4% of all patient-years. Similar to previous survey-based studies higher rates of utilization were associated with higher socioeconomic status. These differences were most pronounced for manual therapy, exercise therapy, and magnetic resonance imaging. CONCLUSIONS: The observed differences in health care utilization were highly related to socioeconomic status. Socioeconomic differences were higher for more expensive health services. Further research is necessary to identify barriers to equitable access to health services and to take appropriate action to decrease existing social disparities.

Occupational mechanical exposures as risk factor for chronic low-back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The association between occupational mechanical exposures and low-back pain (LBP) has been studied in several systematic reviews. However, no systematic review addressing chronic LBP exists. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the association between occupational mechanical exposures and chronic LBP. METHODS: The study was registered in PROSPERO. We used an existing systematic review to identify articles published before January 2014. For studies published between January 2014 and September 2022, a systematic literature search was conducted in six databases. Two authors independently excluded articles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and level of evidence (GRADE). Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models comparing highest versus lowest exposure group with sensitivity analyses based on study quality (low/moderate versus high risk of bias), study design (cohort versus case-control), and outcome definition (non-specific LBP versus specific chronic LBP). RESULTS: Twenty-six articles were included. Highest pooled odd ratios (OR) were found for combined mechanical exposures [OR 2.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4-3.6], lifting/carrying loads (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.4-2.2), and non-neutral postures (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2-1.9). For the remaining mechanical exposures (ie, whole-body vibrations, standing/walking, and sitting), OR ranged between 1.0 and 1.4. In the sensitivity analyses, generally, higher pooled OR were found in low/moderate risk of bias studies, case-control studies, and studies of specific chronic LBP. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate evidence of an association was found for lifting/carrying loads, non-neutral postures, and combined mechanical exposures. Low or very low evidence was found for whole-body vibrations, standing/walking, and sitting. Studies using standardized exposure definition, metric, and technical measurements are highly warranted.

[Effects of Wearing Face Masks to Prevent Infectious Diseases On Children's and Adolescents' Well-Being and Behavior: An Interview Study]. / Auswirkungen des Tragens von Gesichtsmasken zur Prävention von Infektionskrankheiten auf das Befinden und Verhalten von Kindern und Jugendlichen: Eine Interviewstudie.

AIM: To investigate the effects of wearing masks in terms of well-being, behavior and psychosocial development on children and adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Expert interviews were conducted with educators (n=2), teachers from primary and secondary education (n=9), adolescent student representatives (n=5) as well as paediatricians from primary care (n=3) and the public health service (n=1), transcribed and subjected to thematic analysis using MAXQDA 2020. RESULTS: The most frequently reported short- and medium-term direct effects of mask-wearing were primarily in terms of limited communication due to a reduction in hearing and facial expressions. These restrictions in communication had consequences for social interaction and teaching quality. It is assumed that there will be effects on language development and social-emotional development in the future. A reported increase in psychosomatic complaints as well as anxiety, depression and eating disorders was attributed more to the conglomerate of distancing interventions than to just wearing of masks. Vulnerable groups were children with developmental difficulties, those with German as a foreign language, younger children, and shy and quiet children and adolescents. CONCLUSION: While the consequences of mask-wearing for children and adolescents can be described quite well for different aspects of communication and interaction, effects on aspects of psychosocial development cannot be clearly identified yet. Recommendations are made primarily for dealing with the limitations in the school setting.

Health effects of railway-induced vibration combined with railway noise - A systematic review with exposure-effect curves.

BACKGROUND: The combined health impact of concurrent railway noise and railway vibration exposure is not yet well understood. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review gives an overview of epidemiological studies on health effects from railway vibration, aiming to quantify this association with exposure-effect curves. Moreover, the combined health effects of vibration and concurrent noise were investigated. METHODS: We converted the vibration metric to an equivalent noise level and calculated an overall noise level by energetically summing the equivalent and railway noise level. The combined health effect was determined by using published evidence-based exposure-effect formulas. RESULTS: Studies included in this systematic review predominately investigated annoyance and self-reported sleep disturbances; no studies on manifest diseases were identified. For the combined effects of vibration and noise on "total" annoyance, the results based on the pooled analysis of CargoVibes project are recommended as conservative approach. DISCUSSION: Converting railway vibration into equivalent noise levels in dB may offer a pragmatic approach to assess the combined health effects of railway noise and railway vibration exposure. Future studies should include cardiovascular and mental diseases in addition to vibration-induced annoyance and sleep disturbances. Furthermore, future studies should include in-depth investigations of the interaction between railway noise and railway vibration to allow for a more accurate assessment of the railway-induced burden of disease.

Association between occupational exposures and chronic low back pain: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The association between occupational mechanical exposures and chronic low back pain (LBP) has been widely studied, however, few systematic reviews have evaluated the evidence of an association. Furthermore, little is known of the impact of occupational psychosocial exposures on chronic LBP. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to study the association between occupational mechanical and psychosocial exposures and chronic LBP. METHODS: The study will be conducted as a systematic review using another systematic review published in 2014 as basis and has been registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with registration number CRD42021281996. A systematic literature search will be performed in 6 scientific databases to identified potential relevant studies published after 2014. Studies will systematically be excluded through a screening process performed independently by 2 reviewers. Exposures will include occupational mechanical and psychosocial exposures, and outcome will include chronic LBP (LBP ≥3 months, "degenerative" diseases, and lumbosacral radiculopathy). Study population will include persons in or above working age, and study designs will comprise cohort and case-control studies. The quality of each included study will be methodologically assessed by 2 independent reviewers and level of evidence of an association will be graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system. In meta-analyses, effect sizes will be addressed using random-effect models, sensitivity analyses will explore the robustness of the meta-analysis, and heterogeneity assessed. DISCUSSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis will assess the evidence available of the association between occupational mechanical and psychosocial exposures and chronic LBP. The review can provide essential knowledge on the association, exposure-response relationships, thresholds, which may pave the way for political decisions on the occupational environment and the labour market insurance policy.

Traffic noise annoyance in the LIFE-adult study in Germany: Exposure-response relationships and a comparison to the WHO curves.

BACKGROUND: Noise annoyance is the second-highest cause of lost disability-adjusted life-years due to environmental noise in Europe. Evidence on exposure-response relationships (ERRs) for traffic noise annoyance with more accurate exposure values is still needed. OBJECTIVES: In an analysis of the population-based LIFE-Adult study in Leipzig, Germany, we aimed to investigate the effect of road, railway (train and tram), and aircraft noise on high annoyance (HA). METHODS: Traffic exposure data was taken for 2012 and data on noise annoyance was evaluated between 2018 and 2021. HA was defined according to international standardized norms. We calculated risk estimates using logistic regression, controlling for age, sex, and socioeconomic status, and compared our ERRs with those from the last WHO review on this topic. RESULTS: Aircraft noise had the highest relative risk for noise-related HA (OR = 12.7, 95% CI: 9.37-17.10 per 10 dB Lden increase). The road and railway traffic risk estimates were similar to each other (road: OR = 3.55, 95% CI: 2.78-4.54; railway: OR = 3.31, 95% CI: 2.77-3.97 per 10 dB Lden increase). Compared to the WHO curves, the proportion of highly annoyed individuals was somewhat lower for road and rail traffic noise, but higher for aircraft noise. DISCUSSION: Aircraft noise is particularly annoying. There were differences between our study's ERRs and those in the WHO review, especially for aircraft noise. These differences may be partly explained by the improved accuracy of the exposure values, as we considered secondary road networks and tram noise, and by a lack of a nighttime flight ban at the Leipzig airport. Geographical, regional and climatic variations, inconsistency in HA cut-offs, as well as temporal developments in the annoyance experience may also explain the differences. Since ERRs serve as a basis for decision making in public policies, regular updates of the curves based on new evidence is recommended.

Traffic-Related High Sleep Disturbance in the LIFE-Adult Cohort Study: A Comparison to the WHO Exposure-Response-Curves.

Sleep is negatively affected by environmental noise. In the present study, we investigated self-reported high sleep disturbances (being "highly sleep disturbed"-HSD) from road traffic (primary and secondary road networks), rail (train and tram) and air traffic noise in the LIFE-Adult cohort study in Leipzig, Germany. For this, we used exposure data from 2012 and outcome data of Wave 2 (collected during 2018-2021). HSD was determined and defined according to internationally standardized norms. The highest risk for transportation noise-related HSD was found for aircraft noise: the odds ratio (OR) was 19.66, 95% CI 11.47-33.71 per 10 dB increase in Lnight. For road and rail traffic, similar risk estimates were observed (road: OR = 2.86, 95% CI 1.92-4.28; rail: OR = 2.67, 95% CI 2.03-3.50 per 10 dB Lnight increase). Further, we compared our exposure-risk curves with the curves of the WHO environmental noise guidelines for the European region. The proportion of individuals with HSD for a given noise level was lower for rail traffic but higher for aircraft noise in the LIFE study than in the WHO curves. For road traffic, curves are not directly comparable because we also included the secondary road network. The results of our study add to the body of evidence for increased health risks by traffic noise. Moreover, the results indicate that aircraft noise is particularly harmful to health. We recommend reconsidering threshold values for nightly aircraft exposure.

["Shifting the Curve": New Developments and Challenges in the Field of Public Mental Health]. / "Shifting the Curve": Neue Entwicklungen und Herausforderungen im Bereich der Public Mental Health.

In recent years, the field of public mental health has received increasing attention in national and international research. However, a key challenge remains to map this field in its interdisciplinarity across the entire spectrum of mental health and lead the discourse between public health, psychiatric epidemiology, mental health promotion, prevention, and health services research in order to realize more fully its innovative potential for improving mental health at the population level. In this interdisciplinary discourse, a number of fundamental conceptual and methodological issues arise, which will be discussed in this essay in relation to Geoffrey Rose's population strategy. In a national initiative across relevant learned societies that has recently been formed, these issues are currently starting to be addressed, also in relation to fundamental causes of social and health inequalities, which ultimately is geared towards more tangible strategies for improving mental health at the population.

CAT HPPR: a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of systematic, rapid, and scoping reviews investigating interventions in health promotion and prevention.

BACKGROUND: For over three decades researchers have developed critical appraisal tools (CATs) for assessing the scientific quality of research overviews. Most established CATs for reviews in evidence-based medicine and evidence-based public health (EBPH) focus on systematic reviews (SRs) with studies on experimental interventions or exposure included. EBPH- and implementation-oriented organisations and decision-makers, however, often seek access to rapid reviews (RRs) or scoping reviews (ScRs) for rapid evidence synthesis and research field exploration. Until now, no CAT is available to assess the quality of SRs, RRs, and ScRs following a unified approach. We set out to develop such a CAT. METHODS: The development process of the Critical Appraisal Tool for Health Promotion and Prevention Reviews (CAT HPPR) included six phases: (i) the definition of important review formats and complementary approaches, (ii) the identification of relevant CATs, (iii) prioritisation, selection and adaptation of quality criteria using a consensus approach, (iv) development of the rating system and bilingual guidance documents, (v) engaging with experts in the field for piloting/optimising the CAT, and (vi) approval of the final CAT. We used a pragmatic search approach to identify reporting guidelines/standards (n = 3; e.g. PRISMA, MECIR) as well as guidance documents (n = 17; e.g. for reviews with mixed-methods approach) to develop working definitions for SRs, RRs, ScRs, and other review types (esp. those defined by statistical methods or included data sources). RESULTS: We successfully identified 14 relevant CATs, predominantly for SRs (e.g. AMSTAR 2), and extracted 46 items. Following consensual discussions 15 individual criteria were included in our CAT and tailored to the review types of interest. The CAT was piloted with 14 different reviews which were eligible to be included in a new German database looking at interventions in health promotion and prevention in different implementation settings. CONCLUSIONS: The newly developed CAT HPPR follows a unique uniformed approach to assess a set of heterogeneous reviews (e.g. reviews from problem identification to policy evaluations) to assist end-users needs. Feedback of external experts showed general feasibility and satisfaction with the tool. Future studies should further formally test the validity of CAT HPPR using larger sets of reviews.

Psychosocial Occupational Exposures and Mental Illness.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to investigate the exposure-risk relationship between psychosocial occupational stress and mental illness. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review with meta-analyses as an update of a systematic review published in 2014. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020170032). Literature searches were carried out in the MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Embase databases. All procedural steps were performed independently by two reviewers; discordances were solved by consensus. All of the included full texts were subject to a methodological appraisal. Certainty of evidence was determined with the GRADE procedure. RESULTS: The pooled risk of depression was found to be approximately doubled in workers exposed to high job strain, which is defined as high work demands combined with low job control (effect estimate [EE] = 1.99, 95% CI [1.68; 2.35], heterogeneity [I2] = 24.7%, n = 8). In particular, high work demands are associated with incident depression (ES = 13.8 [1.19; 1.61], I2 = 69.0%, n = 9) and with incident anxiety disorder (ES = 1.79 [1.44; 2.23], I2 = 48.1%, n = 5). There were only a small number of methodologically adequate studies available on burnout, somatoform disorders, suicidal ideation, and suicide. Thus, no pooled risk estimates were calculated, although some individual studies showed a considerably increased risk. CONCLUSION: Psychosocial occupational stress is clearly associated with depression and anxiety disorders.

Authors' response: Occupation and SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among workers during the first pandemic wave in Germany: potential for bias.

We thank van Tongeren et al for responding to our study on occupational disparities in SARS-CoV-2 infection risks during the first pandemic wave in Germany (1). The authors address the potential for bias resulting from differential testing between occupational groups and propose an alternative analytical strategy for dealing with selective testing. In the following, we want to discuss two aspects of this issue, namely (i) the extent and reasons of differential testing in our cohort and (ii) the advantages and disadvantages of different analytical approaches to study risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our study relied on nationwide prospective cohort data including more than 100 000 workers in order to compare the incidence of infections between different occupations and occupational status positions. We found elevated infection risks in personal services and business administration, in essential occupations (including health care) and among people in higher occupational status positions (ie, managers and highly skilled workers) during the first pandemic wave in Germany (2). Van Tongeren's et al main concern is that the correlations found could be affected by a systematic bias because people in healthcare professions get tested more often than employees in other professions. A second argument is that better-off people could be more likely to use testing as they are less affected by direct costs (prices for testing) and the economic hardship associated with a positive test result (eg, loss of earnings in the event of sick leave). We share the authors' view that differential testing must be considered when analysing and interpreting the data. Thus, in our study, we examined the proportion of tests conducted in each occupational group as part of the sensitivity analyses (see supplementary figure S1, accessible at www.sjweh.fi/article/4037). As expected, testing proportions were exceptionally high in medical occupations (due to employer requirements). However, we did not observe systematic differences among non-medical occupations or when categorising by skill-level or managerial responsibility. This might be explained by several reasons. First, SARS-CoV-2 testing was free of charge during the first pandemic wave in Germany, but reporting a risk contact or having symptoms was a necessary condition for testing ( https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/coronavirus/chronik-coronavirus.html (accessed 5 September 2022). The newspaper article cited by van Tongeren et al is misleading as it refers to a calendar date after our study period. Second, different motivation for testing due to economic hardship in case of a positive test result is an unlikely explanation, because Germany has a universal healthcare system, including paid sick leave and sickness benefits for all workers (3). Self-employed people carry greater financial risks in case of sickness. We therefore included self-employment in the multivariable analyses to address this potential source of bias. While the observed inverse social gradient may be surprising, it actually matches with findings of ecological studies from Germany (4, 5), the United States (6, 7) as well as Spain, Portugal, Sweden, The Netherlands, Israel, and Hong Kong (8), all of which observed higher infection rates in wealthier neighbourhoods during the initial outbreak phase of the pandemic. One possible explanation is the higher mobility of managers and better educated workers, who are more likely to participate in meetings and engage in business travel and holiday trips like skiing. Given the increasing number of studies providing evidence for this hypothesis, we conclude that the inverse social gradient in our study likely reflects different exposure probabilities and is not a result of systematic bias. This also holds true for the elevated infection risks in essential workers, which is actually corroborated by a large body of research (9-11). Regarding differential likelihood of testing, van Tongeren et al state that "[i]t is relatively simple to address this problem by using a test-negative design" (1). As van Tongeren et al describe, this is a case-control approach only including individuals who were tested (without considering those who were not tested). However, the proposed analytical strategy can lead to another (more serious) selection bias if testing proportions and/or testing criteria differ between groups (12). This can be easily illustrated when comparing the results based on a time-incidence design with those obtained by a test-negative design as shown in table 1 (see PDF). Both approaches show similar results in terms of vertical occupational differences. Infection was more common if individuals had a high skill level or had a managerial position, but associations were stronger in the time-incidence design and did not reach statistical significance in the test-negative design (as indicated by the confidence intervals overlapping "1"). Unfortunately, the test-negative approach relies on a strongly reduced sample size and thus results in greater statistical uncertainty and loss of statistical power (13). In contrast, the test-negative design yields a different picture when estimating the association between essential occupation and infection risk: In this analysis, essential workers did not differ from non-essential workers in their chance of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 (the test-negative design even exhibits a lower chance for essential workers). This is rather counter-intuitive and is not in accordance with what we know about the occupational hazards of healthcare workers during the pandemic (14). The main problem is that proportions of positive tests are highly unreliable when testing proportions and/or testing criteria differ between groups. As essential workers were tested more often without being symptomatic (due to employer requirements), a lower proportion of positive tests in this group does not necessarily correspond to a lower risk of infection. Consequently, we are not convinced that the test-negative design should be the 'gold standard' for studying risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infections (15). Especially problematic is the loss of statistical power (increasing the probability of a type II error) and the low validity of the test-positivity when test criteria and/or test proportions differ between groups. References 1. van Tongeren M, Rhodes S, Pearce N. Occupation and SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among workers during the first pandemic wave in Germany: potential for bias. Scand J Work Environ Health 2022;48(7):586-587. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4052. 2. Reuter M, Rigó M, Formazin M, Liebers F, Latza U, Castell S, et al. Occupation and SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among 108 960 workers during the first pandemic wave in Germany. Scand J Work Environ Health 2022;48:446-56. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4037. 3. Busse R, Blümel M, Knieps F, Bärnighausen T. Statutory health insurance in Germany: a health system shaped by 135 years of solidarity, self-governance, and competition. Lancet 2017;390:882-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31280-1. 4. Wachtler B, Michalski N, Nowossadeck E, Diercke M, Wahrendorf M, Santos-Hövener C, et al. Socioeconomic inequalities in the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection - First results from an analysis of surveillance data from Germany. J Heal Monit 2020;5:18-29. https://doi.org/10.25646/7057. 5. Plümper T, Neumayer E. The pandemic predominantly hits poor neighbourhoods? SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19 fatalities in German districts. Eur J Public Health 2020;30:1176-80. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckaa168. 6. Abedi V, Olulana O, Avula V, Chaudhary D, Khan A, Shahjouei S, et al. Racial, Economic, and Health Inequality and COVID-19 Infection in the United States. J Racial Ethn Heal Disparities 2021;8:732-42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-020-00833-4. 7. Mukherji N. The Social and Economic Factors Underlying the Incidence of COVID-19 Cases and Deaths in US Counties During the Initial Outbreak Phase. Rev Reg Stud 2022;52. https://doi.org/10.52324/001c.35255. 8. Beese F, Waldhauer J, Wollgast L, Pförtner T, Wahrendorf M, Haller S, et al. Temporal Dynamics of Socioeconomic Inequalities in COVID-19 Outcomes Over the Course of the Pandemic-A Scoping Review. Int J Public Health 2022;67:1-14. https://doi.org/10.3389/ijph.2022.1605128. 9. Nguyen LH, Drew DA, Graham MS, Joshi AD, Guo C-G, Ma W, et al. Risk of COVID-19 among front-line health-care workers and the general community: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Public Heal 2020;5:e475-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30164-X. 10. Chou R, Dana T, Buckley DI, Selph S, Fu R, Totten AM. Epidemiology of and Risk Factors for Coronavirus Infection in Health Care Workers. Ann Intern Med 2020;173:120-36. https://doi.org/10.7326/M20-1632. 11. Stringhini S, Zaballa M-E, Pullen N, de Mestral C, Perez-Saez J, Dumont R, et al. Large variation in anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence among essential workers in Geneva, Switzerland. Nat Commun 2021;12:3455. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23796-4. 12. Accorsi EK, Qiu X, Rumpler E, Kennedy-Shaffer L, Kahn R, Joshi K, et al. How to detect and reduce potential sources of biases in studies of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. Eur J Epidemiol 2021;36:179-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-021-00727-7. 13. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd Editio. New York: Routledge; 2013. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587. 14. The Lancet. The plight of essential workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet 2020;395:1587. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31200-9. 15. Vandenbroucke JP, Brickley EB, Pearce N, Vandenbroucke-Grauls CMJE. The Evolving Usefulness of the Test-negative Design in Studying Risk Factors for COVID-19. Epidemiology 2022;33:e7-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000001438.