RESUMEN
AIMS: To evaluate the relationship between diabetes treatment status and occupational accidents. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted using an online questionnaire survey completed in March 2022 among workers aged 20 years or older. The questionnaire included questions about diabetes treatment status and occupational accidents. The association between the treatment status of diabetes and occupational accidents was examined using a logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The study included 25,756 participants with no diabetes, 1,364 participants receiving diabetes treatment, 177 participants who had interrupted diabetes treatment, and 396 participants who needed diabetes treatment but had not seen a doctor. Compared with those with diabetes treatment, the odds ratio of occupational accidents among participants without diabetes was 0.40 (95% CI: 0.32-0.49), the odds ratio among participants with interrupted diabetes treatment was 4.15 (95% CI: 2.86-6.01), and the odds ratio among participants who needed diabetes treatment but had not seen a doctor was 1.25 (95% CI: 0.89-1.77). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that diabetes treatment status was related to occupational accidents, and it may be important for workers with diabetes to be supported to balance their diabetes management and their work commitments.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To elucidate the factors that influence occupational physicians' decision to issue an employer warning. METHODS: The interview was conducted with 10 Japan Society for Occupational Health certified occupational physicians (COPs) and certified senior occupational physicians (CSOPs) to create nine fictive scenarios in which an occupational physician may need to consider issuing a warning. Sixteen CSOPs assessed the seriousness of the problem in each of nine scenarios where they may need to consider issuing an employer warning. Next, using a survey questionnaire, 597 COPs and CSOPs were asked to rate how likely they were to issue a warning in each of the nine scenarios, and answer items on their characteristics and number of previously issued warnings. A multilevel logistic regression analysis nested for various scenarios was used to assess the odds ratio (OR) of being likely to issue a warning. RESULTS: Valid questionnaires were obtained from 117 participants (19.6%). The ORs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were as follows: mean score of seriousness of the problem, 5.90 (4.50-7.75); years of experience as occupational physician, 1.04 (1.02-1.06); women, 1.75 (1.20-2.54); being a part-time occupational physician without in-house experience, 2.08 (1.31-3.29); and having previously issued two or more times warnings, 1.99 (1.29-3.06), compared with those who had never issued a warning. CONCLUSIONS: Occupational physicians' likelihood to issue a warning was associated with the seriousness of the problem as assessed in various scenarios, years of experience as occupational physician, gender, employment type, experience as in-house occupational physician, and number of past warnings.
