Global-, regional- and country-level estimates of the work-related burden of diseases and accidents in 2019.

OBJECTIVE: This study provides the global-, regional- and country-level estimates on the work-related burden of diseases and accidents for 2019, including deaths, disability adjusted life years (DALY) and economic losses. METHODS: Data on occupational illnesses and injuries from international organizations, institutions, and public websites were used. Risk ratios (RR) and population attributable fractions (PAF) for the risk factor-outcome pairs were derived from the literature. Estimated mortality and DALY for a group of seven major diseases covering 120 risk-outcome pairs attributable to work were calculated for 181 countries. RESULTS: Globally, 2.9 million deaths were attributed to work, with 2.58 million deaths due to work-related diseases and 0.32 million related to occupational injuries. Globally, work-related diseases with a long latency period are increasing, while the number of occupational injuries has decreased. Work-related circulatory diseases were the major cause of 912 000 deaths globally, followed by 843 000 work-related malignant neoplasms. In high-income, American, Eastern European and Western Pacific World Health Organization (WHO) regions, however, work-related malignant neoplasms comprised the biggest disease group. DALY attributable to work were estimated to be 180 million in 2019, with an associated economic loss of 5.8% of global GDP. New estimates of psychosocial factors increased the global loss. CONCLUSIONS: The burden of work-related diseases and injuries increased by 26% from 2.3 million annual deaths in 2014 to 2.9 million in 2019. The DALY attributable to work have also substantially increased from 123 million in 2014 to 180 million in 2019 (47% increase). We found large regional and country variations.

An Increase in Plasma Adipsin Levels Is Associated With Higher Cumulative Dust Exposure and Airway Obstruction in Foundry Workers.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to assess whether plasma adipokine levels (adipsin, adiponectin, leptin, and resistin) are associated with pulmonary function in foundry workers. METHODS: We examined 65 dust-exposed foundry workers and 40 nonexposed controls and analyzed their lung function and plasma adipokine levels at baseline and after approximately 7 years of follow-up. RESULTS: A higher increase in plasma adipsin was associated with the development of airway obstruction in exposed subjects during follow-up after adjusting for body mass index changes during the follow-up period. Furthermore, the increase in adipsin levels was positively associated with cumulative dust exposure even after adjusting for smoking and body mass index changes during follow-up ( P = 0.015). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that plasma adipsin is involved in the pathogenesis of subclinical airway inflammation and the development of chronic obstruction and is induced by occupational dust exposure.

Occupational health patients' parallel use of primary- and secondary-care services and linkage to work disability: A follow-up study in Finland.

AIMS: This study aimed to investigate occupational health (OH) primary-care patients' use of other health-care services and whether parallel use affects their likelihood to have sickness absences (SA) or disability pensions (DP). METHODS: Primary-care services in Finland are provided through three parallel health-care sectors, all available to the working population: public, private and OH sectors. Patients may also be referred to secondary care. This follow-up study combines real-world medical record data containing SA data from a nationwide OH provider with health-care attendance data from public and private primary-care sectors and public secondary care, sociodemographic data and DP decisions. Patients between 18 and 68 years of age who used OH primary care at least once during the study years 2014-2016 were included. The total study population comprised 59,650 patients. Odds ratios were used to analyse association between parallel service use and SA or DP. RESULTS: Females and patients with a lower educational level were more likely to use services in other health-care sectors in addition to OH than others. Those patients who used any other health-care sector in addition to OH primary care had an increased likelihood of having long SA or receiving DP. CONCLUSIONS: OH primary-care patients using the services of several health-care sectors in parallel have an increased likelihood of receiving disability benefits - either SA or DP. There is need for care coordination to ensure adequate measures for work-ability support.

Cooperation between Public Primary Health Care and Occupational Health Care Professionals in Work Ability-Related Health Issues.

Work disability creates significant expenses for nations and causes human suffering by limiting patients' lives. International studies show that to enhance recognition of and support for work disability, cooperation, mutual trust, and information exchange between public primary health care and occupational health care must be strengthened. However, little is known of how health care professionals experience this cooperation. The aim of this study was to understand how professionals experience the cooperation between public primary health care and occupational health services regarding patients' work ability. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 29 health care professionals working in five small cities (<10,000 inhabitants) in Finland. Interviews were audio and video recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed through inductive thematic analysis. Three key themes were identified from the interviews: attitudes toward the other health care sector, the exchange of information, and resources for cooperation. Professionals seem to have poor knowledge about the services available and how care is given in the other sector, appearing to lead to weak mutual trust. The public primary health care professionals especially emphasized the benefits of cooperation, but several issues were mentioned as barriers to cooperation. These results can be used when planning effective patient paths and service provisioning models.

Parallel use of primary and secondary healthcare by frequent attenders in occupational health and their work disability: a longitudinal study in Finland.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate occupational health frequent attenders' (FAs) use of other healthcare sector services and whether parallel use affects their likelihood to receive a disability pension. DESIGN: Longitudinal study combining routine medical record data with register data. SETTING: Primary care in Finland is provided through three parallel healthcare sectors, all available to the working population. Additionally, patients can be referred to secondary care. This study combines medical record data from a nationwide occupational healthcare provider, with healthcare attendance data from private care and from public primary and secondary care attendance, sociodemographic data and disability pension decisions. PARTICIPANTS: Patients between 18 and 68 years of age who used occupational health primary care at least once during the study years 2014-2016 were included. The total study population was 59 650 patients. They were divided into three groups (occasional and persistent FAs and non-FAs) for analysis. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was FAs parallel use of private care and public primary and secondary care. The secondary outcome was work disability pension granted to FAs who used several healthcare sectors. RESULTS: Both FA groups were more likely to use other healthcare service sectors more than non-FAs did. Persistent FAs were likely to use public secondary care services in particular (OR 4.31 95% CI 3.46 to 5.36). FAs using all healthcare sectors were also more likely to receive a disability pension than those FAs using only occupational health services (OR 4.53 (95% CI 1.54 to 13.34). This association was strengthened by attendance in public secondary care. CONCLUSIONS: FAs using several healthcare sectors in parallel have an increased likelihood to receive a disability pension. There is need for care coordination to ensure adequate measures for work ability support.

Sociodemographic characteristics and disability pensions of frequent attenders in occupational health primary care - a follow-up study in Finland.

BACKGROUND: Work disability is a complex issue that requires preventive efforts from healthcare systems and individuals, and that too often results in disability pensions (DP). While many studies have attempted to characterize risk factors of work disability, many showing for example a link between socioeconomic positions, working conditions and frequent attendance to OH primary care it is not known if frequent attendance is associated with DP despite the sociodemographic factors. This study aims to address this gap and examine the association between frequent attendance to OH primary care and DP, when adjusted by sociodemographic factors. METHODS: This study combines routine medical record data of an occupational health service provider with comprehensive national registers. Medical record data were used to define groups of frequent attenders to OH primary care (FA) (1-year-FA, 2-year-FA, persistent-FA and non-FA) from 2014 to 2016. The sociodemographic factors (including i.e. educational level, occupational class, unemployment periods) were derived from Statistic Finland and DP decisions were derived from Finnish Centre for Pensions. Association of frequent attendance to OH primary care with DP decisions were analyzed and adjusted by sociodemographic factors. RESULTS: In total, 66,381 patients were included. Basic and intermediate education along with manual and lower non-manual work predicted frequent attendance to OH primary care. Unemployment in 2013 did not predict frequent attendance to OH primary care. Frequent attendance to OH primary care was associated with DP within next two years, even when adjusted for sociodemographic factors. The association of frequent attendance to OH primary care with DP grew stronger as high service use persisted over time. CONCLUSIONS: Frequent attendance to OH primary care is associated with DP risk in the near future despite the underlying sociodemographic differences. Patients using OH primary care services extensively should be identified and rehabilitative needs and measures necessary to continue in the work force should be explored. Sociodemographic issues that co-exist should be explored and considered when planning interventions.

High alveolar nitric oxide is associated with steeper lung function decline in foundry workers.

Occupational dust exposure induces inflammatory responses that often precede the onset of clinical disease. Inflammation in the peripheral part of the lung can be demonstrated by measuring the alveolar NO concentration (CANO) in exhaled breath. The aim of the study was to assess whether cumulative dust exposure affects the change in CANO during follow-up and whether baseline CANO can predict an impairment in lung function during follow-up in foundry workers. We examined 74 dust-exposed and 42 nonexposed foundry workers and measured CANO and lung function at baseline and after 7 years of follow-up. An increase in CANO during the follow-up period was positively associated with cumulative dust exposure in foundry work (p= 0.035). Furthermore, a higher baseline CANO was associated with an accelerated decline in the forced vital capacity (FVC) during the follow-up period (absolute decrease in FVCp= 0.021, relative decrease in FVCp= 0.017). Higher cumulative dust exposure in foundry work is associated with a greater increase in CANO during follow-up, suggesting ongoing pulmonary inflammation in these subjects. Importantly, a high baseline CANO is associated with an accelerated decline in lung function, suggesting that CANO measurements might serve as a screening tool for high-risk workers.

Equipo de protección individual para la prevención de enfermedades altamente infecciosas debidas a la exposición a fluidos corporales contaminados en el personal sanitario / Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff

FUNDAMENTO: El personal sanitario que trata a pacientes con infecciones como el coronavirus (COVID-19) corre el riesgo de infectarse. Este utiliza equipos de protección individual (EPI) para protegerse de las gotas de la tos, los estornudos u otros fluidos corporales de los pacientes infectados y de las superficies contaminadas que puedan infectarlos. El EPI puede incluir delantales, batas o monos (un traje de una sola pieza), guantes, máscaras y equipo de respiración (respiradores) y gafas protectoras. El EPI debe ser puesto correctamente; puede ser incómodo de usar, y los trabajadores de la salud pueden contaminarse cuando se lo quitan. Algunos se han adaptado, por ejemplo, añadiendo pestañas para facilitar su retirada. Las organizaciones como los Centros para el Control y la Prevención de Enfermedades (CDC) de Estados Unidos ofrecen orientación sobre el procedimiento correcto para ponerse y quitarse el EPI. Esta es la actualización de 2020 de una revisión publicada por primera vez en 2016 y actualizada previamente en 2019. ¿QUÉ SE QUERÍA DESCUBRIR?: Se quería saber qué tipo de EPI o combinación de EPI confiere a los trabajadores de la salud la mejor protección; si la modificación del EPI para facilitar su retirada es efectiva; si seguir la guía para retirar el EPI reduce la contaminación; y si el entrenamiento reduce la contaminación. ¿QUÉ SE ENCONTRÓ?: Se encontraron 24 estudios relevantes con 2.278 participantes que evaluaron los tipos de EPI, EPI modificado, procedimientos para poner y quitar el EPI y tipos de entrenamiento. Dieciocho de los estudios no evaluaron a los trabajadores sanitarios que trataban a pacientes infectados, sino que simularon el efecto de la exposición a la infección mediante el uso de marcadores fluorescentes o virus o bacterias inofensivos. La mayoría de los estudios fueron pequeños, y solo 1 o 2 estudios abordaron cada una de las preguntas. TIPOS DE EPI: Cubrir más el cuerpo lleva a una mejor protección. Sin embargo, como esto suele estar asociado con una mayor dificultad para ponerse y quitarse el EPI y una menor comodidad, puede conducir a una mayor contaminación. Los monos son los EPI más difíciles de quitar, pero pueden ofrecer la mejor protección, seguida de los vestidos largos, batas y delantales. Los respiradores que se usan con los monos pueden proteger mejor que una máscara que se usa con una bata, pero son más difíciles de poner. Los tipos de EPI más transpirables pueden conducir a niveles similares de contaminación, pero son más cómodos. La contaminación fue común en la mitad de los estudios a pesar de la mejora del EPI. EPI MODIFICADO: Las batas que tienen guantes adheridos al puño, de manera que los guantes y la bata se quitan juntos y cubren la zona de la muñeca, y las batas que se modifican para que se ajusten bien al cuello pueden reducir la contaminación. Además, añadir lengüetas a los guantes y mascarillas también puede conducir a una menor contaminación. Sin embargo, un estudio no encontró menos errores al ponerse o quitarse las batas modificadas. ORIENTACIÓN SOBRE EL USO DEL EPI: Seguir la guía de los CDC para la eliminación del delantal o la bata, o cualquier instrucción para eliminar el EPI en comparación con las propias preferencias de un individuo, pueden reducir la autocontaminación. Quitarse la bata y los guantes en un solo paso, usar 2 pares de guantes y limpiar los guantes con lejía o desinfectante (pero no con alcohol) también puede reducir la contaminación. ENTRENAMIENTO DE LOS USUARIOS: El entrenamiento en persona, la simulación por computadora y el entrenamiento por video condujeron a menos errores en la extracción del EPI, tanto un entrenamiento entregado como material escrito solamente o una conferencia tradicional. CERTEZA DE LA EVIDENCIA: La certeza (confianza) en las evidencias es limitada porque los estudios simularon la infección (es decir, no fue real), y tuvieron un número de participantes pequeño. ¿QUÉ FALTA DESCUBRIR?: No hubo estudios que investigaran las gafas o las pantallas faciales. No queda claro cuál es la mejor manera de quitarse los EPI después de su uso y el mejor tipo de entrenamiento a largo plazo. Los hospitales deben organizar más estudios, y los investigadores deben ponerse de acuerdo sobre la mejor manera de simular la exposición a un virus. En el futuro, los estudios de simulación deben tener al menos 60 participantes cada uno, y utilizar la exposición a un virus inofensivo para evaluar qué tipo y combinación de EPI protege más. Sería útil que los hospitales pudieran registrar el tipo de EPI utilizado por sus trabajadores para proporcionar información urgente de la vida real. FECHA DE LA BÚSQUEDA: Esta revisión incluye pruebas publicadas hasta el 20 de marzo de 2020

No disponible

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff.

BACKGROUND: In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), or coronavirus (COVID-19), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk by covering exposed body parts. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to put PPE on (i.e. donning) or to remove PPE (i.e. doffing), and how to train HCWs to use PPE as instructed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate which type of full-body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to 20 March 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all controlled studies that evaluated the effect of full-body PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training on the same outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in included trials. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses were appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Earlier versions of this review were published in 2016 and 2019. In this update, we included 24 studies with 2278 participants, of which 14 were randomised controlled trials (RCT), one was a quasi-RCT and nine had a non-randomised design. Eight studies compared types of PPE. Six studies evaluated adapted PPE. Eight studies compared donning and doffing processes and three studies evaluated types of training. Eighteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless microbes. In simulation studies, median contamination rates were 25% for the intervention and 67% for the control groups. Evidence for all outcomes is of very low certainty unless otherwise stated because it is based on one or two studies, the indirectness of the evidence in simulation studies and because of risk of bias. Types of PPE The use of a powered, air-purifying respirator with coverall may protect against the risk of contamination better than a N95 mask and gown (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.43) but was more difficult to don (non-compliance: RR 7.5, 95% CI 1.81 to 31.1). In one RCT (59 participants) coveralls were more difficult to doff than isolation gowns (very low-certainty evidence). Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (small patches: mean difference (MD) -10.28, 95% CI -14.77 to -5.79). PPE made of more breathable material may lead to a similar number of spots on the trunk (MD 1.60, 95% CI -0.15 to 3.35) compared to more water-repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD -0.46, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08, scale of 1 to 5). According to three studies that tested more recently introduced full-body PPE ensembles, there may be no difference in contamination. Modified PPE versus standard PPE The following modifications to PPE design may lead to less contamination compared to standard PPE: sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55), a better cover of the gown-wrist interface (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.78, low-certainty evidence), added tabs to grab to facilitate doffing of masks (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31). Donning and doffing Using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (small patches: MD -5.44, 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45). One-step removal of gloves and gown may lead to less bacterial contamination (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.77) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28) than separate removal. Double-gloving may lead to less viral or bacterial contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.66) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28). Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4) and to fewer contamination spots (MD -5, 95% CI -8.08 to -1.92). Extra sanitation of gloves before doffing with quaternary ammonium or bleach may decrease contamination, but not alcohol-based hand rub. Training The use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7). A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70, 95% CI 20.14 to 41.26) than a traditional lecture. Face-to-face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (odds ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low- to very low-certainty evidence that covering more parts of the body leads to better protection but usually comes at the cost of more difficult donning or doffing and less user comfort. More breathable types of PPE may lead to similar contamination but may have greater user satisfaction. Modifications to PPE design, such as tabs to grab, may decrease the risk of contamination. For donning and doffing procedures, following CDC doffing guidance, a one-step glove and gown removal, double-gloving, spoken instructions during doffing, and using glove disinfection may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than folder-based training. We still need RCTs of training with long-term follow-up. We need simulation studies with more participants to find out which combinations of PPE and which doffing procedure protects best. Consensus on simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. We also need more real-life evidence. Therefore, the use of PPE of HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should be registered and the HCW should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection.

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff.

BACKGROUND: In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), or coronavirus (COVID-19), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk by covering exposed body parts. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to put PPE on (i.e. donning) or to remove PPE (i.e. doffing), and how to train HCWs to use PPE as instructed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate which type of full-body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to 20 March 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all controlled studies that evaluated the effect of full-body PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training on the same outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in included trials. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses were appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Earlier versions of this review were published in 2016 and 2019. In this update, we included 24 studies with 2278 participants, of which 14 were randomised controlled trials (RCT), one was a quasi-RCT and nine had a non-randomised design. Eight studies compared types of PPE. Six studies evaluated adapted PPE. Eight studies compared donning and doffing processes and three studies evaluated types of training. Eighteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless microbes. In simulation studies, median contamination rates were 25% for the intervention and 67% for the control groups. Evidence for all outcomes is of very low certainty unless otherwise stated because it is based on one or two studies, the indirectness of the evidence in simulation studies and because of risk of bias. Types of PPE The use of a powered, air-purifying respirator with coverall may protect against the risk of contamination better than a N95 mask and gown (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.43) but was more difficult to don (non-compliance: RR 7.5, 95% CI 1.81 to 31.1). In one RCT (59 participants), people with a long gown had less contamination than those with a coverall, and coveralls were more difficult to doff (low-certainty evidence). Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (small patches: mean difference (MD) -10.28, 95% CI -14.77 to -5.79). PPE made of more breathable material may lead to a similar number of spots on the trunk (MD 1.60, 95% CI -0.15 to 3.35) compared to more water-repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD -0.46, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08, scale of 1 to 5). Modified PPE versus standard PPE The following modifications to PPE design may lead to less contamination compared to standard PPE: sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55), a better cover of the gown-wrist interface (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.78, low-certainty evidence), added tabs to grab to facilitate doffing of masks (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31). Donning and doffing Using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (small patches: MD -5.44, 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45). One-step removal of gloves and gown may lead to less bacterial contamination (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.77) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28) than separate removal. Double-gloving may lead to less viral or bacterial contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.66) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28). Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4) and to fewer contamination spots (MD -5, 95% CI -8.08 to -1.92). Extra sanitation of gloves before doffing with quaternary ammonium or bleach may decrease contamination, but not alcohol-based hand rub. Training The use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7). A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70, 95% CI 20.14 to 41.26) than a traditional lecture. Face-to-face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (odds ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low- to very low-certainty evidence that covering more parts of the body leads to better protection but usually comes at the cost of more difficult donning or doffing and less user comfort, and may therefore even lead to more contamination. More breathable types of PPE may lead to similar contamination but may have greater user satisfaction. Modifications to PPE design, such as tabs to grab, may decrease the risk of contamination. For donning and doffing procedures, following CDC doffing guidance, a one-step glove and gown removal, double-gloving, spoken instructions during doffing, and using glove disinfection may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than folder-based training. We still need RCTs of training with long-term follow-up. We need simulation studies with more participants to find out which combinations of PPE and which doffing procedure protects best. Consensus on simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. We also need more real-life evidence. Therefore, the use of PPE of HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should be registered and the HCW should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection.

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff.

BACKGROUND: In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) or Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Contact precautions by means of personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to remove PPE, and how to make sure HCW use PPE as instructed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate which type of full body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of self-contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (PubMed up to 15 July 2018), Cochrane Central Register of Trials (CENTRAL up to 18 June 2019), Scopus (Scopus 18 June 2019), CINAHL (EBSCOhost 31 July 2018), and OSH-Update (up to 31 December 2018). We also screened reference lists of included trials and relevant reviews, and contacted NGOs and manufacturers of PPE. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all controlled studies that compared the effects of PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases with serious consequences, such as Ebola or SARS, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. This included studies that used simulated contamination with fluorescent markers or a non-pathogenic virus.We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training in PPE use on the same outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included trials. We planned to perform meta-analyses but did not find sufficiently similar studies to combine their results. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 studies with 1950 participants evaluating 21 interventions. Ten studies are Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs), one is a quasi RCT and six have a non-randomised controlled design. Two studies are awaiting assessment.Ten studies compared types of PPE but only six of these reported sufficient data. Six studies compared different types of donning and doffing and three studies evaluated different types of training. Fifteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless viruses. In simulation studies, contamination rates varied from 10% to 100% of participants for all types of PPE. In one study HCW were exposed to Ebola and in another to SARS.Evidence for all outcomes is based on single studies and is very low quality.Different types of PPEPPE made of more breathable material may not lead to more contamination spots on the trunk (Mean Difference (MD) 1.60 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) -0.15 to 3.35) than more water repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD -0.46; 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08, scale of 1 to 5).Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (MD large patches -1.36 95% CI -1.78 to -0.94).The use of a powered air-purifying respirator may protect better than a simple ensemble of PPE without such respirator (Relative Risk (RR) 0.27; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.43).Five different PPE ensembles (such as gown vs. coverall, boots with or without covers, hood vs. cap, length and number of gloves) were evaluated in one study, but there were no event data available for compared groups.Alterations to PPE design may lead to less contamination such as added tabs to grab masks (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31), a sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), or a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55) compared to standard PPE.Different methods of donning and doffing proceduresDouble gloving may lead to less contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.36; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.78).Following CDC recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (MD small patches -5.44; 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45).Alcohol-based hand rub used during the doffing process may not lead to less contamination than the use of a hypochlorite based solution (MD 4.00; 95% CI 0.47 to 34.24).Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4).Different types of trainingThe use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7).A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70; 95% CI 20.14,41.26) than a traditional lecture.Face to face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only.There were no studies on effects of training in the long term or on resource use.The quality of the evidence is very low for all comparisons because of high risk of bias in all studies, indirectness of evidence, and small numbers of participants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low quality evidence that more breathable types of PPE may not lead to more contamination, but may have greater user satisfaction. Alterations to PPE, such as tabs to grab may decrease contamination. Double gloving, following CDC doffing guidance, and spoken instructions during doffing may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than video or folder based training. Because data come from single small studies with high risk of bias, we are uncertain about the estimates of effects.We still need randomised controlled trials to find out which training works best in the long term. We need better simulation studies conducted with several dozen participants to find out which PPE protects best, and what is the safest way to remove PPE. Consensus on the best way to conduct simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should have their use of PPE registered and should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection in the field.

Trends in occupational diseases in Finland, 1975-2013: a register study.

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to investigate trends in the incidence of recognized and suspected cases of occupational diseases in Finland from 1975 to 2013, including variations by industry - and describe and recognize factors affecting variations in incidence. DESIGN: A register study. SETTING: The data consisted of recognized and suspected cases of occupational diseases recorded in the Finnish Registry of Occupational Diseases (FROD) in 1975-2013. PARTICIPANTS: Altogether 240 000 cases of suspected and recognized ODs were analysed. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: From the annual workforce statistics and FROD data, we calculated the incidence of ODs and suspected ODs per 10 000 employees. For time trends by industrial sector, we used a 5-year moving average and a Poisson regression analysis. RESULTS: Annual average rates of ODs have varied from year to year. The total number was 25.0/10 000 employees in 1975 and 20.1/10 000 employees in 2013. Screening campaigns and legislative changes have caused temporary increases. When the financial sector was the reference (1.0), the highest incidence rates according to industrial sector were in mining and quarrying (9.87; 95% CI 8.65 to 11.30), construction (9.11; 95% CI 9.98 to 10.43), manufacturing (9.04; 95% CI 7.93 to 10.36) and agriculture (8.78; 95% CI 7.69 to 10.06). There is a distinct decreasing trend from 2005 onwards: the average annual change in incidence was, for example, -9.2% in agriculture, -10.3% in transportation and -4.7% in construction. The average annual decline was greatest in upper limb strain injuries (-11.1%). CONCLUSION: This study provides a useful overview of the status of ODs in Finland over several decades. These data are a valuable resource for determining which occupations are at an increased risk and where preventive actions should be targeted. It is important to study long-term trends in the statistics of ODs to see beyond the year-to-year fluctuations.

Burnout syndrome as an occupational disease in the European Union: an exploratory study.

The risk of psychological disorders influencing the health of workers increases in accordance with growing requirements on employees across various professions. This study aimed to compare approaches to the burnout syndrome in European countries. A questionnaire focusing on stress-related occupational diseases was distributed to national experts of 28 European Union countries. A total of 23 countries responded. In 9 countries (Denmark, Estonia, France, Hungary, Latvia, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia and Sweden) burnout syndrome may be acknowledged as an occupational disease. Latvia has burnout syndrome explicitly included on the List of ODs. Compensation for burnout syndrome has been awarded in Denmark, France, Latvia, Portugal and Sweden. Only in 39% of the countries a possibility to acknowledge burnout syndrome as an occupational disease exists, with most of compensated cases only occurring in recent years. New systems to collect data on suspected cases have been developed reflecting the growing recognition of the impact of the psychosocial work environment. In agreement with the EU legislation, all EU countries in the study have an action plan to prevent stress at the workplace.

Cancer incidence among Finnish male cobalt production workers in 1969-2013: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There is inadequate evidence for the carcinogenicity of cobalt and cobalt compounds in humans. Consequently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has evaluated cobalt metal without tungsten carbide as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B). The aim of the study was to assess the risk of cancer among workers employed in a Finnish cobalt plant since the beginning of production in 1968. METHODS: The study cohort consisted of all males employed by the Finnish cobalt plant for at least a year during 1968-2004. The follow-up for cancer was performed by studying the files of the Finnish Cancer Registry, using personal identity codes as a key. The cohort was divided into subcohorts by exposure levels. Standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated as ratios of the observed numbers of cancer cases and the numbers expected on the basis of incidence rates in the population of the same region. RESULTS: The follow-up cohort consisted of 995 men with 26,083 person-years. During the follow-up period, 92 cases of cancer were diagnosed (SIR 1.00, 95% CI 0.81-1.22), six of which were lung cancer cases (SIR 0.50; 95% CI 0.18-1.08). The only cancer type with increased incidence was tongue cancer (three cases, SIR 7.39; 95% CI 1.52-21.6). We observed no dose-response effect across the different exposure levels and the incidence of any cancer type. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that occupational exposure to cobalt is not associated with an increased overall cancer risk or lung cancer risk among cobalt workers. Because of the small number of cancer cases the results must be interpreted with caution.

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff.

BACKGROUND: In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) or SARS, healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Contact precautions by means of personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to remove PPE, and how to make sure HCWs use PPE as instructed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate which type or component of full-body PPE and which method of donning or removing (doffing) PPE have the least risk of self-contamination or infection for HCWs, and which training methods most increase compliance with PPE protocols. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (PubMed up to 8 January 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Trials (CENTRAL up to 20 January 2016), EMBASE (embase.com up to 8 January 2016), CINAHL (EBSCOhost up to 20 January 2016), and OSH-Update up to 8 January 2016. We also screened reference lists of included trials and relevant reviews, and contacted NGOs and manufacturers of PPE. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all eligible controlled studies that compared the effect of types or components of PPE in HCWs exposed to highly infectious diseases with serious consequences, such as EVD and SARS, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. This included studies that simulated contamination with fluorescent markers or a non-pathogenic virus.We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or removing PPE, and the effects of various types of training in PPE use on the same outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included trials. We intended to perform meta-analyses but we did not find sufficiently similar studies to combine their results. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine studies with 1200 participants evaluating ten interventions. Of these, eight trials simulated the exposure with a fluorescent marker or virus or bacteria containing fluids. Five studies evaluated different types of PPE against each other but two did not report sufficient data. Another two studies compared different types of donning and doffing and three studies evaluated the effect of different types of training.None of the included studies reported a standardised classification of the protective properties against viral penetration of the PPE, and only one reported the brand of PPE used. None of the studies were conducted with HCWs exposed to EVD but in one study participants were exposed to SARS. Different types of PPE versus each otherIn simulation studies, contamination rates varied from 25% to 100% of participants for all types of PPE. In one study, PPE made of more breathable material did not lead to a statistically significantly different number of spots with contamination but did have greater user satisfaction (Mean Difference (MD) -0.46 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) -0.84 to -0.08, range 1 to 5, very low quality evidence). In another study, gowns protected better than aprons. In yet another study, the use of a powered air-purifying respirator protected better than a now outdated form of PPE. There were no studies on goggles versus face shields, on long- versus short-sleeved gloves, or on the use of taping PPE parts together. Different methods of donning and doffing procedures versus each otherTwo cross-over simulation studies (one RCT, one CCT) compared different methods for donning and doffing against each other. Double gloving led to less contamination compared to single gloving (Relative Risk (RR) 0.36; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.78, very low quality evidence) in one simulation study, but not to more noncompliance with guidance (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.67, very low quality evidence). Following CDC recommendations for doffing led to less contamination in another study (very low quality evidence). There were no studies on the use of disinfectants while doffing. Different types of training versus each otherIn one study, the use of additional computer simulation led to less errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7) and in another study additional spoken instruction led to less errors (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4). One retrospective cohort study assessed the effect of active training - defined as face-to-face instruction - versus passive training - defined as folders or videos - on noncompliance with PPE use and on noncompliance with doffing guidance. Active training did not considerably reduce noncompliance in PPE use (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.63; 95% CI 0.31 to 1.30) but reduced noncompliance with doffing procedures (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98, very low quality evidence). There were no studies on how to retain the results of training in the long term or on resource use.The quality of the evidence was very low for all comparisons because of high risk of bias in studies, indirectness of evidence, and small numbers of participants. This means that it is likely that the true effect can be substantially different from the one reported here. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low quality evidence that more breathable types of PPE may not lead to more contamination, but may have greater user satisfaction. We also found very low quality evidence that double gloving and CDC doffing guidance appear to decrease the risk of contamination and that more active training in PPE use may reduce PPE and doffing errors more than passive training. However, the data all come from single studies with high risk of bias and we are uncertain about the estimates of effects.We need simulation studies conducted with several dozens of participants, preferably using a non-pathogenic virus, to find out which type and combination of PPE protects best, and what is the best way to remove PPE. We also need randomised controlled studies of the effects of one type of training versus another to find out which training works best in the long term. HCWs exposed to highly infectious diseases should have their use of PPE registered and should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection.

[Effectiveness of health examinations by occupational health services]. / Työterveyshuollon terveystarkastusten vaikuttavuus.

Health examinations are part of the activities of occupational health services in preventing diseases and promoting occupational health. Their aim is to protect workers from health risks on one hand but also to promote the worker's own resources and health in order to maintain their capacity for work. Initiation of preventive, corrective and rehabilitative measures and those directed toward the workplace is attempted at the earliest possible stage. When interpreting the examination data it is in fact important to recognize whether it is the effectiveness of the health examination visit or the subsequent procedures that is being evaluated.