COVID-19-related hospital admission in spouses of partners in at-risk occupations.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to quantify the risk of COVID-19-related hospital admission in spouses living with partners in at-risk occupations in Denmark during 2020-21. METHODS: Within a registry-based cohort of all Danish employees (N=2 451 542), we identified cohabiting couples, in which at least one member (spouse) held a job that according to a job exposure matrix entailed low risk of occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2 (N=192 807 employees, 316 COVID-19 hospital admissions). Risk of COVID-19-related hospital admission in such spouses was assessed according to whether their partners were in jobs with low, intermediate or high risk for infection. Overall and sex-specific incidence rate ratios (IRR) of COVID-19-related hospital admission were computed by Poisson regression with adjustment for relevant covariates. RESULTS: The risk of COVID-19-related hospital admission was increased among spouses with partners in high-risk occupations [adjusted IRR (IRRadj)1.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-2.2], but not intermediate-risk occupations (IRRadj 0.97 95% 0.8-1.3). IRR for having a partner in a high-risk job was elevated during the first three pandemic waves but not in the fourth (IRRadj 0.48 95% CI 0.2-1.5). Sex did not modify the risk of hospital admission. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 transmission at the workplace may pose an increased risk of severe COVID-19 among spouses in low-risk jobs living with partners in high-risk jobs, which emphasizes the need for preventive measures at the workplace in future outbreaks of epidemic contagious disease. When available, effective vaccines seem essential.

Occupational risk of COVID-19 related hospital admission in Denmark 2020-2021: a follow-up study.

OBJECTIVE: Mounting evidence indicates increased risk of COVID-19 among healthcare personnel, but the evidence on risks in other occupations is limited. In this study, we quantify the occupational risk of COVID-19-related hospital admission in Denmark during 2020-2021. METHODS: The source population included 2.4 million employees age 20-69 years. All information was retrieved from public registers. The risk of COVID-19 related hospital admission was examined in 155 occupations with at least 2000 employees (at-risk, N=1 620 231) referenced to a group of mainly office workers defined by a COVID-19 job exposure matrix (N=369 341). Incidence rate ratios (IRR) were computed by Poisson regression. RESULTS: During 186 million person-weeks of follow-up, we observed 2944 COVID-19 related hospital admissions in at-risk occupations and 559 in referents. Adjusted risk of such admission was elevated in several occupations within healthcare (including health care assistants, nurses, medical practitioners and laboratory technicians but not physiotherapists or midwives), social care (daycare assistants for children aged 4-7, and nursing aides in institutions and private homes, but not family daycare workers) and transportation (bus drivers, but not lorry drivers). Most IRR in these at-risk occupations were in the range of 1.5-3. Employees in education, retail sales and various service occupations seemed not to be at risk. CONCLUSION: Employees in several occupations within and outside healthcare are at substantially increased risk of COVID-19. There is a need to revisit safety measures and precautions to mitigate viral transmission in the workplace during the current and forthcoming pandemics.

Patterns of change of multisite pain over 1 year of follow-up and related risk factors.

BACKGROUND: Multisite musculoskeletal pain is common and disabling. This study aimed to prospectively investigate the distribution of musculoskeletal pain anatomically, and explore risk factors for increases/reductions in the number of painful sites. METHODS: Using data from participants working in 45 occupational groups in 18 countries, we explored changes in reporting pain at 10 anatomical sites on two occasions 14 months apart. We used descriptive statistics to explore consistency over time in the number of painful sites, and their anatomical distribution. Baseline risk factors for increases/reductions by ≥3 painful sites were explored by random intercept logistic regression that adjusted for baseline number of painful sites. RESULTS: Among 8927 workers, only 20% reported no pain at either time point, and 16% reported ≥3 painful sites both times. After 14 months, the anatomical distribution of pain often changed but there was only an average increase of 0.17 painful sites. Some 14% workers reported a change in painful sites by ≥3. Risk factors for an increase of ≥3 painful sites included female sex, lower educational attainment, having a physically demanding job and adverse beliefs about the work-relatedness of musculoskeletal pain. Also predictives were as follows: older age, somatizing tendency and poorer mental health (each of which was also associated with lower odds of reductions of ≥3 painful sites). CONCLUSIONS: Longitudinally, the number of reported painful sites was relatively stable but the anatomical distribution varied considerably. These findings suggest an important role for central pain sensitization mechanisms, rather than localized risk factors, among working adults. SIGNIFICANCE: Our findings indicate that within individuals, the number of painful sites is fairly constant over time, but the anatomical distribution varies, supporting the theory that among people at work, musculoskeletal pain is driven more by factors that predispose to experiencing or reporting pain rather than by localized stressors specific to only one or two anatomical sites.

Ethnic differences in risk of severe Covid-19: To what extent are they driven by exposure?

BACKGROUND: This study quantifies the risk of Covid-19 among ethnic groups of healthcare staff during the first pandemic wave in England. METHODS: We analysed data on 959 356 employees employed by 191 National Health Service trusts during 1 January 2019 to 31 July 2020, comparing rates of Covid-19 sickness absence in different ethnic groups. RESULTS: In comparison with White ethnic groups, the risk of short-duration Covid-19 sickness absence was modestly elevated in South Asian but not Black groups. However, all Black and ethnic minority groups were at higher risk of prolonged Covid-19 sickness absence. Odds ratios (ORs) relative to White ethnicity were more than doubled in South Asian groups (Indian OR 2.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.36-2.63; Pakistani OR 2.38, 2.15-2.64; Bangladeshi OR 2.38, 1.98-2.86), while that for Black African ethnicity was 1.82 (1.71-1.93). In nursing/midwifery staff, the association of ethnicity with prolonged Covid-19 sickness absence was strong; the odds of South Asian nurses/midwives having a prolonged episode of Covid-19 sickness absence were increased 3-fold (OR 3.05, 2.82-3.30). CONCLUSIONS: Residual differences in risk of short term Covid-19 sickness absences among ethnic groups may reflect differences in non-occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Our results indicate ethnic differences in vulnerability to Covid-19, which may be only partly explained by medical comorbidities.

Changing patterns of sickness absence among healthcare workers in England during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Patterns of sickness absence shed useful light on disease occurrence and illness-related behaviours in working populations. METHODS: We analysed prospectively collected, pseudonymized data on 959 356 employees who were continuously employed by National Health Service trusts in England from 1 January 2019 to 31 July 2020, comparing the frequency of new sickness absence in 2020 with that at corresponding times in 2019. RESULTS: After exclusion of episodes directly related to COVID-19, the overall incidence of sickness absence during the initial 10 weeks of the pandemic (March-May 2020) was more than 20% lower than in corresponding weeks of 2019. Trends for specific categories of illness varied substantially, with a fall by 24% for cancer, but an increase for mental illness. A doubling of new absences for pregnancy-related disorders during May-July of 2020 was limited to women with earlier COVID-19 sickness absence. CONCLUSIONS: Various factors will have contributed to the large and divergent changes that were observed. The findings reinforce concerns regarding delays in diagnosis and treatment of cancers and support a need to plan for a large backlog of treatment for many other diseases. Further research should explore the rise in absence for pregnancy-related disorders among women with earlier COVID-19 sickness absence.

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

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

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on sickness absence for mental ill health in National Health Service staff.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the patterns of sickness absence in National Health Service (NHS) staff attributable to mental ill health during the first wave of the COVID-19 epidemic in March-July 2020. DESIGN: Case-referent analysis of a secondary dataset. SETTING: NHS Trusts in England. PARTICIPANTS: Pseudonymised data on 959 356 employees who were continuously employed by NHS trusts during 1 January 2019 to 31 July 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Trends in the burden of sickness absence due to mental ill health from 2019 to 2020 according to demographic, regional and occupational characteristics. RESULTS: Over the study period, 164 202 new sickness absence episodes for mental ill health were recorded in 12.5% (119 525) of the study sample. There was a spike of sickness absence for mental ill health in March-April 2020 (899 730 days lost) compared with 519 807 days in March-April 2019; the surge was driven by an increase in new episodes of long-term absence and had diminished by May/June 2020. The increase was greatest in those aged >60 years (227%) and among employees of Asian and Black ethnic origin (109%-136%). Among doctors and dentists, the number of days absent declined by 12.7%. The biggest increase was in London (122%) and the smallest in the East Midlands (43.7%); the variation between regions reflected the rates of COVID-19 sickness absence during the same period. CONCLUSION: Although the COVID-19 epidemic led to an increase in sickness absence attributed to mental ill health in NHS staff, this had substantially declined by May/June 2020, corresponding with the decrease in pressures at work as the first wave of the epidemic subsided.

Consequences of ignoring clustering in linear regression.

BACKGROUND: Clustering of observations is a common phenomenon in epidemiological and clinical research. Previous studies have highlighted the importance of using multilevel analysis to account for such clustering, but in practice, methods ignoring clustering are often employed. We used simulated data to explore the circumstances in which failure to account for clustering in linear regression could lead to importantly erroneous conclusions. METHODS: We simulated data following the random-intercept model specification under different scenarios of clustering of a continuous outcome and a single continuous or binary explanatory variable. We fitted random-intercept (RI) and ordinary least squares (OLS) models and compared effect estimates with the "true" value that had been used in simulation. We also assessed the relative precision of effect estimates, and explored the extent to which coverage by 95% confidence intervals and Type I error rates were appropriate. RESULTS: We found that effect estimates from both types of regression model were on average unbiased. However, deviations from the "true" value were greater when the outcome variable was more clustered. For a continuous explanatory variable, they tended also to be greater for the OLS than the RI model, and when the explanatory variable was less clustered. The precision of effect estimates from the OLS model was overestimated when the explanatory variable varied more between than within clusters, and was somewhat underestimated when the explanatory variable was less clustered. The cluster-unadjusted model gave poor coverage rates by 95% confidence intervals and high Type I error rates when the explanatory variable was continuous. With a binary explanatory variable, coverage rates by 95% confidence intervals and Type I error rates deviated from nominal values when the outcome variable was more clustered, but the direction of the deviation varied according to the overall prevalence of the explanatory variable, and the extent to which it was clustered. CONCLUSIONS: In this study we identified circumstances in which application of an OLS regression model to clustered data is more likely to mislead statistical inference. The potential for error is greatest when the explanatory variable is continuous, and the outcome variable more clustered (intraclass correlation coefficient is ≥ 0.01).

A case management occupational health model to facilitate earlier return to work of NHS staff with common mental health disorders: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: The NHS is the biggest employer in the UK. Depression and anxiety are common reasons for sickness absence among staff. Evidence suggests that an intervention based on a case management model using a biopsychosocial approach could be cost-effective and lead to earlier return to work for staff with common mental health disorders. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an early occupational health referral and case management intervention to facilitate the return to work of NHS staff on sick leave with any common mental health disorder (e.g. depression or anxiety). DESIGN: A multicentre mixed-methods feasibility study with embedded process evaluation and economic analyses. The study comprised an updated systematic review, survey of care as usual, and development of an intervention in consultation with key stakeholders. Although this was not a randomised controlled trial, the study design comprised two arms where participants received either the intervention or care as usual. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were NHS staff on sick leave for 7 or more consecutive days but less than 90 consecutive days, with a common mental health disorder. INTERVENTION: The intervention involved early referral to occupational health combined with standardised work-focused case management. CONTROL/COMPARATOR: Participants in the control arm received care as usual. PRIMARY OUTCOME: The primary outcome was the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention, study processes (including methods of recruiting participants) and data collection tools to measure return to work, episodes of sickness absence, workability (a worker's functional ability to perform their job), occupational functioning, symptomatology and cost-effectiveness proposed for use in a main trial. RESULTS: Forty articles and two guidelines were included in an updated systematic review. A total of 49 of the 126 (39%) occupational health providers who were approached participated in a national survey of care as usual. Selected multidisciplinary stakeholders contributed to the development of the work-focused case management intervention (including a training workshop). Six NHS trusts (occupational health departments) agreed to take part in the study, although one trust withdrew prior to participant recruitment, citing staff shortages. At mixed intervention sites, participants were sequentially allocated to each arm, where possible. Approximately 1938 (3.9%) NHS staff from the participating sites were on sick leave with a common mental health disorder during the study period. Forty-two sick-listed NHS staff were screened for eligibility on receipt of occupational health management referrals. Twenty-four (57%) participants were consented: 11 (46%) received the case management intervention and 13 (54%) received care as usual. Follow-up data were collected from 11 out of 24 (46%) participants at 3 months and 10 out of 24 (42%) participants at 6 months. The case management intervention and case manager training were found to be acceptable and inexpensive to deliver. Possible contamination issues are likely in a future trial if participants are individually randomised at mixed intervention sites. HARMS: No adverse events were reported. LIMITATIONS: The method of identification and recruitment of eligible sick-listed staff was ineffective in practice because uptake of referral to occupational health was low, but a new targeted method has been devised. CONCLUSION: All study questions were addressed. Difficulties raising organisational awareness of the study coupled with a lack of change in occupational health referral practices by line managers affected the identification and recruitment of participants. Strategies to overcome these barriers in a main trial were identified. The case management intervention was fit for purpose and acceptable to deliver in the NHS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14621901. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 12. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Anxiety and depression are common causes of sickness absence in the NHS. This can harm patient care. Previous research has shown that offering early support to NHS staff on sick leave with a common mental health disorder is important to aid recovery and rehabilitation. However, it is not currently known how best to support staff in returning to work. The purpose of this research was to test the feasibility of a large-scale study to see if specially trained occupational health nurses would be effective in getting NHS staff with these problems back to work quicker. We reviewed the recent scientific literature and did a survey of NHS occupational health departments to find out what was currently offered to such staff. We developed a new work-focused case management intervention and trained six occupational health nurses to deliver it. We recruited 24 NHS staff who were on sick leave with a common mental health disorder (such as depression or anxiety) and allocated 11 to receive the new intervention and the rest to receive usual support. Participants were invited to complete three questionnaires and we collected information from the participating occupational health sites. We also interviewed participants, managers, human resource staff and occupational health nurses to find out what they thought about being involved in the study. We found that the new case management intervention had potential benefits. However, it would not be possible to run a trial to evaluate the intervention until a better way can be found to encourage the early referral of sick staff to occupational health.

Are depressive disorders caused by psychosocial stressors at work? A systematic review with metaanalysis.

In the last decade, many studies have examined associations between poor psychosocial work environment and depression. We aimed to assess the evidence for a causal association between psychosocial factors at work and depressive disorders. We conducted a systematic literature search from 1980 to March 2019. For all exposures other than night and shift work and long working hours, we limited our selection of studies to those with a longitudinal design. We extracted available risk estimates for each of 19 psychosocial exposures, from which we calculated summary risk estimates with 95% confidence intervals (PROSPERO, identifier CRD42019130266). 54 studies were included, addressing 19 exposures and 11 different measures of depression. Only data on depressive episodes were sufficient for evaluation. Heterogeneity of exposure definitions and ascertainment, outcome measures, risk parameterization and effect contrasts limited the validity of meta-analyses. Summary risk estimates were above unity for all but one exposure, and below 1.60 for all but another. Outcome measures were liable to high rates of false positives, control of relevant confounding was mostly inadequate, and common method bias was likely in a large proportion of studies. The combination of resulting biases is likely to have inflated observed effect estimates. When statistical uncertainties and the potential for bias and confounding are taken into account, it is not possible to conclude with confidence that any of the psychosocial exposures at work included in this review is either likely or unlikely to cause depressive episodes or recurrent depressive disorders.

Individualised placement and support programme for people unemployed because of chronic pain: a feasibility study and the InSTEP pilot RCT.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is a common cause of health-related incapacity for work among people in the UK. Individualised placement and support is a systematic approach to rehabilitation, with emphasis on early supported work placement. It is effective in helping people with severe mental illness to gain employment, but has not been tested for chronic pain. OBJECTIVE: To inform the design of a definitive randomised controlled trial to assess the clinical effectiveness of individualised placement and support for people unemployed because of chronic pain. METHODS: A mixed-methods feasibility study comprising qualitative interviews and focus groups with key stakeholders, alongside a pilot trial. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: Primary care-based health-care professionals, employment support workers, employers, clients who participated in an individualised placement and support programme, and individuals aged 18-64 years with chronic pain who were unemployed for at least 3 months. INTERVENTION: An individualised placement and support programme integrated with a personalised, responsive pain management plan, backed up by communication with a general practitioner and rapid access to community-based pain services. OUTCOMES: Outcomes included stakeholder views about a trial and methods of recruitment; the feasibility and acceptability of the individualised placement and support intervention; study processes (including methods to recruit participants from primary care, training and support needs of the employment support workers to integrate with pain services, acceptability of randomisation and the treatment-as-usual comparator); and scoping of outcome measures for a definitive trial. RESULTS: All stakeholders viewed a trial as feasible and important, and saw the relevance of employment interventions in this group. Using all suggested methods, recruitment was feasible through primary care, but it was slow and resource intensive. Recruitment through pain services was more efficient. Fifty people with chronic pain were recruited (37 from primary care and 13 from pain services). Randomisation was acceptable, and 22 participants were allocated to individualised placement and support, and 28 participants were allocated to treatment as usual. Treatment as usual was found acceptable. Retention of treatment-as-usual participants was acceptable throughout the 12 months. However, follow-up of individualised placement and support recipients using postal questionnaires proved challenging, especially when the participant started paid work, and new approaches would be needed for a trial. Clients, employment support workers, primary care-based health-care professionals and employers contributed to manualisation of the intervention. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Unless accurate and up-to-date employment status information can be collected in primary care health records, or linkage can be established with employment records, research such as this relating to employment will be impracticable in primary care. The trial may be possible through pain services; however, clients may differ. Retention of participants proved challenging and methods for achieving this would need to be developed. The intervention has been manualised. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN30094062. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Chronic pain is a common cause of disability and unemployment. Individualised placement and support is a package of care that aims to rehabilitate people and get them back into paid employment. It is effective for people with severe mental health conditions, but no one knows if it works for patients with chronic pain. This research aimed to determine the feasibility of a future randomised trial to test if individualised placement and support improves quality of life or other health outcomes in this group. We conducted in-depth interviews with patients, doctors, nurses, employment support workers and employers, as well as a small-scale pilot trial. All of the groups interviewed supported the value of the intervention and the pilot trial. The Patient Advisory Group helped review trial documentation and produced a standardised treatment-as-usual booklet for comparison with individualised placement and support. However, despite experimenting with a range of methods, recruiting patients proved challenging, particularly from general practices, where employment status is not recorded systematically. More efficient recruitment was achieved through pain services. Overall, we recruited and randomised 50 participants, 22 of whom received individualised placement and support and 28 of whom received treatment as usual. There were no adverse events and both groups found their 'intervention' acceptable. Returned questionnaires were completed well by all participants; however, we experienced significant levels of non-returns, particularly among those receiving the individualised placement and support, possibly related to starting work. Overall, we believe that a trial would not be feasible if recruiting through general practices, but may be feasible via pain services. Challenges would be complex clients, retention over 12 months in both arms, integrating individualised placement and support with pain services and ensuring that the intervention was delivered as intended across multiple sites. The full report comments on how such challenges might be addressed.

Relative burden of lung and pleural cancers from exposure to asbestos: a cross-sectional analysis of occupational mortality in England and Wales.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the extent to which asbestos-exposed jobs vary in the ratio of excess mortality from lung cancer to deaths from pleural cancer. DESIGN: Using data on underlying cause of death and last full-time occupation for 3 688 916 deaths among men aged 20-74 years in England and Wales during 1979-2010, we calculated proportional mortality ratios (PMRs), standardised for age and social class, with all occupations combined as reference. For each of 22 asbestos-exposed job groups with significantly elevated PMRs for pleural cancer, we calculated excess mortality from lung cancer (observed minus expected deaths) and its ratio to number of deaths from pleural cancer. To reduce confounding effects of smoking, we adjusted expected deaths from lung cancer in each job group, according to a formula based on its PMR for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. SETTING: England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: 3 688 916 men who died aged 20-74 years during 1979-2010. OUTCOME MEASURES: Ratios of excess mortality from lung cancer to deaths from pleural cancer by job group. RESULTS: Adjusted PMRs for lung cancer were elevated in all but 4 of the 22 asbestos-exposed job groups, but the ratio of excess lung cancer to deaths from pleural cancer varied widely between job groups, being significantly greater than the overall ratio in six, and significantly less in seven. Analysis for 2001-2010, when (because of changes in coding) ascertainment of pleural tumours was more reliable, showed similar variation between job groups, and indicated an overall ratio of 0.28. CONCLUSIONS: Excess lung cancer in asbestos-exposed jobs is not in a simple proportion to deaths from pleural cancer, and the ratio may vary importantly according to intensity of exposure to different types of asbestos and concomitant smoking habits. The current burden of lung cancer from occupational exposure to asbestos in Britain may not be so high as previously thought.

Associations of sickness absence for pain in the low back, neck and shoulders with wider propensity to pain.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the association of sickness absence ascribed to pain at specific anatomical sites with wider propensity to musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: As part of the CUPID (Cultural and Psychosocial Influences on Disability) study, potential risk factors for sickness absence from musculoskeletal pain were determined for 11 922 participants from 45 occupational groups in 18 countries. After approximately 14 months, 9119 (78%) provided follow-up information about sickness in the past month because of musculoskeletal pain, including 8610 who were still in the same job. Associations with absence for pain at specific anatomical sites were assessed by logistic regression and summarised by ORs with 95% CIs. RESULTS: 861 participants (10%) reported absence from work because of musculoskeletal pain during the month before follow-up. After allowance for potential confounders, risk of absence ascribed entirely to low back pain (n=235) increased with the number of anatomical sites other than low back that had been reported as painful in the year before baseline (ORs 1.6 to 1.7 for ≥4 vs 0 painful sites). Similarly, associations with wider propensity to pain were observed for absence attributed entirely to pain in the neck (ORs up to 2.0) and shoulders (ORs up to 3.4). CONCLUSIONS: Sickness absence for pain at specific anatomical sites is importantly associated with wider propensity to pain, the determinants of which extend beyond established risk factors such as somatising tendency and low mood. Better understanding of why some individuals are generally more prone to musculoskeletal pain might point to useful opportunities for prevention.

Acute coronary syndrome and use of biomass fuel among women in rural Pakistan: a case-control study.

OBJECTIVES: Three billion people use biomass fuel for cooking and heating globally. We assessed the association between acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and use of biomass fuel for cooking. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study among women living in defined areas that were served by two tertiary care hospitals. A total of 364 women admitted to cardiac care units with ACS were compared with 727 controls, individually matched for age, who were inpatients at the same hospitals with a miscellany of diagnoses. Exposure to biomass fuel and other risk factors was ascertained through a questionnaire and assessed by conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: After adjustment, risk of ACS was elevated in women who had ever used biomass for cooking. In comparison with never users, the odds ratio for those who currently cooked with biomass was 4.8 (95% confidence interval 1.7, 13.8). However, among those who had ever used biomass, there was no decline in risk with time since last exposure. CONCLUSIONS: The study found increased risk of ACS from use of biomass for cooking. However, full benefits from interventions may not accrue in short term.

Levels and Determinants of Fine Particulate Matter and Carbon Monoxide in Kitchens Using Biomass and Non-Biomass Fuel for Cooking.

To assist interpretation of a study in rural Pakistan on the use of biomass for cooking and the risk of coronary heart disease, we continuously monitored airborne concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and carbon monoxide (CO) for up to 48 h in the kitchens of households randomly selected from the parent study. Satisfactory data on PM2.5 and CO respectively were obtained for 16 and 17 households using biomass, and 19 and 17 using natural gas. Linear regression analysis indicated that in comparison with kitchens using natural gas, daily average PM2.5 concentrations were substantially higher in kitchens that used biomass in either a chimney stove (mean difference 611, 95% CI: 359, 863 µg/m3) or traditional three-stone stove (mean difference 389, 95% CI: 231, 548 µg/m3). Daily average concentrations of CO were significantly increased when biomass was used in a traditional stove (mean difference from natural gas 3.7, 95% CI: 0.8, 6.7 ppm), but not when it was used in a chimney stove (mean difference -0.8, 95% CI: -4.8, 3.2 ppm). Any impact of smoking by household members was smaller than that of using biomass, and not clearly discernible. In the population studied, cooking with biomass as compared with natural gas should serve as a good proxy for higher personal exposure to PM2.5.

MultiTex RCT - a multifaceted intervention package for protection against cotton dust exposure among textile workers - a cluster randomized controlled trial in Pakistan: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: In the Pakistani textile industry the prevalence of workplace respiratory illnesses, including byssinosis, is high. The MultiTex RCT study aims to determine the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention package in reducing dust levels in cotton mills, decreasing the frequency of respiratory symptoms among cotton textile workers, and improving their lung function. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a cluster-randomized controlled trial at 28 textile mills in Karachi. The intervention will comprise: training in occupational health for all workers and managers reinforced by regular refresher sessions; the formation of workplace committees to draw up, agree and promote a health and safety plan that includes wet mopping, safe disposal of cotton dust, and the use of simple face-masks, as well as further publicity about the risks from cotton dust; and provision of adequate supplies of face-masks to support the health and safety plan. Participating mills will be randomized to intervention and control arms following a baseline survey. The impact of the intervention will be determined through follow-up surveys conducted at 3, 12 and 18 months. Data collection in the surveys will include spirometry, questionnaire-based interviews and cotton-dust measurements. DISCUSSION: If successful, the study may pave the way for simple, low-cost interventions that can help reduce cotton-dust levels in textile mills, and improve the respiratory health of textile workers in developing countries such as Pakistan. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03738202. Registered on 12 November 2018.