Factors associated with limitations in daily life and at work in a population with shoulder pain.

BACKGROUND: Shoulder pain, which is a widespread condition, can lead to participation restrictions in daily and professional life. However, there are few studies focusing on the differences between daily life limitations and work limitations. This study aims at identifying the factors associated with limitations in personal and professional life in a population of working age suffering from shoulder pain. METHODS: A sample of working age job seekers and workers with shoulder pain was drawn from the last general population cross-sectional French study on disability. Limitations were categorized depending on whether they related to daily life and/or work. The variables assessed were age, sex, state of health, activity restrictions, need for accommodation, and aggravating living conditions or aggravating working conditions. Separate Quasi-Poisson regressions were performed for each type of limitation. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 795 individuals of which 33.7% had no limitation, 21.7% were limited in daily life, 6.0% at work, and 38.6% in both. Factors significantly associated with daily life limitations and work limitations and their computed Prevalence Ratios (PR) were the need for accommodation (PR = 2.16), activity restrictions (PR = 2.28), perceived poor health (PR = 2.42) and low income (PR = 1.64). Aggravating living conditions and aggravating working conditions were associated with daily life limitations (PR of 1.69 and 0.63 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The present study identifies factors associated with disability in a population with shoulder pain. Further research should be carried out in order to study health-related periods of cessation of work.

Return-to-work, disabilities and occupational health in the age of COVID-19.

We have read with great interest the two editorials by Burdorf et al: "The COVID-19 pandemic: one year later - an occupational perspective" (1) and "The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic: consequences for occupational health" (2). The authors highlight the importance of the societal consequences of the outbreak and changes in the world of work to manage occupational health. The key points identified - such as individual socio-economic factors, psychological effects and occupations with highest risk of contamination - modify return-to-work approaches. It is estimated that around 800 million people of working age worldwide were living with disabilities before the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. In early January 2021, the cumulative COVID-19 hospitalisation rate reached 207.4/100 000 (18-49-year-olds) and 505.7/100 000 (50-64-year-olds), respectively, in the United States (3). In France, the hospitalisation rate was 411.5/100 000 across all ages (4). A recent cohort study of working-age men who were hospitalised for COVID-19 highlighted the long-term health consequences of such a disease (5). The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic creates new challenges for occupational health, shifting attention away from return-to-work after health problems to resuming work during an outbreak, dealing with lockdown, and taking special account of workers with vulnerabilities (6, 7). We recommend considering three different aspects of occupational medicine during a pandemic. Firstly, for most workers at high-risk of severe COVID-19, the issues of work disability and resuming work had never occurred before the epidemic. Recommendations such as physical and social distancing and wearing a facemask are highly advisable to protect against infection but may not be enough to enable some individuals to resume work. Therefore, decision-making requires individual comprehensive assessments of the underlying medical condition, the SARS-CoV-2 contamination risk associated with either regular work or teleworking, and vaccination opportunities. The second situation concerns workers who have suffered from COVID-19. Preliminary studies suggest that long recovery duration is related to high severity (7), but this is still a matter of debate for patients suffering from "long COVID-19" (5, 8, 9), a condition for which the long-term effects remain unknown. Any long-running recovery must be considered to be a potential sign of long COVID-19. These long-lasting syndromes occur among patients with severe symptoms but have also been reported independently of acute phase severity, hospitalisation and receiving medical oxygen (8, 9). Researchers worldwide are currently investigating such syndromes. Strategies promoting return to work for these workers will need to be implemented and could be similar to programmes developed for other chronic conditions. Moreover, numerous more serious sequelae following critical illness suggest the need for enhanced support by rehabilitation and occupational health specialists. Finally, the consequences of the epidemic must be evaluated over time for people who suffered from functional limitations before COVID-19 as their physical and mental condition may be modified by the epidemic and, specifically, the consequences of lockdown (10). In all of these situations, medical, social, financial and working contexts are key elements. In addition to a medical assessment, the use of scales such as the Work Ability Index (WAI) (11) or the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) (12) can help perform long-term follow-up and provide information about work capacity and workload. It also gives a "back to basics" perspective, urging politicians to move towards a `decent-work-for-all` policy, as advocated by the United Nation`s Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 8, which the WHO has endorsed (13). References 1. Burdorf A, Porru F, Rugulies R. The COVID-19 pandemic: one year later - an occupational perspective. Scand J Work Environ Health - online first. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3956 2. Burdorf A, Porru F, Rugulies R. The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic: consequences for occupational health. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2020;46(3):229-230. https://doi:org/10.5271/sjweh.3893. 3. COVID-19 Hospitalizations [Internet]. Available from: https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/COVIDNet/COVID19_3.html 4. COVID-19 in France, vaccine and allergy management in occupational setting. Descatha A et al. Arch Mal Prof Environ 2021. Accepted for publication. 5. Huang C, Huang L, Wang Y, Li X, Ren L, Gu X, et al. 6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study. Lancet 2021;397(10270):220-32 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32656-8 6. Shaw WS, Main CJ, Findley PA, Collie A, Kristman VL, Gross DP. Opening the Workplace After COVID-19: What Lessons Can be Learned from Return-to-Work Research? J Occup Rehabil. 2020;30(3):299-302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-020-09908-9 7. Taylor T, Das R, Mueller K, Pransky G, Christian J, Orford R, et al. Safely Returning America to Work: Part I: General Guidance for Employers. J Occup Environ Med. 2020;62(9):771-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000001984 8. Carfì A, Bernabei R, Landi F, Gemelli Against COVID-19 Post-Acute Care Study Group. Persistent Symptoms in Patients After Acute COVID-19. JAMA. 2020;324(6):603-5. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.12603 9. Tenforde MW, Kim SS, Lindsell CJ, Billig Rose E, Shapiro NI, Files DC, et al. Symptom Duration and Risk Factors for Delayed Return to Usual Health Among Outpatients with COVID-19 in a Multistate Health Care Systems Network - United States, March-June 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly. 2020;69(30):993-8. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6930e1 10. Chudasama YV, Gillies CL, Zaccardi F, Coles B, Davies MJ, Seidu S, et al. Impact of COVID-19 on routine care for chronic diseases: A global survey of views from healthcare professionals. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2020;14(5):965-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsx.2020.06.042 11. Tuomi K. Eleven-year follow-up of aging workers. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1997;23(1):1-71. 12. Reilly MC, Zbrozek AS, Dukes EM. The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument. PharmacoEconomics. 1993;4(5):353-65. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199304050-00006 13. Organization WH. Health in the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Sixty-Ninth World Health Assembly. Document A. 2016, p69.

Influence of severe knee pain, meniscus surgery and knee arthroplasty on physical ability: an observational study of 114 949 adults in the CONSTANCES cohort.

BACKGROUND: The knee is one of the major sites of musculoskeletal pain, yet few large-scale studies have evaluated the impact of knee disorders on physical limitations. Our objective was to describe this impact in a large-scale population study. METHODS: We included subjects of working age from the CONSTANCES cohort, from its inception. Four groups were distinguished according to their medical history: whether they had knee arthroplasty (KA), meniscus surgery, severe knee pain, or none of these. Outcomes assessed for physical limitations were self-reported limitations in the last 6 months due to health problems, limitation on carrying 5 kg on 10 m and a 3-metre length rapid gait speed test (for participants aged >45). Associations between knee groups and patients' characteristics and physical limitations were analysed using logistic regression. Robust associations were deemed relevant if their ORs were higher than 2 and their p value lower than 0.0001. RESULTS: Of the 114 949 individuals, 99 052 (86.2%) were in the 'no pain and no surgery' group, 14 740 (12.8%) were in the severe knee pain group, 1019 (0.89%) had meniscus surgery and 138 (0.12%) had KA. Severe knee pain and KA groups showed a similar profile (they were less at work, reported more deterioration in their health and had more limitations). CONCLUSION: Almost 14% of the sample had knee disorders. Subjects reporting severe knee pain or who had KA reported more important physical limitations then subjects who reported neither severe knee pain nor knee surgery.

Lateral Epicondylitis and Physical Exposure at Work? A Review of Prospective Studies and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: In view of recent published studies, a meta-analysis was undertaken on prospective studies in order to assess any association between lateral epicondylitis and physical exposure at work. METHODS: Using the key words "lateral epicondylitis" AND "occupational" AND ("cohort" OR "longitudinal," OR "incidence") without limitations on the language or year of publication, original prospective studies were selected from 4 databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Base de Données de Santé Publique) after 2 rounds (valid design, valid association reported, and valid work exposure). Relevant associations between physical exposure at work and incident lateral epicondylitis were extracted from the articles, and a meta-risk was calculated using the generic variance approach (meta-odds ratios [meta-ORs]). RESULTS: From 2001 to 2014, 5 prospective studies were included. Among 6,922 included subjects (and 3,449 who were followed), 256 cases of incident lateral epicondylitis were diagnosed 2.5-6 years after baseline. All the published studies found a significant estimation of relative risk for a positive association between combined biomechanic exposure involving the wrist and/or elbow and incidence of lateral epicondylitis. The overall meta-OR was 2.6 (95% confidence interval 1.9-3.5), with a low heterogeneity (Q = 1.4, P > 0.05). Funnel plots and Egger's test did not suggest major publication bias. CONCLUSION: The results of this meta-analysis strongly support the hypothesis of an association between biomechanic exposure involving the wrist and/or elbow at work and incidence of lateral epicondylitis.

[How to deal with request of work-related acknowledgement of mental illness?]. / Que faire face à une demande de reconnaissance de l'origine professionnelle d'une affection psychique ?

How to deal with request of work-related acknowledgement of mental illness? The physician, face to face with patients attributing their mental illness to work, wonders about the etiology in order to propose appropriate care. It may concern a preexistent psychiatric disease, revealed, unbalanced or worsened by work, criminal working conditions (mobbing, discrimination, violence…) that may lead to a major depressive episode (MDE) or a posttraumatic stress disorder. Besides, some working circumstances and their evolution may constitute the pathogenic sequences or facts, source of MDE. Acknowledgement of occupational origin may contribute to therapeutic decision. The criteria are not clearly established. When reporting, the physician should not refer to work, but should remain descriptive, referring to international classification.

Que faire face à une demande de reconnaissance de l'origine professionnelle d'une affection psychique ? Le médecin confronté aux affections psychiques que les malades rapportent à leur travail s'interroge sur l'étiologie des troubles pour pouvoir proposer une prise en charge adaptée. Il peut s'agir d'une maladie psychique préexistante révélée, déstabilisée ou aggravée par le travail, de conditions de travail délictuelles (harcèlements, discrimination, violence…) qui peuvent conduire à un épisode dépressif majeur ou un état de stress post-traumatique. Par ailleurs, certaines situations professionnelles et leurs évolutions peuvent constituer des faits ou séquences pathogènes à l'origine d'un épisode dépressif majeur. La reconnaissance de cette origine professionnelle contribue à la prise en charge thérapeutique. Les critères d'imputabilité ne sont pas clairement établis. Dans ses certificats comme dans ses écrits, le médecin ne doit pas faire le lien avec le travail mais rester descriptif, en référence aux classifications internationales.