Exposure to workplace sexual harassment and risk of cardiometabolic disease: a prospective cohort study of 88 904 Swedish men and women.

AIMS: Exposure to work-related sexual harassment may increase the risk for certain adverse behavioural and emotional outcomes but less is known about its association with somatic diseases such as cardiovascular disease (CVD) and type 2 diabetes. This study investigated the prospective association of work-related sexual harassment and risk of cardiometabolic diseases. METHODS AND RESULTS: This cohort study included 88 904 Swedish men and women in paid work who responded to questions on workplace sexual harassment in the Swedish Work Environment Survey (1995-2015) and were free from cardiometabolic diseases at baseline. Cardiometabolic diseases (CVD and type 2 diabetes) were identified from the National Patient Register and Causes of Death Register through linkage. Cox proportional hazard regression was used, adjusting for socio-demographic, work-related psychosocial, and physical exposure at baseline. Overall, 4.8% of the participants (n = 4300) reported exposure to workplace sexual harassment during the previous 12 months. After adjustment for sex, birth country, family situation, education, income, and work-related factors, workplace sexual harassment was associated with increased incidence of CVD [hazard ratio (HR) 1.25, 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.51] and type 2 diabetes (1.45, 1.21-1.73). The HR for CVD (1.57, 1.15-2.15) and type 2 diabetes (1.85, 1.39-2.46) was increased for sexual harassment from superior or fellow workers, and sexual harassment from others was associated with type 2 diabetes (1.39, 1.13-1.70). The HR for both CVD (1.31, 0.95-1.81) and type 2 diabetes (1.72, 1.30-2.28) was increased for frequent exposure. CONCLUSION: The results of this study support the hypothesis that workplace sexual harassment is prospectively associated with cardiometabolic diseases. Future research is warranted to understand causality and mechanisms behind these associations.

We investigated if workers in Sweden who had experienced sexual harassment at work had a higher risk of developing cardiovascular disease and diabetes than workers who had not experienced sexual harassment at work. The experience of workplace sexual harassment was associated with an increased risk of both cardiovascular disease and diabetes. The risk was highest among those workers who had frequently experienced sexual harassment. Our results suggest that preventive measures directed towards elimination of sexual harassment may contribute to a reduction in cardiovascular disease and diabetes in the population.

Do Sleep Problems Explain the Association Between Work Stress and the Trajectories of Work Ability From Midlife to Pensionable Age?

OBJECTIVE: This study examined whether mid-life work stress, defined as job strain and effort-reward imbalance (ERI), predicts work ability trajectories observed 12 years preceding the individual pensionable age. In addition, the role of sleep problems as a mediator in these associations was examined. METHODS: Survey data were collected from 2707 Finnish municipal employees. RESULTS: Identified work ability trajectories were "stable excellent," "stable good," "moderate," and "low decreasing." Baseline job strain and ERI were associated with a greater likelihood of belonging to impaired work ability trajectories when compared with "stable good" trajectory. Baseline sleep problems explained the association of job strain by 38% and of ERI by 54%. CONCLUSIONS: Mid-life work stress is associated with work ability in the last years preceding pensionable age. Sleep problems might be a potential mediator in these associations.

The effect of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors on osteoarthritis of hip or knee and selected other musculoskeletal diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large network of experts. Evidence from mechanistic data suggests that occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors may cause selected other musculoskeletal diseases, other than back or neck pain (MSD) or osteoarthritis of hip or knee (OA). In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of parameters for estimating the number of disability-adjusted life years from MSD or OA that are attributable to occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors (force exertion, demanding posture, repetitiveness, hand-arm vibration, lifting, kneeling and/or squatting, and climbing) on MSD and OA (two outcomes: prevalence and incidence). DATA SOURCES: We developed and published a protocol, applying the Navigation Guide as an organizing systematic review framework where feasible. We searched electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including the International Trials Register, Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and CISDOC. We also searched electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-searched reference list of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consulted additional experts. STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA: We included working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but excluded children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. We included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the effect of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors (any exposure to force exertion, demanding posture, repetitiveness, hand-arm vibration, lifting, kneeling and/or squatting, and climbing ≥ 2 h/day) compared with no or low exposure to the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (<2 h/day) on the prevalence or incidence of MSD or OA. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. Missing data were requested from principal study authors. We combined odds ratios using random-effect meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using Navigation Guide tools adapted to this project. RESULTS: In total eight studies (4 cohort studies and 4 case control studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 2,378,729 participants (1,157,943 females and 1,220,786 males) in 6 countries in 3 WHO regions (Europe, Eastern Mediterranean and Western Pacific). The exposure was measured using self-reports in most studies and with a job exposure matrix in one study and outcome was generally assessed with physician diagnostic records or administrative health data. Across included studies, risk of bias was generally moderate. Compared with no or low exposure (<2 h per day), any occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors increased the risk of acquiring MSD (odds ratio (OR) 1.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14 to 2.72, 4 studies, 2,376,592 participants, I2 70%); and increased the risk of acquiring OA of knee or hip (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.42 to 3.40, 3 studies, 1,354 participants, I2 13%); Subgroup analysis for MSD found evidence for differences by sex, but indicated a difference in study type, where OR was higher among study participants in a case control study compared to study participants in cohort studies. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, for both outcomes, the main body of evidence was assessed as being of low quality. Occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors increased the risk of acquiring MSD and of acquiring OA of knee or hip. We judged the body of human evidence on the relationship between exposure to occupational ergonomic factors and MSD as "limited evidence of harmfulness" and the relationship between exposure to occupational ergonomic factors and OA also as "limited evidence of harmfulness". These relative risks might perhaps be suitable as input data for WHO/ILO modelling of work-related burden of disease and injury. Protocol identifier: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.09.053 PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018102631.

The prevalence of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large network of experts. Evidence from mechanistic and human data suggests that occupational exposure to ergonomic (or physical) risk factors may cause osteoarthritis and other musculoskeletal diseases (excluding rheumatoid arthritis, gout, and back and neck pain). In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of occupational exposure to physical ergonomic risk factors for estimating the number of disability-adjusted life years from these diseases that are attributable to exposure to this risk factor, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the prevalence of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors for osteoarthritis and other musculoskeletal diseases. DATA SOURCES: We searched electronic bibliographic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and CISDOC. We also searched electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-searched reference list of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consulted additional experts. STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA: We included working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but excluded children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. The exposure was defined as any occupational exposure to one or more of: force exertion, demanding posture, repetitive movement, hand-arm vibration, kneeling or squatting, lifting, and/or climbing. We included all study types with an estimate of the prevalence of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. We combined prevalence estimates using random-effect meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using the ROB-SPEO tool and QoE-SPEO approach developed specifically for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. RESULTS: Five studies (three cross-sectional studies and two cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising 150,895 participants (81,613 females) in 36 countries in two WHO regions (Africa, Europe). The exposure was generally assessed with questionnaire data about self-reported exposure. Estimates of the prevalence of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors are presented for all five included studies, disaggregated by country, sex, 5-year age group, industrial sector or occupational group where feasible. The pooled prevalence of any occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors was 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.69 to 0.84, 3 studies, 148,433 participants, 35 countries in the WHO Europe region, I2 100%, low quality of evidence). Subgroup analyses found no statistically significant differences in exposure by sex but differences by age group, occupation and country. No evidence was found for publication bias. We assessed this body evidence to be of low quality, based on serious concerns for risk of bias due to exposure assessment only being based on self-report and for indirectness due to evidence from two WHO regions only. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review and meta-analysis found that occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors is highly prevalent. The current body of evidence is, however, limited, especially by risk of bias and indirectness. Producing estimates for the burden of disease attributable to occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors appears evidence-based, and the pooled effect estimates presented in this systematic review may perhaps be used as input data for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. Protocol identifier:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.09.053. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018102631.

Does working beyond the statutory retirement age have an impact on health and functional capacity? The Finnish Retirement and Aging cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the development of self-rated health, psychological distress and physical functioning between those retired on time and those who continued working beyond the individual retirement age. METHODS: The study population consisted of 2340 public sector employees from the Finnish Retirement and Aging study. Participants were categorised into no extension of employment (retired at the individual retirement date or <3 months past) and extension of employment (≥12 months). Propensity score matching (1:1 ratio) was used to identify comparable group of participants in the no-extension (n=574) and extension (n=574) groups by taking into account preretirement characteristics and their interactions. RESULTS: The prevalence of suboptimal self-rated health and psychological distress changed a little among the extension group during the follow-up from 1 year before (T1) to 18 months (T2) and 30 months (T3) after individual pensionable date. Compared with no extension, the risk of having suboptimal self-rated health in the extension group was 0.89 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.17) at T1, 1.16 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.53) at T2 and 0.96 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.37) at T3. For psychological distress, the corresponding risk ratios were 0.93 (0.65 to 1.32), 1.15 (0.78 to 1.69) and 1.04 (0.61 to 1.79). The mean differences in the number of physical functioning difficulties between the extension and no-extension groups were 0.06 (-0.16 to 0.29) at T1, 0.05 (-0.18 to 0.27) at T2 and -0.11 (-0.39 to 0.17) at T3. CONCLUSIONS: This study found no evidence that voluntarily extending the working career beyond retirement age would pose a risk to health and physical functioning among ageing workers.