The effect of exposure to long working hours on alcohol consumption, risky drinking and alcohol use disorder: 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 exposure to long working hours may increase alcohol consumption and cause alcohol use disorder. In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of parameters for estimating the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from alcohol consumption and alcohol use disorder that are attributable to exposure to long working hours, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of exposure to long working hours (three categories: 41-48, 49-54 and ≥55 h/week), compared with exposure to standard working hours (35-40 h/week), on alcohol consumption, risky drinking (three outcomes: prevalence, incidence and mortality) and alcohol use disorder (three outcomes: prevalence, incidence and mortality). DATA SOURCES: We developed and published a protocol, applying the Navigation Guide as an organizing systematic review framework where feasible. We searched electronic bibliographic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including the WHO International Clinical Trials Register, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and CISDOC on 30 June 2018. Searches on PubMed were updated on 18 April 2020. 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 considered for inclusion randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the effect of exposure to long working hours (41-48, 49-54 and ≥55 h/week), compared with exposure to standard working hours (35-40 h/week), on alcohol consumption (in g/week), risky drinking, and alcohol use disorder (prevalence, incidence or mortality). 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 publications related to qualifying studies. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias, quality of evidence and strength of evidence, using Navigation Guide and GRADE tools and approaches adapted to this project. RESULTS: Fourteen cohort studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 104,599 participants (52,107 females) in six countries of three WHO regions (Americas, South-East Asia, and Europe). The exposure and outcome were assessed with self-reported measures in most studies. Across included studies, risk of bias was generally probably high, with risk judged high or probably high for detection bias and missing data for alcohol consumption and risky drinking. Compared to working 35-40 h/week, exposure to working 41-48 h/week increased alcohol consumption by 10.4 g/week (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.59-15.20; seven studies; 25,904 participants, I2 71%, low quality evidence). Exposure to working 49-54 h/week increased alcohol consumption by 17.69 g/week (95% confidence interval (CI) 9.16-26.22; seven studies, 19,158 participants, I2 82%, low quality evidence). Exposure to working ≥55 h/week increased alcohol consumption by 16.29 g/week (95% confidence interval (CI) 7.93-24.65; seven studies; 19,692 participants; I2 82%, low quality evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of exposure to working 41-48 h/week, compared with working 35-40 h/week on developing risky drinking (relative risk 1.08; 95% CI 0.86-1.36; 12 studies; I2 52%, low certainty evidence). Working 49-54 h/week did not increase the risk of developing risky drinking (relative risk 1.12; 95% CI 0.90-1.39; 12 studies; 3832 participants; I2 24%, moderate certainty evidence), nor working ≥55 h/week (relative risk 1.11; 95% CI 0.95-1.30; 12 studies; 4525 participants; I2 0%, moderate certainty evidence). Subgroup analyses indicated that age may influence the association between long working hours and both alcohol consumption and risky drinking. We did not identify studies for which we had access to results on alcohol use disorder. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, for alcohol consumption in g/week and for risky drinking, we judged this body of evidence to be of low certainty. Exposure to long working hours may have increased alcohol consumption, but we are uncertain about the effect on risky drinking. We found no eligible studies on the effect on alcohol use disorder. Producing estimates for the burden of alcohol use disorder attributable to exposure to long working hours appears to not be evidence-based at this time. PROTOCOL IDENTIFIER: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.07.025. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018084077.

Alcohol and other drug use among Belgian workers and job-related consequences.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to obtain prevalence data on use of alcohol and other drugs (AOD) among Belgian workers, and to explore the associations between self-reported AOD use and job-related effects as experienced by workers, and the level of workers' well-being, respectively. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study (2016), 5367 workers filled out a questionnaire including validated instruments such as the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C). Job-related effects were defined as: being late at work, absenteeism, loss of productivity, injuries, conflicts with co-workers and sanctions by employers. Descriptive and multiple logistic regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Based on AUDIT-C, 39.1% of last year drinkers had an indication of problem drinking. The odds of experienced job-related effects was 3.6 (CI 2.86 to 4.60) times larger than the odds among workers without this indication. This ratio decreased to 3.2 (CI 2.52 to 4.11), controlling for language, gender, family context, level of education and sector. Respondents who used illicit drugs more frequently (>once a month) also had an increased risk for experienced job-related effects (OR 5.8; CI 2.87 to 11.84). Having a low level of well-being increased the risk for job-related effects due to psychoactive medication (OR 2.3, CI 1.10 to 4.91). DISCUSSION: In this study, self-reported AOD use was associated with short-term job-related effects. This suggests that an AOD policy in different sectors is needed with respect for the organisational culture. Its focus should lie on prevention and early detection of AOD problems, and on the mental health of workers. Attention is required for the non-medical use of prescription drugs.

WHO/ILO work-related burden of disease and injury: Protocol for systematic reviews of exposure to long working hours and of the effect of exposure to long working hours on alcohol consumption and alcohol use disorders.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing a joint methodology for estimating the national and global work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO joint methodology), with contributions from a large network of experts. In this paper, we present the protocol for two systematic reviews of parameters for estimating the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from alcohol consumption and alcohol use disorder attributable to exposure to long working hours, to inform the development of the WHO/ILO joint methodology. OBJECTIVES: We aim to systematically review studies on exposure to long working hours (Systematic Review 1) and systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of exposure to long working hours on alcohol consumption and alcohol use disorder (Systematic Review 2), applying the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology as an organizing framework. DATA SOURCES: Separately for Systematic Reviews 1 and 2, we will search electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CISDOC and PsychINFO. We will also search electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-search reference list of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consult additional experts. STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA: We will include working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but exclude children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. For Systematic Review 1, we will include quantitative prevalence studies of relevant levels of exposure to long working hours (i.e., 35-40, 41-48, 49-54 and ≥55 h/week) stratified by country, sex, age and industrial sector or occupation. For Systematic Review 2, we will include randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the relative effect of a relevant level of exposure to long working hours on total amount of alcohol consumed and on the incidence of, prevalence of or mortality from alcohol use disorders, compared with the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (i.e., worked 35-40 h/week). STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: At least two review authors will independently screen titles and abstracts at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. At least two review authors will assess risk of bias and quality of evidence, using the most suited tools currently available. For Systematic Review 2, if feasible, we will combine relative risks using meta-analysis. We will report results using the guidelines for accurate and transparent health estimates reporting (GATHER) for Systematic Review 1 and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines (PRISMA) for Systematic Review 2. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018084077.

The Approach Taken to Substance Abuse by Occupational Physicians: A Qualitative Study on Influencing Factors.

OBJECTIVE: Aiming to enhance occupational physicians' (OPs) practice when dealing with employee substance abuse, this study analyzes the experiences of OPs to gain insight into the factors influencing their behavior. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted and analyzed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. RESULTS: OPs act differently depending on the type of drug. Their approach was mainly determined by contextual factors and by their attitudes and skills. Many OPs want to invest in health promotion. Barriers such as lack of time and focus on periodic examinations often hamper both adequate prevention and the management of workers with substance abuse. CONCLUSIONS: The approach to substance abuse by OPs could be supported by initiatives both at the individual and the collective level. A facilitating work context seems to be particularly important in their commitment to alcohol- and drug-related issues at work.

What factors determine Belgian general practitioners' approaches to detecting and managing substance abuse? A qualitative study based on the I-Change Model.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) are considered to play a major role in detecting and managing substance abuse. However, little is known about how or why they decide to manage it. This study investigated the factors that influence GP behaviours with regard to the abuse of alcohol, illegal drugs, hypnotics, and tranquilisers among working Belgians. METHODS: Twenty Belgian GPs were interviewed. De Vries' Integrated Change Model was used to guide the interviews and qualitative data analyses. RESULTS: GPs perceived higher levels of substance abuse in urban locations and among lower socioeconomic groups. Guidelines, if they existed, were primarily used in Flanders. Specific training was unevenly applied but considered useful. GPs who accepted abuse management cited strong interpersonal skills and available multidisciplinary networks as facilitators.GPs relied on their clinical common sense to detect abuse or initiate management. Specific patients' situations and their social, psychological, or professional dysfunctions were cited as cues to action.GPs were strongly influenced by their personal representations of abuse, which included the balance between their professional responsibilities toward their patients and the patients' responsibilities in managing their own health as well the GPs' abilities to cope with unsatisfying patient outcomes without reaching professional exhaustion. GPs perceived substance abuse along a continuum ranging from a chronic disease (whose management was part of their responsibility) to a moral failing of untrustworthy people. Alcohol and cannabis were more socially acceptable than other drugs. Personal experiences of emotional burdens (including those regarding substance abuse) increased feelings of empathy or rejection toward patients.Multidisciplinary practices and professional experiences were cited as important factors with regard to engaging GPs in substance abuse management. Time constraints and personal investments were cited as important barriers.Satisfaction with treatment was rare. CONCLUSIONS: Motivational factors, including subjective beliefs not supported by the literature, were central in deciding whether to manage cases of substance abuse. A lack of theoretical knowledge and training were secondary to personal attitudes and motivation. Personal development, emotional health, self-awareness, and self-care should be taught to and fostered among GPs to help them maintain a patient-centred focus. Health authorities should support collaborative care.