Night shift work and cardiovascular diseases among employees in Germany: five-year follow-up of the Gutenberg Health Study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine if there is an increased risk of incident cardiovascular diseases (CVD) resulting from cumulative night shift work in the German population-based Gutenberg Health Study (GHS). METHODS: We examined working participants of the GHS at baseline and after five years. Cumulative night shift work in the 10 years before baseline was assessed and categorized as low (1-220 nights ≙ up to 1 year), middle (221-660 nights ≙ 1-3 years), and high (>660 nights ≙ more than 3 years) night shift exposure. Hazard ratios (HR) were estimated for incident "quality-assured CVD events" using Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: At baseline, 1092 of 8167 working participants performed night shift work. During the follow-up, 202 incident cardiovascular events occurred. The crude incidence rates for CVD per 1000 person-years were 6.88 [95% confidence interval (CI) 4.80-9.55] for night shift workers and 5.19 (95% CI 4.44-6.04) for day workers. Cumulative incidence curves showed a higher cumulative incidence in workers exposed to night shift work compared to day workers after five years. The adjusted HR for incident CVD events were 1.26 (95% CI 0.68-2.33), 1.37 (95% CI 0.74-2.53) and 1.19 (95% CI 0.67-2.12) for employees in the low, middle and high night shift categories compared to employees without night shift work, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The observed tendencies indicate that night shift work might be negatively associated with cardiovascular health. We expect the continued follow-up will clarify the long-term impact of night shift work.

[On the understanding of health in the workplace-An outline of problems]. / Zum Verständnis von Gesundheit in der Arbeitswelt ­ ein Problemaufriss.

Working conditions that maintain and promote health and the ability to work are an essential element in the prevention of work-related illnesses and a decisive factor in ensuring participation in working life. The COVID-19 pandemic and its far-reaching consequences, accelerated climate change and digitalization are huge challenges for health and health protection in the world of work as well. They require a deeper reflection of the professional understanding and the conceptual framework that underlie the term health, beyond current considerations. With this objective, thought-provoking impulses for a contemporary understanding of health, for health protection in the world of work, priorities for the protection needs of employees and suggestions for related research are presented for discussion. Based on the physical, mental and social dimensions of health and their manifold relations to the world of work, the article provides innovative impulses for the development and prioritization of questions for scientific studies on the protection and promotion of health in the workplace and for evaluating the significance and quality of the results of these studies for modern preventive occupational health and safety, which contribute both to the humane design of work and to the relief of the social security systems. In accordance with the Public Health Strategy for Germany, social inequality of health is highlighted as a relevant structural feature.

Authors' response: Occupation and SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among workers during the first pandemic wave in Germany: potential for bias.

We thank van Tongeren et al for responding to our study on occupational disparities in SARS-CoV-2 infection risks during the first pandemic wave in Germany (1). The authors address the potential for bias resulting from differential testing between occupational groups and propose an alternative analytical strategy for dealing with selective testing. In the following, we want to discuss two aspects of this issue, namely (i) the extent and reasons of differential testing in our cohort and (ii) the advantages and disadvantages of different analytical approaches to study risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our study relied on nationwide prospective cohort data including more than 100 000 workers in order to compare the incidence of infections between different occupations and occupational status positions. We found elevated infection risks in personal services and business administration, in essential occupations (including health care) and among people in higher occupational status positions (ie, managers and highly skilled workers) during the first pandemic wave in Germany (2). Van Tongeren's et al main concern is that the correlations found could be affected by a systematic bias because people in healthcare professions get tested more often than employees in other professions. A second argument is that better-off people could be more likely to use testing as they are less affected by direct costs (prices for testing) and the economic hardship associated with a positive test result (eg, loss of earnings in the event of sick leave). We share the authors' view that differential testing must be considered when analysing and interpreting the data. Thus, in our study, we examined the proportion of tests conducted in each occupational group as part of the sensitivity analyses (see supplementary figure S1, accessible at www.sjweh.fi/article/4037). As expected, testing proportions were exceptionally high in medical occupations (due to employer requirements). However, we did not observe systematic differences among non-medical occupations or when categorising by skill-level or managerial responsibility. This might be explained by several reasons. First, SARS-CoV-2 testing was free of charge during the first pandemic wave in Germany, but reporting a risk contact or having symptoms was a necessary condition for testing ( https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/coronavirus/chronik-coronavirus.html (accessed 5 September 2022). The newspaper article cited by van Tongeren et al is misleading as it refers to a calendar date after our study period. Second, different motivation for testing due to economic hardship in case of a positive test result is an unlikely explanation, because Germany has a universal healthcare system, including paid sick leave and sickness benefits for all workers (3). Self-employed people carry greater financial risks in case of sickness. We therefore included self-employment in the multivariable analyses to address this potential source of bias. While the observed inverse social gradient may be surprising, it actually matches with findings of ecological studies from Germany (4, 5), the United States (6, 7) as well as Spain, Portugal, Sweden, The Netherlands, Israel, and Hong Kong (8), all of which observed higher infection rates in wealthier neighbourhoods during the initial outbreak phase of the pandemic. One possible explanation is the higher mobility of managers and better educated workers, who are more likely to participate in meetings and engage in business travel and holiday trips like skiing. Given the increasing number of studies providing evidence for this hypothesis, we conclude that the inverse social gradient in our study likely reflects different exposure probabilities and is not a result of systematic bias. This also holds true for the elevated infection risks in essential workers, which is actually corroborated by a large body of research (9-11). Regarding differential likelihood of testing, van Tongeren et al state that "[i]t is relatively simple to address this problem by using a test-negative design" (1). As van Tongeren et al describe, this is a case-control approach only including individuals who were tested (without considering those who were not tested). However, the proposed analytical strategy can lead to another (more serious) selection bias if testing proportions and/or testing criteria differ between groups (12). This can be easily illustrated when comparing the results based on a time-incidence design with those obtained by a test-negative design as shown in table 1 (see PDF). Both approaches show similar results in terms of vertical occupational differences. Infection was more common if individuals had a high skill level or had a managerial position, but associations were stronger in the time-incidence design and did not reach statistical significance in the test-negative design (as indicated by the confidence intervals overlapping "1"). Unfortunately, the test-negative approach relies on a strongly reduced sample size and thus results in greater statistical uncertainty and loss of statistical power (13). In contrast, the test-negative design yields a different picture when estimating the association between essential occupation and infection risk: In this analysis, essential workers did not differ from non-essential workers in their chance of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 (the test-negative design even exhibits a lower chance for essential workers). This is rather counter-intuitive and is not in accordance with what we know about the occupational hazards of healthcare workers during the pandemic (14). The main problem is that proportions of positive tests are highly unreliable when testing proportions and/or testing criteria differ between groups. As essential workers were tested more often without being symptomatic (due to employer requirements), a lower proportion of positive tests in this group does not necessarily correspond to a lower risk of infection. Consequently, we are not convinced that the test-negative design should be the 'gold standard' for studying risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infections (15). Especially problematic is the loss of statistical power (increasing the probability of a type II error) and the low validity of the test-positivity when test criteria and/or test proportions differ between groups. References 1. van Tongeren M, Rhodes S, Pearce N. Occupation and SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among workers during the first pandemic wave in Germany: potential for bias. Scand J Work Environ Health 2022;48(7):586-587. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4052. 2. Reuter M, Rigó M, Formazin M, Liebers F, Latza U, Castell S, et al. Occupation and SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among 108 960 workers during the first pandemic wave in Germany. Scand J Work Environ Health 2022;48:446-56. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4037. 3. Busse R, Blümel M, Knieps F, Bärnighausen T. Statutory health insurance in Germany: a health system shaped by 135 years of solidarity, self-governance, and competition. Lancet 2017;390:882-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31280-1. 4. Wachtler B, Michalski N, Nowossadeck E, Diercke M, Wahrendorf M, Santos-Hövener C, et al. Socioeconomic inequalities in the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection - First results from an analysis of surveillance data from Germany. J Heal Monit 2020;5:18-29. https://doi.org/10.25646/7057. 5. Plümper T, Neumayer E. The pandemic predominantly hits poor neighbourhoods? SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19 fatalities in German districts. Eur J Public Health 2020;30:1176-80. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckaa168. 6. Abedi V, Olulana O, Avula V, Chaudhary D, Khan A, Shahjouei S, et al. Racial, Economic, and Health Inequality and COVID-19 Infection in the United States. J Racial Ethn Heal Disparities 2021;8:732-42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-020-00833-4. 7. Mukherji N. The Social and Economic Factors Underlying the Incidence of COVID-19 Cases and Deaths in US Counties During the Initial Outbreak Phase. Rev Reg Stud 2022;52. https://doi.org/10.52324/001c.35255. 8. Beese F, Waldhauer J, Wollgast L, Pförtner T, Wahrendorf M, Haller S, et al. Temporal Dynamics of Socioeconomic Inequalities in COVID-19 Outcomes Over the Course of the Pandemic-A Scoping Review. Int J Public Health 2022;67:1-14. https://doi.org/10.3389/ijph.2022.1605128. 9. Nguyen LH, Drew DA, Graham MS, Joshi AD, Guo C-G, Ma W, et al. Risk of COVID-19 among front-line health-care workers and the general community: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Public Heal 2020;5:e475-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30164-X. 10. Chou R, Dana T, Buckley DI, Selph S, Fu R, Totten AM. Epidemiology of and Risk Factors for Coronavirus Infection in Health Care Workers. Ann Intern Med 2020;173:120-36. https://doi.org/10.7326/M20-1632. 11. Stringhini S, Zaballa M-E, Pullen N, de Mestral C, Perez-Saez J, Dumont R, et al. Large variation in anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence among essential workers in Geneva, Switzerland. Nat Commun 2021;12:3455. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23796-4. 12. Accorsi EK, Qiu X, Rumpler E, Kennedy-Shaffer L, Kahn R, Joshi K, et al. How to detect and reduce potential sources of biases in studies of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. Eur J Epidemiol 2021;36:179-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-021-00727-7. 13. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd Editio. New York: Routledge; 2013. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587. 14. The Lancet. The plight of essential workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet 2020;395:1587. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31200-9. 15. Vandenbroucke JP, Brickley EB, Pearce N, Vandenbroucke-Grauls CMJE. The Evolving Usefulness of the Test-negative Design in Studying Risk Factors for COVID-19. Epidemiology 2022;33:e7-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000001438.

Occupation and SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among 108 960 workers during the first pandemic wave in Germany.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify the occupational risk for a SARS-CoV-2 infection in a nationwide sample of German workers during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (1 February-31 August 2020). METHODS: We used the data of 108 960 workers who participated in a COVID follow-up survey of the German National Cohort (NAKO). Occupational characteristics were derived from the German Classification of Occupations 2010 (Klassifikation der Berufe 2010). PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections were assessed from self-reports. Incidence rates (IR) and incidence rate ratios (IRR) were estimated using robust Poisson regression, adjusted for person-time at risk, age, sex, migration background, study center, working hours, and employment relationship. RESULTS: The IR was 3.7 infections per 1000 workers [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.3-4.1]. IR differed by occupational sector, with the highest rates observed in personal (IR 4.8, 95% CI 4.0-5.6) and business administration (IR 3.4, 95% CI 2.8-3.9) services and the lowest rates in occupations related to the production of goods (IR 2.0, 95% CI 1.5-2.6). Infections were more frequent among essential workers compared with workers in non-essential occupations (IRR 1.95, 95% CI 1.59-2.40) and among highly skilled compared with skilled professions (IRR 1.36, 95% CI 1.07-1.72). CONCLUSIONS: The results emphasize higher infection risks in essential occupations and personal-related services, especially in the healthcare sector. Additionally, we found evidence that infections were more common in higher occupational status positions at the beginning of the pandemic.

Association of occupational sitting with cardiovascular outcomes and cardiometabolic risk factors: a systematic review with a sex-sensitive/gender-sensitive perspective.

OBJECTIVES: Sedentary behaviour is a modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular health. Although long periods of sedentary behaviour take place at work, evidence of the relationship between such occupational sitting and cardiometabolic health risks remains limited. This systematic review aimed to update the evidence on the associations of occupational sitting with cardiovascular outcomes and cardiometabolic risk factors based on longitudinal studies. DESIGN: Systematic review. SETTING: Workplace. POPULATION: Employees aged 18-65 years. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Primary outcomes were cardiovascular diseases and cardiometabolic risk markers. The secondary outcome was all-cause mortality. DATA SOURCES: Ten databases, including PubMed, Web of Science and CINAHL (search January 2018, updated February 2019). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were screened, extracted and appraised by three independent reviewers following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. RESULTS: Studies were markedly heterogeneous in terms of measurement of occupational sitting, cardiometabolic risk factors and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, so that standards were hardly identifiable and limiting the value of the evidence. The review included 27 high or acceptable quality publications. Of the eight high-quality publications from seven cohorts, three cohort studies found significant associations of occupational sitting with primary outcomes. Additionally, one study described an association with the secondary outcome. Another high-quality publication found an association between occupational sitting and ischaemic heart disease in a subgroup already at risk due to hypertension. For sex/gender analysis, 11 of the 27 high and acceptable quality publications reported sex-stratified results. Five of these found sex differences. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence regarding the association of occupational sitting with cardiometabolic health risks was limited because of the lack of standardised measurements for occupational sitting. Occupational sitting combined with an overall sedentary lifestyle was associated with an elevated relative risk for several cardiometabolic outcomes. There is an urgent need for standardised measurements of occupational sitting to facilitate meta-analysis. Sex/gender aspects of this relationship require further investigation.

The Gutenberg health study: a five-year prospective analysis of psychosocial working conditions using COPSOQ (Copenhagen psychosocial Questoinnaire) and ERI (effort-reward imbalance).

BACKGROUND: Psychosocial working conditions were previously analyzed using the first recruitment wave of the Gutenberg Health Study (GHS) cohort (n = 5000). We aimed to confirm the initial analysis using the entire GHS population at baseline (N = 15,010) and at the five-year follow-up. We also aimed to determine the effects of psychosocial working conditions at baseline on self-rated outcomes measured at follow-up. METHODS: At baseline, working GHS participants were assessed with either the Effort-Reward-Imbalance questionnaire (ERI) (n = 4358) or with the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ) (n = 4322); participants still working after five years received the same questionnaire again (ERI n = 3142; COPSOQ n = 3091). We analyzed the association between working conditions and the outcomes job satisfaction, general health, burnout, and satisfaction with life at baseline, at follow-up and also prospectively from baseline to follow-up using linear regression models. We examined the outcome variance explained by the models (R2) to estimate the predictive performance of the questionnaires. RESULTS: The models' R2 was comparable to the original baseline analyses at both t0 and t1 (R2 range: ERI 0.10-0.43; COPSOQ 0.10-0.56). However, selected scales of the regression models sometimes changed between assessment times. The prospective analysis showed weaker associations between baseline working conditions and outcomes after five years (R2 range: ERI 0.07-0.19; COPSOQ 0.07-0.24). This was particularly true for job satisfaction. After adjusting for the baseline levels of the outcomes, fewer scales still explained some of the variance in the distribution of the outcome variables at follow-up. The models using only data from t0 or t1 confirmed the previous baseline analysis. We observed a loss of explained variance in the prospective analysis models. This loss was greatest for job satisfaction, suggesting that this outcome is most influenced by short-term working conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Both the COPSOQ and ERI instruments show good criterion validity and adequately predict contemporaneously measured self-reported measurements of health and (occupational) well-being. However, the COPSOQ provides a more detailed picture of working conditions and might be preferable for improvment strategies in workplaces. Additional prospective research with shorter follow-up times would be beneficial for estimating dose-response relationships.

[Hepatitis B virus infection and vaccine-induced immunity: the role of sociodemographic determinants : Results of the study "German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Adults" (DEGS1, 2008-2011)]. / Hepatitis-B-Virus-Infektionen und impfinduzierte Immunität: die Rolle von soziodemografischen Determinanten : Ergebnisse der "Studie zur Gesundheit Erwachsener in Deutschland" (DEGS1, 2008­2011).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Even though the prevalence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection in Germany is low, it is important to identify vulnerable groups and targeted approaches for infection prevention. Previous analyses from the "German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Adults" (DEGS1, 2008-2011) have shown that HBV infections and vaccination are associated with sociodemographic determinants. This paper examines the results in detail. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the DEGS1, HBV serology was available for 7046 participants aged 18-79 years. HBV infection was defined by antibodies to hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc), vaccine-induced immunity by antibodies to hepatitis B surface antigen (anti-HBs) in the absence of other markers. Seroprevalences of HBV infection and vaccine-induced immunity were estimated stratified by sex, and associations with age, municipality size, income, formal education, health insurance and migration generation were analysed by logistic regression. RESULTS: In both sexes, HBV infection was independently associated with age groups 34-64 and ≥ 65 years, first migrant generation and living in larger municipalities as well as low income in men and low education in women. Vaccine-induced immunity was independently associated with age groups 18-33 and 34-64 years, middle and high education and high income in both sexes, middle income and private health insurance in men and having no migration background in women. CONCLUSIONS: HBV prevention measures should take into account migration status, income and education in order to focus prevention measures.

Correction: Work-life conflict and cardiovascular health: 5-year follow-up of the Gutenberg Health Study.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251260.].

Work-life conflict and cardiovascular health: 5-year follow-up of the Gutenberg Health Study.

INTRODUCTION: Work-life conflicts (WLC) may impact health, but few studies prospectively consider the impact of WLC on objective outcomes such as cardiovascular disease. Using data from the Gutenberg Health Study (GHS), we examined if WLC at baseline was associated with an increased five-year incidence of cardiovascular events (myocardial infarct, stroke, atrial fibrillation, peripheral artery disease, coronary artery disease, chronic heart failure, sudden cardiac death). We also considered if WLC was associated with incident hypertension and arterial stiffness and if the effects of WLC on cardiovascular health differ for men and women. METHODS: A working subsample of the 15,010 GHS cohort participants completed the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire, which included five "work-privacy conflict" questions at baseline and at the five-year follow-up. Relative risks for incident hypertension due to increased WLC at baseline (WLC scores exceeding 60 out of 100) were estimated with Poisson regression in the subgroup of participants without hypertension at baseline (n = 2426). Categories of WLC at baseline and follow-up were also used to examine the risk of hypertension due to chronic/recurrent WLC. In this subgroup, we also examined the association between WLC as a continuous score ranging from 0 to 100 with change to arterial stiffness after five years using linear regression. Hazard ratios were estimated for incident cardiovascular events in a larger subsample of participants without prevalent cardiovascular disease at baseline (n = 3698) using Cox regression. We used various multivariable regression models to adjust for sex, age, socioeconomic status, occupational, household, and cardiovascular risk factors. RESULTS: We found no association between WLC and incident hypertension or increased arterial stiffness. The fully-adjusted relative risk for WLC >60 at baseline and hypertension was 0.93 (95% 0.74-1.17). The risk of hypertension due to chronic/recurrent WLC >60 was increased but not statistically significant (RR = 1.13, 95% CI 0.83-1.54). Overall, hazard ratios for incident cardiovascular events were also not increased. However, stratifying the results by sex resulted in a hazard ratio of 1.47 (95% CI 0.54-3.98) for incident cardiovascular disease among women in the fully adjusted model. CONCLUSIONS: Although our results were not statistically significant, they indicate that WLC is negatively impacting the cardiovascular health of women. While these results need to be confirmed with additional research and a longer follow-up, interventions to prevent WLC will promote health and could be especially beneficial for women.

Self-reported cardiovascular health of teachers: results from the 5-year follow-up of the Gutenberg Health Study cohort.

OBJECTIVES: Following an exploratory approach, we examined cardiovascular disease risk factors at baseline and the 5-year incidence proportion of self-reported doctor-diagnosed cardiovascular diseases (CVD) in teachers and other occupational groups of the Gutenberg Health Study. METHODS: Study participants lived in the region of Mainz, Germany. Data from 6510 working participants without prevalent CVD at baseline (2007-2012) were analyzed. Participants were teachers (n = 215), other professionals from the health, social or educational (HSE) fields (n = 1061) or worked outside the HSE fields (n = 5234). For occupational comparisons, we estimated prevalence ratios (PR) for each CVD risk factor at baseline with robust Poisson regression analyses. We calculated crude CVD incidence rates based on the observed 5-year CVD cumulative incidence at follow-up and estimated age-weighted incidence proportions. All analyses were stratified by sex. RESULTS: Male non-HSE workers showed a higher prevalence of smoking and physical inactivity than male teachers (PR 2.26; 95%-CI: 1.06-4.82/PR 1.89; 95%-CI: 1.24-2.87). In contrast, non-HSE workers and other HSE professionals were less likely to have reported an unhealthy alcohol intake than teachers. Differences were attenuated after SES-adjustment. We did not detect occupational group-specific differences in CVD incidence. However, there were only two cases of CVD among the teachers. CONCLUSION: Particularly male teachers showed a healthier lifestyle regarding physical inactivity and smoking. Nevertheless, occupational-medical care practitioners and researchers need to be aware of the relatively heightened prevalence of unhealthy alcohol intake in female and male teachers, and in absolute terms, the high hypertension prevalence in male teachers.

[Workshop on Health Risks of Sedentary Behavior at Work - Part I Scientific Perspectives]. / Workshop Gesundheitsgefährdung durch langes Sitzen am Arbeitsplatz ­ Teil I wissenschaftliche Perspektiven.

AIM: Health risks of sedentary behaviour at work are a matter of concern. Solutions are needed based on interdisciplinary collaborations of research experts and practitioners in the field of occupational safety and health. METHODS: In February 2019, at a workshop in Berlin, experts from different fields discussed the health risks of sedentary behaviour at work and solutions for the workplace based on scientific evidence. The workshop is documented here in 2 parts. Gender relevant aspects are distinguished if possible. RESULTS: Part I describes the workshop contributions on current scientific findings regarding health risks of sedentary behavior in leisure time and at work as well as prevalence and determinants of sedentary work. The following contribution presents suggestions for the development of theory-based intervention strategies. Furthermore, available evidence from systematic reviews for intervention strategies to reduce sedentary time at work is shown. CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK: In spite of many studies and evidence in favour of taking into consideration sedentary behavior at work, there are still research gaps predominantly regarding etiology, possibilities of compensation, determinants, and intervention strategies. In this context, documentation of differences between men and women is insufficient. Part II presents selected workplace solutions and the results of the discussions in the workshop.

[Workshop on Health Risks of Sedentary Behavior at Workplace - Solutions Part II]. / Workshop Gesundheitsgefährdung durch langes Sitzen am Arbeitsplatz ­ Teil II Betriebliche Lösungsansätze.

AIM: Health risks of prolonged periods of sitting at work are a matter of concern. Solutions are needed based on interdisciplinary collaborations of research experts and practitioners in occupational safety and health areas. METHODS: In February 2019, at a workshop in Berlin of experts from different fields, issues of scientific evidence on the health risks of sedentary behaviour at work were presented in 6 lectures and solutions for the workplace were discussed. The workshop is documented here in 2 parts. Gender relevant aspects are distinguished where possible. RESULTS: Part II describes solution approaches for practice in the workplace. The results of a recent evaluation of dynamic workplaces are presented. Two examples provide insight into ongoing workplace health promotion measures addressing sedentary behavior in Germany which currently mainly target measures to increase physical activity rather than measures to interrupt long sedentary bouts. The documentation of the plenary discussion summarizes how interventions addressing sedentary behaviour at the workplace can be successful. CONCLUSIONS: Decision makers increasingly realize that there is a trend in the 21st century towards low physical demands due to increasingly sedentary tasks in the workplace. Despite research gaps, there is a need for evidence-based decisions in policy and workplace practices. Germany can learn from the experiences of other countries.

Cardiovascular health outcomes of mobbing at work: results of the population-based, five-year follow-up of the Gutenberg health study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine if there is an increased risk of incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) resulting from workplace mobbing measured with two mobbing instruments in the Gutenberg Health Study. METHODS: In this prospective study, we examined working persons younger than 65 years for the presence of mobbing at baseline and at a 5-year follow-up using a single-item and a 5-item instrument. We used multivariate models to investigate the association between mobbing and incident CVD, hypertension, and change in arterial stiffness and further stratified the models by sex. RESULTS: After adjustment for confounders, mobbed workers appeared to have a higher risk of incident CVD than those not mobbed (single-item HR = 1.28, 95% CI 0.73-2.24; 5-item HR = 1.57, 95% CI 0.96-2.54). With the 5-item instrument, men who reported mobbing had a higher risk of incident CVD (HR = 1.77, 95% CI 1.01-3.09), while no association was observed for women (HR = 1.05, 95% CI 0.38-2.91). There was no difference in risks between men and women with the single-item instrument. No association between mobbing and incident hypertension and arterial stiffness was seen. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show an indication of an increased risk of incident CVD for those mobbed at baseline when using the whole study population. Differences in risks between men and women when using the five-item instrument may be due to the instrument itself. Still, it is essential to detect or prevent workplace mobbing, and if present, to apply an intervention to halt it in order to minimize its adverse effects on CVD.

Predictors for continued participation of employees in structured outpatient obesity intervention programmes.

BACKGROUND: Overweight, obesity and the conditions resulting from them have become one of the major challenges for health systems all over the world. High dropout rates are particularly common among the participants in outpatient obesity intervention programmes (OIP). Limited research has examined retention in OIP. METHODS: Based on the data of a 24-month Bundeswehr outpatient OIP with a total of 630 participants, predisposing factors (n = 30) for continued participation beyond an early stage (0-3 months) and beyond a later stage (0-6 months) were analysed by means of a logistic regression analysis. In order to correct for multiple-comparison, the p-value was adjusted (p* < 0.0017). RESULTS: Three hundred out of 630 participants continued to participate beyond an early stage and 205 beyond a later stage. Besides an age between 40 and 50 at the beginning of the outpatient OIP, it was possible to show that knowledge of one's blood pressure and a positive lifestyle prior to participation in the programme (higher level of sporting activity) were predisposing factors for early dropout (>3 months) in the intervention programme. DISCUSSION: The possible predisposing factors examined accounted for about 35% of the variance in a rough estimate. In order to improve long-term participation in workplace outpatient OIP, the study focused on how the motivation of older people and employees with an unfavourable cardiovascular risk profile could be improved.

Guidelines and recommendations for ensuring Good Epidemiological Practice (GEP): a guideline developed by the German Society for Epidemiology.

OBJECTIVE: To revise the German guidelines and recommendations for ensuring Good Epidemiological Practice (GEP) that were developed in 1999 by the German Society for Epidemiology (DGEpi), evaluated and revised in 2004, supplemented in 2008, and updated in 2014. METHODS: The executive board of the DGEpi tasked the third revision of the GEP. The revision was arrived as a result of a consensus-building process by a working group of the DGEpi in collaboration with other working groups of the DGEpi and with the German Association for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, the German Society of Social Medicine and Prevention (DGSMP), the German Region of the International Biometric Society (IBS-DR), the German Technology, Methods and Infrastructure for Networked Medical Research (TMF), and the German Network for Health Services Research (DNVF). The GEP also refers to related German Good Practice documents (e.g. Health Reporting, Cartographical Practice in the Healthcare System, Secondary Data Analysis). RESULTS: The working group modified the 11 guidelines (after revision: 1 ethics, 2 research question, 3 study protocol and manual of operations, 4 data protection, 5 sample banks, 6 quality assurance, 7 data storage and documentation, 8 analysis of epidemiological data, 9 contractual framework, 10 interpretation and scientific publication, 11 communication and public health) and modified and supplemented the related recommendations. All participating scientific professional associations adopted the revised GEP. CONCLUSIONS: The revised GEP are addressed to everyone involved in the planning, preparation, execution, analysis, and evaluation of epidemiological research, as well as research institutes and funding bodies.

Introducing occupational health management in the German Armed Forces.

Holistic approaches to workplace health promotion (WHP) within the military setting are challenging. In 2015, the German Ministry of Defense initiated a 6-month pilot study of WHP in the Federal Armed Forces. The pilot study was to identify organizational challenges that should be addressed before the Ministry implemented a comprehensive occupational health management policy in all departments. Eleven diverse departments were selected to participate in a WHP program that addressed physical activity, diet, stress management and addiction prevention. As part of the evaluation concept, we interviewed coordinators, and department heads focusing on transfer factors from the perspective of the implementers. All coordinators and their department heads or deputies participated in semi-structured face-to-face on-site interviews. The data were analyzed based on qualitative content analysis. The coordinators (officers with sports science degree) seemed fully prepared and capable to master the new task. They experienced difficulties in adapting WHP activities to local structures and needs, and complications in administering modular activities. Department heads described conflict regarding human resources between the military mission and the implementation of WHP. Commitment to WHP was a strong facilitator. The interviews identified various barriers related to support by middle management (supervisors) and specific work conditions (e.g. shift work). If occupational health management is to be successfully implemented on a large scale, conceptional and practically collaboration is necessary between WHP and occupational safety and health, and organization and leadership, respectively. Supervisors will benefit from open communication about compensation for the release time of their subordinates to attend WHP.

Risk assessment of manual handling operations at work with the key indicator method (KIM-MHO) - determination of criterion validity regarding the prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms and clinical conditions within a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Manual handling operations (MHO) are known to be risk factors for work-related upper limb disorders (WRULDs), e.g. symptoms and conditions such as carpal tunnel syndrome. To estimate the risk of WRULDs, a Key Indicator Method (KIM) for the risk assessment of MHO was developed. The method was validated in regard to different criteria, including face validity, criterion validity, reliability and further aspects concerning utility. This paper describes the KIM-MHO and criterion validity of this method with reference to prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). METHODS: A cross-sectional sample of 643 employees exposed to MHO was compared to a reference group of 804 unexposed subjects predominantly working at visual display terminals. The Nordic Questionnaire and a standardized clinical examination were used to obtain the 7-day and 12-months prevalence of symptoms and clinical conditions of the musculoskeletal system. Job specific exposure levels to MHO were assessed by ergonomists using the KIM-MHO. The resulting risk scores were categorized into risk categories 1 - low risk (reference group), 2 - increased risk, 3 - highly increased risk, and 4 - high risk. Log-linear Poisson regression models were applied to obtain adjusted prevalence ratios (PR) with 95%-confidence intervals. RESULTS: The 7-day prevalence of symptoms for subjects in risk category 3 compared to risk category 1 was significant for the regions shoulder [women (w): PR 1.8 (1.2-2.7), men (m): PR 2.3 (1.2-4.4)], elbow [w: PR 3.3 (1.5-7.2), m: PR 2.4 (0.8-7.3)], and hand/wrist [w: PR 3.0 (1.7-5.3), m: PR 5.5 (2.7-11.3)]. The 7-day prevalence of symptoms for risk category 4 was also significant for the regions shoulder [w: PR 1.9 (1.3-2.8), m: PR 1.9 (1.3-2.7)], elbow [w: PR 4.5 (2.3-8.7), m: PR 3.3 (2.1-5.4)], and hand/wrist [w: PR 4.2 (2.6-6.9), m: PR 5.5 (3.5-8.5)]. The 12-months prevalence in these joint regions show comparable increases in the risk categories 3 and 4. CONCLUSIONS: The KIM-MHO is valid in regard to criterion validity. The hypothesis could be confirmed, that high risk scores were associated with an increased prevalence of symptoms and clinical conditions especially in the shoulder, elbow and hand/wrist regions among employees exposed to MHO.

The Gutenberg health study: associations between occupational and private stress factors and work-privacy conflict.

BACKGROUND: Work-privacy conflict (WPC) is no longer a rarity but constitutes a societal problem. The objectives of the present study were (1) to investigate the distribution and prevalence of WPC among the employed participants in the Gutenberg Health Study at baseline and (2) to study the dependence of WPC on a broad range of private life and occupational characteristics as well as on psychosocial working conditions. METHODS: This analysis is based on a representative, population-based sample of 3,709 employees participating in the Gutenberg Health Study. Descriptive and bivariable analyses were carried out separately for women and men. Distribution and prevalence of WPC were examined according to socio-demographic and occupational characteristics as well as psychosocial working conditions. Further, stepwise selection of Poisson log-linear regression models were performed to determine which socio-demographic and occupational characteristics were most associated with the outcome variable WPC and to obtain adjusted prevalence ratios from the final model. The multivariable analyses were conducted both separately for women and men and with all subjects together in one analysis. RESULTS: There was a high prevalence of WPC in the present study (27.4 % of the men and 23.0 % of the women reported a high or very high WPC). A variety of factors was associated with WPC, e.g. full-time employment, depression and many of the psychosocial risk factors at work. Also, the multivariable results showed that women were of higher risk for a WPC. CONCLUSIONS: By affecting the individual work life, home life, and the general well-being and health, WPC may lead to detrimental effects in employees, their families, employers, and society as a whole. Therefore, the high prevalence of WPC in our sample should be of concern. Among women, the risk for suffering from WPC was even higher, most likely due to multiple burdens.

Development of a mobbing short scale in the Gutenberg Health Study.

PURPOSE: Despite its highly detrimental potential, most standard questionnaires assessing psychosocial stress at work do not include mobbing as a risk factor. In the German standard version of COPSOQ, mobbing is assessed with a single item. In the Gutenberg Health Study, this version was used together with a newly developed short scale based on the Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terror. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of these two measures, to compare them and to test their differential impact on relevant outcome parameters. METHODS: This analysis is based on a population-based sample of 1441 employees participating in the Gutenberg Health Study. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and reliability analyses were used to assess the mobbing scale. To determine their predictive validities, multiple linear regression analyses with six outcome parameters and log-binomial regression models for two of the outcome aspects were run. RESULTS: Factor analyses of the five-item scale confirmed a one-factor solution, reliability was α = 0.65. Both the single-item and the five-item scales were associated with all six outcome scales. Effect sizes were similar for both mobbing measures. CONCLUSION: Mobbing is an important risk factor for health-related outcomes. For the purpose of psychosocial risk assessment in the workplace, both the single-item and the five-item constructs were psychometrically appropriate. Associations with outcomes were about equivalent. However, the single item has the advantage of parsimony, whereas the five-item construct depicts several distinct forms of mobbing.