The development of working life expectancy without musculoskeletal diseases against the backdrop of extended working lives.

Musculoskeletal diseases (MSDs) are a major predictor of early retirement. Against the backdrop of the extension of working life, we investigated time trends and educational inequalities in years spent in the labour market free of MSD. Based on German statutory health insurance data (N = 3,405,673), total life years free of MSD (Healthy Life Expectancy, HLE) and years spent in the labour force free of MSD (Healthy Working Life Expectancy, HWLE) were estimated for three periods (2006-2008, 2011-2013, 2016-2018) using multistate analyses. Educational inequalities (8 to 11 vs. 12 or more years of schooling) are reported for 2011-2013. HLE decreased slightly over time in all genders. HWLE in women increased, while it remained rather constant in men. Over time, the share of years in the labour force spent free of MSD declined continuously. People with lower education had lower HLE and HWLE than individuals with higher education. With respect to musculoskeletal diseases, the increase in disease-free working life years cannot keep pace with the extension of working life, resulting in an increasing proportion of years spent in impaired musculoskeletal health in the labour market. Effective prevention strategies are needed, focusing especially on individuals with lower educational attainment.

Impact of sitting at work on musculoskeletal complaints of German workers - results from the study on mental health at work (S-MGA).

INTRODUCTION: Sedentary behavior (including prolonged sitting) is a form of physical inactivity that has a negative impact on health, possibly including musculoskeletal complaints (MSCs). The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which time spent sitting at work is associated with the one-year prevalence of MSCs in the neck, shoulder, upper back/thoracic spine, and lower back among workers from the Study of Mental Health in the Workplace (S-MGA). In addition, the study also examined whether leisure time, physical activity, and sex modify the relationship between occupational sitting and MSCs. METHODS: For this analysis, we used the S-MGA, a 5-year prospective study in Germany. The S-MGA is a nationwide representative employee cohort study with a baseline survey in 2012 and a follow-up survey in 2017. Sitting at work was measured using a question asked at baseline. The Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire was used to determine the one-year prevalence of MSCs in the neck, shoulder, upper back, and lower back pain (yes/no). The assessment of MSCs was only conducted at the 2017 follow-up. Adjusted Poisson regression models were used to determine the association of baseline level of weekly hours spent sitting at work with MSCs during follow-up. In addition to unadjusted models, models were adjusted for demographic (age, sex, body mass index and occupational skill level), occupational (heavy lifting at work), psychological disorders and lifestyle factors (smoking status and leisure time physical activity), as well as preexisting musculoskeletal conditions reported at baseline. To examine whether the relationship between sitting time and pain was modified by sex and leisure time physical activity, the models were stratified for both these variables. RESULTS: Among the participants analyzed (n = 2,082), 49.8% were male, while 50.2% were female, and more than 60% of the study population spent over half of their working hours in a sitting position. Exposure to increased sitting at work reported at baseline was not consistently associated with 12-month prevalence of MSCs in the upper body at follow-up. However, differences in the association between occupational sitting and MSCs were dependent on the intensity of leisure time physical activity. Prevalence ratios (PRs) indicated an increased prevalence of MSC in the neck (PR = 1.46; 95% CI = 1.18-1.80) and shoulder (PR = 1.30; 95% CI = 1.03-1.64) in workers without leisure time physical activity who spent 25 to < 35 weekly working hours sitting. DISCUSSION: These findings suggest that leisure time physical activity interacts with the relationship between sitting at work and MSCs. The relationship between sitting at work and musculoskeletal pain needs further investigation, but we found indications that leisure time physical activity may counter the effects of sitting at work.

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.

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.

Influence of physically demanding occupations on the development of osteoarthritis of the hip: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Hip osteoarthritis (HOA) is a disabling disease affecting around 33 million people worldwide. People of working age and the elderly are at increased risk of developing HOA and the disease is associated with high costs at individual and societal levels due to sick leaves, job loss, total hip replacements and disability pension. This systematic review evaluated the influence of physically demanding occupations on the development of HOA in men. METHODS: Cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies with publications in English or German, which assessed the association between exposure to physically demanding occupations and development of HOA, were searched in electronic databases (Medline, Embase, HSE-Line, Cochrane Library) and conference abstracts from 1990 until May 2020. We assessed the methodological quality of selected studies, interpreted all relative effect estimators as relative risks (RRs) and meta-analytically reviewed the effects of occupations with high physical workloads. All steps are based on a study protocol published in PROSPERO (CRD42015016894). RESULTS: Seven cohort studies and six case-control studies were included. An elevated risk to develop HOA was shown for six physically demanding occupational groups. Working in agriculture including fishery and forestry and food production doubles the risk of HOA. Construction, metal working and sales as well as exposure to whole body vibration while driving vehicles increases the risk by roughly 50 to 60%. Unskilled or basic level workers, who were frequently exposed to repetitive heavy manual work, had nearly a doubled risk (RR 1.89 95%CI: 1.29 to 2.77) compared to workers with lower exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Existing studies state an association between various occupations with high physical workload and an increased risk of developing HOA. High Physical workloads include including lifting and carrying heavy loads, demanding postures, repetitive activities, long standing and running, as well as exposure to body vibrations. Occupational prevention and early detection as well as individual health promotion strategies should place their focus on reducing the impact of high physical strain at work sites.

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.

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.

Manual handling of heavy loads and low back pain among different occupational groups: results of the 2018 BIBB/BAuA employment survey.

BACKGROUND: In Germany and other European countries, many occupations still involve manual handling of loads (MHL), an activity that puts the musculoskeletal system at risk of low back pain (LBP). This study aims to describe the current prevalence of MHL in different occupational groups stratified by gender in Germany, the association between MHL and LBP and the adjusted prevalence of LBP in different respond-categories of MHL. METHODS: Data was collected in telephone interviews conducted as part of the 2018 BIBB/BAuA Employment Survey, which covers work-related topics like working conditions, education, health status and job satisfaction. The analyses were limited to full-time workers (> 35 h/week) aged between 15 and 67. The frequency of MHL was analysed descriptively. BLOSSFELD classification was used to group the participants in occupational categories. The analysis of the association between MHL and the prevalence of LBP over the last 12 months was based on robust log-linear Poisson regression that results in prevalence ratios (PR). The main regression model was adjusted for gender, age, working hours, and working conditions. Adjusted estimates for the prevalence of LBP were calculated based on regression analysis. RESULTS: The sample consists of n = 14,331 participants (men: n = 8828, 61.6%; women: n = 5503, 38.4%; median age 49 years). Of these, 52.8% say they were exposed to MHL at work. MHL is most common in agricultural occupations, skilled and unskilled occupations. In the regression model, participants who said they were "often" exposed to MHL reported more frequently LBP than those participants who said they were "never" exposed to MHL. The PR as estimate for the association is 1.41 (95%CI [1.32; 1.49]). Postestimation of the prevalence of LBP began with 47.3% (95%CI [43.8%; 51.1%]) for participants who said they were "never" exposed to MHL and rose to 66.5% (95%CI [62.4%; 71.0%]) for participants who indicated they were "often" exposed to MHL. CONCLUSIONS: The 2018 BIBB/BAuA Employment Survey emphasizes that MHL is still common in the German workforce and shows a significant association to LBP. Prevention policies for avoiding MHL remain vital.

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.].

Association between working in awkward postures, in particular overhead work, and pain in the shoulder region in the context of the 2018 BIBB/BAuA Employment Survey.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal disorders are the leading cause of work-related sick leave and incur substantial socioeconomic costs. With the aging of our society and employees, the problem is exacerbating, and prevention is becoming increasingly important. According to previous studies, exposure to awkward postures, such as overhead work, is associated with musculoskeletal problems. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the current prevalence of employees who work in awkward postures, specifically overhead, stratified by age, gender and occupation in the context of the 2018 BIBB/BAuA Employment Survey and to analyze associations between awkward working postures, in particular overhead work, and pain in the shoulder region. METHOD: The study is based on secondary data from the German 2018 BIBB/BAuA Employment Survey. We have included 14,327 of the 20,012 employees aged < 67 years who work at least 35 h per week who took part in the survey. The classification of participants in occupational groups is based on the BLOSSFELD classification. The multivariate analysis was conducted by applying robust Poisson regression models adjusted block by block to obtain the relation between the self-reported frequency of working in awkward postures, in particular overhead work, and the occurrence of arm pain and neck and shoulder pain. Prevalence ratios (PR) are reported as effect estimates. RESULTS: 12.7% of participants indicated that they are often exposed to awkward postures at work; 5.0% stated they often performed overhead work. The majority of these employees worked in agricultural, unskilled and skilled manual occupations. The crude prevalence is 17.4% for arm pain and 48.4% for neck and shoulder pain. If subjects reported that they often performed overhead work, the risk of arm pain increased by 18% (PR 1.18, CI 1.04-1.34, final model). CONCLUSION: Working in awkward postures, especially overhead work, is a risk factor for upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders. The development of prevention strategies should focus on the workforce in agricultural, unskilled and skilled manual occupations.

The association between manual handling operations and pain in the hands and arms in the context of the 2018 BIBB/BAuA Employment Survey.

BACKGROUND: Manual handling operations (MHO) are tasks performed by hand that require repetitive and forceful hand and arm movements. MHO are currently performed in many workplaces in skilled and unskilled jobs in the production and service sectors. MHO are considered as work-related health risk factors. The relationship between MHO and the occurrence of disorders of the upper extremities has been established. MHO can cause diseases such as tenosynovitis or carpal tunnel syndrome. This study aims to assess the current prevalence of MHO in the German workforce and to evaluate the relationship between MHO and the occurrence of hand and arm complaints. METHODS: The analysis was based on the German 2018 BIBB/BAuA Employment Survey. For this analysis we included subjects aged between 16 and 66 who work at least 35 h per week. The self-reported frequency of MHO (never; rarely; sometimes; often) was considered as the exposure of interest and was stratified by gender and occupation. Prevalence ratios (PR) were used to report the relationship between MHO and self-reported pain in the hands and arms (robust log-linear Poisson regression). Adjustments were made for age, gender, actual weekly working hours, psychosocial workload, and other physical workloads. The regression analyses considered complete cases. RESULTS: The analyses included 14,299 employees. Frequent MHO were reported by 32.6% of men and 31.1% of women. These workloads were often reported by respondents who work in the agricultural sector (men: 70.1%; women: 79.0%), in unskilled (men: 59.4%; women: 66.9%), and skilled manual occupations (men: 72.7%; women: 66.7%). A higher frequency of self-reported MHO was associated with a higher prevalence of hand complaints (PR 2.26 CI 2.00-2.55 "often" vs. "never" = ref.) as well as arm pain (PR 1.73 CI 1.55-1.92 for "often" vs. "never" = ref.). CONCLUSION: MHO are still frequent in many occupations. The shown association between MHO and pain in the hands and arms demonstrates the importance of MHO in the current German workforce and the necessity to further develop prevention strategies.

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.

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.

Dose-response relationship between cumulative physical workload and osteoarthritis of the hip - a meta-analysis applying an external reference population for exposure assignment.

BACKGROUND: There is consistent evidence from observational studies of an association between occupational lifting and carrying of heavy loads and the diagnosis of hip osteoarthritis. However, due to the heterogeneity of exposure estimates considered in single studies, a dose-response relationship between cumulative physical workload and hip osteoarthritis could not be determined so far. METHODS: This study aimed to analyze the dose-response relationship between cumulative physical workload and hip osteoarthritis by replacing the exposure categories of the included studies with cumulative exposure values of an external reference population. Our meta-regression analysis was based on a recently conducted systematic review (Bergmann A, Bolm-Audorff U, Krone D, Seidler A, Liebers F, Haerting J, Freiberg A, Unverzagt S, Dtsch Arztebl Int 114:581-8, 2017). The main analysis of our meta-regression comprised six case-control studies for men and five for women. The population control subjects of a German multicentre case-control study (Seidler A, Bergmann A, Jäger M, Ellegast R, Ditchen D, Elsner G, Grifka J, Haerting J, Hofmann F, Linhardt O, Luttmann A, Michaelis M, Petereit-Haack G, Schumann B, Bolm-Audorff U, BMC Musculoskelet Disord 10:48, 2009) served as the reference population. Based on the sex-specific cumulative exposure percentiles of the reference population, we assigned exposure values to each category of the included studies using three different cumulative exposure parameters. To estimate the doubling dose (the amount of physical workload to double the risk of hip osteoarthritis) on the basis of all available case-control-studies, meta-regression analyses were conducted based on the linear association between exposure values of the reference population and the logarithm of reported odds ratios (ORs) from the included studies. RESULTS: In men, the risk to develop hip osteoarthritis was increased by an OR of 1.98 (95% CI 1.20-3.29) per 10,000 tons of weights ≥20 kg handled, 2.08 (95% CI 1.22-3.53) per 10,000 tons handled > 10 times per day and 8.64 (95% CI 1.87-39.91) per 106 operations. These estimations result in doubling dosages of 10,100 tons of weights ≥20 kg handled, 9500 tons ≥20 kg handled > 10 times per day and 321,400 operations of weights ≥20 kg. There was no linear association between manual handling of weights at work and risk to develop hip osteoarthritis in women. CONCLUSIONS: Under specific conditions, the application of an external reference population allows for the derivation of a dose-response relationship despite high exposure heterogeneities in the pooled studies.

Occupational Strain as a Risk for Hip Osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Multiple epidemiological studies have revealed an association between occupational physical strain and the risk of developing hip osteoarthritis. METHODS: To determine the association between the lifting and carrying of heavy loads or other physically demanding work and the risk of hip osteoarthritis (HOA) or total hip replacement (THR), we systematically searched the literature for primary studies on the effects of exposure to physical strain and meta-analytically reviewed the results that were amenable to comparisons across studies. We separately assessed studies that had hip pain as an endpoint. RESULTS: 5 cohort studies and 18 case-control studies were found suitable for inclusion. The lifting of heavy loads increases the risk of HOA or THR: exposure doubles the risk in men (relative risk [RR] 2.09, 95% confidence interval [1.4; 3.1]) and increases it by roughly 40% in women (RR 1.41 [1.0; 1.9]). Physically demanding work consisting of a combination of activities of various kinds (dealing with heavy loads, heavy manual work, or prolonged walking and standing) increases the risk by roughly 150% in men (RR 2.46 [1.3; 4.8]) and 40% in women (RR 1.38 [0.9; 2.2]). Hip pain was also reported more commonly in the exposed groups. CONCLUSION: The studies are moderately to highly heterogeneous. An association exists between years of lifting heavy loads or other kinds of physical strain on the job and the risk of developing osteoarthritis of the hip. The greater the exposure, the greater the risk. The evidence base for risk assessment in women is currently inadequate.

Validation of newly developed and redesigned key indicator methods for assessment of different working conditions with physical workloads based on mixed-methods design: a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The impact of work-related musculoskeletal disorders is considerable. The assessment of work tasks with physical workloads is crucial to estimate the work-related health risks of exposed employees. Three key indicator methods are available for risk assessment regarding manual lifting, holding and carrying of loads; manual pulling and pushing of loads; and manual handling operations. Three further KIMs for risk assessment regarding whole-body forces, awkward body postures and body movement have been developed de novo. In addition, the development of a newly drafted combined method for mixed exposures is planned. All methods will be validated regarding face validity, reliability, convergent validity, criterion validity and further aspects of utility under practical conditions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: As part of the joint project MEGAPHYS (multilevel risk assessment of physical workloads), a mixed-methods study is being designed for the validation of KIMs and conducted in companies of different sizes and branches in Germany. Workplaces are documented and analysed by observations, applying KIMs, interviews and assessment of environmental conditions. Furthermore, a survey among the employees at the respective workplaces takes place with standardised questionnaires, interviews and physical examinations. It is intended to include 1200 employees at 120 different workplaces. For analysis of the quality criteria, recommendations of the COSMIN checklist (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) will be taken into account. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was planned and conducted in accordance with the German Medical Professional Code and the Declaration of Helsinki as well as the German Federal Data Protection Act. The design of the study was approved by ethics committees. We intend to publish the validated KIMs in 2018. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals, presented at international meetings and disseminated to actual users for practical application.

Physical working conditions as covered in European monitoring questionnaires.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of workers with demanding physical working conditions in the European work force remains high, and occupational physical exposures are considered important risk factors for musculoskeletal disorders (MSD), a major burden for both workers and society. Exposures to physical workloads are therefore part of the European nationwide surveys to monitor working conditions and health. An interesting question is to what extent the same domains, dimensions and items referring to the physical workloads are covered in the surveys. The purpose of this paper is to determine 1) which domains and dimensions of the physical workloads are monitored in surveys at the national level and the EU level and 2) the degree of European consensus among these surveys regarding coverage of individual domains and dimensions. METHOD: Items on physical workloads used in one European wide/Spanish and five other European nationwide work environment surveys were classified into the domains and dimensions they cover, using a taxonomy agreed upon among all participating partners. RESULTS: The taxonomy reveals that there is a modest overlap between the domains covered in the surveys, but when considering dimensions, the results indicate a lower agreement. The phrasing of items and answering categories differs between the surveys. Among the domains, the three domains covered by all surveys are "lifting, holding & carrying of loads/pushing & pulling of loads", "awkward body postures" and "vibrations". The three domains covered less well, that is only by three surveys or less, are "physical work effort", "working sitting", and "mixed exposure". CONCLUSIONS: This is the first thorough overview to evaluate the coverage of domains and dimensions of self-reported physical workloads in a selection of European nationwide surveys. We hope the overview will provide input to the revisions and updates of the individual countries' surveys in order to enhance coverage of relevant domains and dimensions in all surveys and to increase the informational value of the surveys.

Comparison of 2 recommendations for adjusting the working height in milking parlors.

Milking cows is one of the major labor inputs on dairy farms. Modern parlors allow upright working positions, but pain and disorders among parlor workers are still very prevalent. The platform height in the parlors is important for the body posture of the workers. Based on a large set of data containing parlor-specific measures, anthropometrics, and bovimetrics, a simulation of 2 recommendations published in the literature was carried out. This article presents and discusses the results of 2 formulas for determining the appropriate pit depth. The shoulder and body height of the worker and the distance between the udder and the floor influence the adjustment of the pit depth. If work at shoulder level is favored, autotandem parlors offer the most suitable pit depths, whereas side-by-side parlors are too deep in all cases. Due to the variation in anthropometrics and bovimetrics, a good parlor design can reduce the extent of unfavorable body postures, but more technical measures are necessary to completely eliminate them. Actions that reduce the workload and the prevalence of musculoskeletal pain and disorders should be considered.