[Effects of Wearing Face Masks to Prevent Infectious Diseases On Children's and Adolescents' Well-Being and Behavior: An Interview Study]. / Auswirkungen des Tragens von Gesichtsmasken zur Prävention von Infektionskrankheiten auf das Befinden und Verhalten von Kindern und Jugendlichen: Eine Interviewstudie.

AIM: To investigate the effects of wearing masks in terms of well-being, behavior and psychosocial development on children and adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Expert interviews were conducted with educators (n=2), teachers from primary and secondary education (n=9), adolescent student representatives (n=5) as well as paediatricians from primary care (n=3) and the public health service (n=1), transcribed and subjected to thematic analysis using MAXQDA 2020. RESULTS: The most frequently reported short- and medium-term direct effects of mask-wearing were primarily in terms of limited communication due to a reduction in hearing and facial expressions. These restrictions in communication had consequences for social interaction and teaching quality. It is assumed that there will be effects on language development and social-emotional development in the future. A reported increase in psychosomatic complaints as well as anxiety, depression and eating disorders was attributed more to the conglomerate of distancing interventions than to just wearing of masks. Vulnerable groups were children with developmental difficulties, those with German as a foreign language, younger children, and shy and quiet children and adolescents. CONCLUSION: While the consequences of mask-wearing for children and adolescents can be described quite well for different aspects of communication and interaction, effects on aspects of psychosocial development cannot be clearly identified yet. Recommendations are made primarily for dealing with the limitations in the school setting.

[Pregnant Physicians in Surgical Specialties - Implementation of the Maternity Protection Act Among Female Physicians in Saxony]. / Schwangere Ärztinnen in den operativen Fachgebieten ­ eine Befragung zur Umsetzung des Mutterschutzgesetzes unter sächsischen Fachärztinnen.

AIM: The aim of the study was to investigate compliance with occupational health and safety (OHS) among pregnant surgeons. METHODS: All female surgeons in Saxony up to 45 years of age received a written questionnaire about their work environment during pregnancy. Predefined and expert-based criteria of OHS were analyzed descriptively. Poor compliance with OSH was defined as meeting a maximum of half of the criteria. Using logistic regression, professional factors (i. e. "operating due to lack of staff") and personal factors (i. e. "operating due to residency") were investigated for poor compliance with OSH. RESULTS: Of the participating female specialists, 55% (response=39%) had performed surgery during pregnancy. On average, 7.4 of the 16 occupational health and safety measures were fulfilled (median=8; range 1-13). In none of the cases were all predefined OSH criteria fulfilled. Two-thirds of the women who worked in non-operative areas took on invasive activities. When the women were working outside the operating theatre, an average of 4.1 of 13 predefined OSH criteria was fulfilled (median=4; range 0-8). "Lack of staff" was related to poor OSH compliance in the multivariate analysis (OR=5.9 (95% CI 1.7-20.0)). CONCLUSION: The results of the study show a great need for improvement in the occupational safety of pregnant surgeons.

[Impact of wearing face masks in public to prevent infectious diseases on the psychosocial development in children and adolescents: a systematic review]. / Beeinflussung der psychosozialen Entwicklung von Kindern und Jugendlichen durch das Tragen von Gesichtsmasken im öffentlichen Raum zur Prävention von Infektionskrankheiten: Ein systematischer Review.

BACKGROUND: Wearing face masks in public is recommended under certain circumstances in order to prevent infectious diseases transmitted through droplets. AIM: The objective was to compile all German and English research results from peer-reviewed journal articles using a sensitive literature search on the effects of mask-wearing for preventing infectious diseases on the psychosocial development of children and adolescents. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted considering different study designs (search period up until 12 July 2021). The risk of bias in the studies was determined using a risk of bias procedure. A descriptive-narrative synthesis of the results was performed. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included, and the overall risk of bias was estimated to be high in all primary studies. There are some indications from the included surveys that children, adolescents, and their teachers in (pre)schools perceived facial expression processing as impaired due to mask wearing, which were confirmed by several experimental studies. Two studies reported psychological symptoms like anxiety and stress as well as concentration and learning problems due to wearing a mask during the COVID-19 pandemic. One survey study during the 2002/2003 SARS pandemic examined oral examination performance in English as a foreign language and showed no difference between the "mask" and "no mask" conditions. DISCUSSION: Only little evidence can be derived on the effects of wearing mouth-nose protection on different developmental areas of children and adolescents based on the small number of studies. There is a lack of research data regarding the following outcomes: psychological development, language development, emotional development, social behavior, school success, and participation. Further qualitative studies and epidemiological studies are required.

Are Healthcare Workers at an Increased Risk for Obstructive Respiratory Diseases Due to Cleaning and Disinfection Agents? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Several reviews have reported an increased risk of obstructive respiratory diseases in workers exposed to cleaning or disinfection agents, but they have focused mainly on professional cleaners. Cleaning and disinfecting are frequently performed activities by healthcare workers. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to quantify the risk of obstructive respiratory diseases in healthcare workers exposed to cleaning and disinfection agents. We searched the Medline and Embase databases until 4 February 2021 to find adequate primary studies. Two independent reviewers screened the titles/abstracts and the full texts of the studies, as well as performing data extraction and quality assessment. The literature search yielded 9432 records, and 8 studies were found through a hand search. After screening, 14 studies were included in the review. All had a high risk of bias, and most studies dealt with nurses, asthma, and hyperresponsiveness (BHR)-related symptoms. Only one study investigated COPD. The meta-analysis estimated an increased risk of new-onset asthma for nurses (Effect size (ES) = 1.67; 95% CI 1.11-2.50) compared with other occupations and found an increase in the risk of new-onset asthma for nurses exposed to cleaning and disinfecting surfaces (ES = 1.43; 95% CI 1.09-1.89) and instruments (ES = 1.34; 95% CI 1.09-1.65). Exposure to specific chemicals such as bleach and glutaraldehyde (GA) increased the risk of asthma in nurses (bleach ES = 2.44; 95% CI 1.56-3.82; GA ES = 1.91, 95% CI 1.35-2.70). A higher risk for BHR-related symptoms was observed for nurses exposed to cleaning surfaces (ES = 1.44; 95% CI 1.18-1.78). Although the overall evidence was rated as low, the limitations found in this review hint at a potential underestimation of the real risk. These findings highlight the need for reinforced prevention practices with regard to healthcare workers. Similar research investigating these associations among other healthcare workers such as rescue service and nursing home personnel is needed.

Vaccine-Preventable Infections in Childcare Workers.

BACKGROUND: Adequate immunity to so-called childhood diseases can lower the occupational risk of vaccine-preventable infectious diseases in persons who work in day-care centers for children. METHODS: A systematic literature survey was carried out in PubMed and Embase for the period January 2000 to February 2019. Studies on immune status and vaccination status were included. In addition, data from the first wave of the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Adults (Studie zur Gesundheit Erwachsener in Deutschland, DEGS1) and surveillance data on notifiable infections in Germany were evaluated. RESULTS: Six studies and the DEGS1 analysis of vaccination or immune status for varicella zoster, rubella, hepatitis A (HAV), pertussis, measles, and mumps in persons caring for children in day-care centers, most of whom are women, were included in this review. According to DEGS1, childcare workers are more commonly vaccinated against HAV and pertussis than the general female population (prevalence ratios [PR]: 1.46 [1.12; 1.90] and 1.57 [1.05; 2.36]), yet 57% had not been vaccinated against HAV and 77% had not been vaccinated against pertussis. Childcare workers were found to be less commonly vaccinated against rubella than the general female population, although the difference was not statistically significant (PR: 0.87 [0.71; 1.07]). In a Canadian study, positive HAV serology was found to be correlated with the duration of activity as a childcare worker. In the DEGS1 study, large proportions of the younger childcare workers in particular were seronegative against measles (16%), mumps (19%), and HAV (37%). Notifiable disease statistics show that those working in community facilities had a markedly higher risk of mumps, pertussis, and varicella (relative risk [RR]: 1.8-2.6) and a somewhat higher risk of rubella and HAV (RR: 1.47 and 1.21, respectively). CONCLUSION: Childcare workers have a higher occupational risk of infection but do not always receive the appropriate vaccinations. In particular, women of child-bearing age working in day-care centers should be made more aware of the need for vaccination.

The Age-Related Risk of Severe Outcomes Due to COVID-19 Infection: A Rapid Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression.

Increased age appears to be a strong risk factor for COVID-19 severe outcomes. However, studies do not sufficiently consider the age-dependency of other important factors influencing the course of disease. The aim of this review was to quantify the isolated effect of age on severe COVID-19 outcomes. We searched Pubmed to find relevant studies published in 2020. Two independent reviewers evaluated them using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. We extracted the results and assessed seven domains of bias for each study. After adjusting for important age-related risk factors, the isolated effect of age was estimated using meta-regression. Twelve studies met our inclusion criteria: four studies for COVID-19 disease severity, seven for mortality, and one for admission to ICU. The crude effect of age (5.2% and 13.4% higher risk of disease severity and death per age year, respectively) substantially decreased when adjusting for important age-dependent risk factors (diabetes, hypertension, coronary heart disease/cerebrovascular disease, compromised immunity, previous respiratory disease, renal disease). Adjusting for all six comorbidities indicates a 2.7% risk increase for disease severity (two studies), and no additional risk of death per year of age (five studies). The indication of a rather weak influence of age on COVID-19 disease severity after adjustment for important age-dependent risk factors should be taken in consideration when implementing age-related preventative measures (e.g., age-dependent work restrictions).

The risk of cytomegalovirus infection in daycare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The primary aim of this review was to summarize the evidence on the relationship between being a daycare worker working with children and the possible increased risk of cytomegalovirus infection. METHODS: We searched the Medline and Embase databases using search strings defined according to the population, exposure, comparison, and outcomes (PECO) applicable to our research questions in order to find studies published since 2000. Two independent reviewers evaluated the search hits using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. A manual search was performed to identify additional relevant literature. We extracted the resulting studies and assessed them in eight domains of bias. The pooled CMV seroprevalence for daycare workers compared to the general population was calculated. RESULTS: After evaluating the 6879 records, six methodologically adequate studies were identified: five cross-sectional studies and one cohort study. The pooled seroprevalence of daycare workers was 59.3% (95% CI 47.6-70.9). The four studies investigating risk of infection indicated an increased seroprevalence for daycare workers compared to a reference population (prevalence ratio, PR = 1.54, 95% CI 1.33-1.77). No study evaluated CMV seroconversions for daycare workers. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest a higher CMV seroprevalence for daycare workers compared to the general population. Notwithstanding the need for longitudinal and intervention studies, preventative efforts are needed. A pooled PR of 1.54 is compatible with a doubled seroconversion risk corresponding to a vocational probability of 50% if the substantial underestimation of the actual occupational seroconversion risk by prevalence-based estimators is considered.

MRSA Point Prevalence among Health Care Workers in German Rehabilitation Centers: A Multi-Center, Cross-Sectional Study in a Non-Outbreak Setting.

People working in health care services have an increased risk of being infected with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), though little is known about the prevalence in rehabilitation centers. This cross-sectional study investigated the MRSA prevalence in employees from different rehabilitation centers and aimed to identify risk factors for MRSA transmission. We invited all staff (i.e., with and without patient contact from 22 participating rehabilitation centers; n = 2499) to participate. Study participation included a questionnaire on personal characteristics, lifestyle, personal and occupational risk factors for MRSA and nasal swabs taken by the study team. In total, 1005 persons participated in the study (response: 40.2%). Only four participants carried MRSA (0.40 (95% CI 0.00-1.00) per 100). MRSA carriage did not seem to be occupationally related, as it was found in different occupations with and without direct contact with MRSA patients, as well as in different clinics with different indications and patient clientele. We could not find a clear association between MRSA carriage and potential risk factors due to the low number of cases found. Genotyping revealed the spa types t032 (Barnim epidemic strain) and t1223. Our results suggest a low point prevalence of nasal MRSA colonization in a non-outbreak setting in employees from rehabilitation centers.

Are Daycare Workers at a Higher Risk of Parvovirus B19 Infection? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objective: In this systematic review, we aimed to summarize the evidence on the association between being a daycare educator working with children and the possible increased risk of parvovirus B19 infection compared to the general population. Methods: The Medline and Embase databases were searched using a defined search to find studies published since 2000. Two reviewers evaluated the search hits using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The resulting studies were extracted and were assessed in eight domains of bias. A pooled relative risk (RR) of parvovirus infection for daycare workers compared to the general population was calculated. Results: After evaluating the 7781 search hits and manual search, four methodologically-adequate studies were identified: three cross-sectional studies and one retrospective cohort study. Of the three studies investigating the risk of infection, one evaluated parvovirus B19 seroconversion rates for daycare workers. There was an indication for an increased risk for daycare workers compared to the unexposed population (RR = 1.12, 95% CI 0.98-1.27) using prevalence estimators. Furthermore, daycare workers had a higher seroconversion rate compared to the unexposed population (RR = 2.63, 95% 1.27-5.45) in the low risk of bias study. Conclusions: Our findings suggest a higher risk of parvovirus B19 infection for daycare workers compared to an unexposed comparison population, which necessitate preventative efforts. Considering the underestimation of the occupational seroconversion risk by prevalence-based estimators, parvovirus B19 infections among daycare workers might mostly be occupationally acquired.

Prevalence and predictors of MRSA carriage among employees in a non-outbreak setting: a cross-sectional study in an acute care hospital.

BACKGROUND: Health care workers have an increased risk of being infected with Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), though little information is available about how prevalent (dormant) MRSA colonization is among health care workers. The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence and predictors of MRSA carriage in a non-outbreak setting in a university hospital in Germany. METHODS: The entire staff of a university hospital heart center for cardiologic maximum medical care and cardiac surgery were invited to participate in a cross-sectional study (N = 575). The sampled population included health care workers as well as employees with no close patient contact.A questionnaire concerning personal and occupational risk factors as well as lifestyle and demographic factors was applied and nasal swabs were taken. In total 180 persons (31.3%) participated in the study. RESULTS: The majority of study participants had close contact to patients at work (n = 149, 82.8%). Thereof, about one-third had contact to MRSA-patients (n = 53, 35.6%), and most reported wearing protective clothing (n = 44, 83.0%). None of the administrative staff tested positive for MRSA and only one in 149 persons (0.7%, CI 0.00-0.02) with close patient contact carried MRSA (strain CC1-MRSA-IV). This person had close contact to patients with MRSA, less than 1 year of work experience, and had been treated with antibiotics within the last 12 months. CONCLUSION: The results of our study suggest low point prevalence rates of MRSA colonization in health care workers in a non-outbreak setting.