Occupational injuries caused by fire and smoke in Victoria, Australia, 2003-2021: a descriptive study.

OBJECTIVES: Hospital attendance related to fire, flame or smoke exposure is commonly associated with work. The aim of this study was to examine time trends and risk factors for work-related fire/flame/smoke injuries in Victoria, Australia. METHODS: This study was based on emergency department (ED) presentation records from the Victorian Emergency Minimum Dataset, 2003-2021. Cases were people aged 15-74 years with injury-related ED presentations, if cause of injury was recorded as fire/flame/smoke, based on coded data and/or narratives. Work-related rates were calculated per employed persons; non-work rates were calculated per population. Work-related and non-work-related cases were compared using logistic regression modelling. RESULTS: There were 11 838 ED presentations related to fire/flame/smoke: 1864 (15.7%) were work-related. Non-work-related rates were 12.3 ED presentations per 100 000 population, and work-related rates were 3.43 per 100 000 employed persons annually. Over the study period, work-related rates decreased annually by 2.0% (p<0.0001), while non-work rates increased by 1.1% (p<0.0001). Work-related cases (vs non-work) were associated with summer (vs winter), but the association with extreme bushfire periods (Victorian 'Black Saturday' and 'Black Summer') was not statistically significant. Work-related cases were less severe than non-work-related cases, evidenced by triage status and subsequent admission. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of occupational fire/flame/smoke-related injury presentations decreased over the past two decades in Victoria, while non-work-related rates increased. This could reflect improved safety in the workplace. Hospital data, however, cannot be used to distinguish occupation or industry therefore, employment data linkage studies are recommended to further inform workplace preventive measures.

Occupational differences in the prevalence and severity of long-COVID: analysis of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey.

OBJECTIVES: To establish whether prevalence and severity of long-COVID symptoms vary by industry and occupation. METHODS: We used Office for National Statistics COVID-19 Infection Survey (CIS) data (February 2021-April 2022) of working-age participants (16-65 years). Exposures were industry, occupation and major Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) group. Outcomes were self-reported: (1) long-COVID symptoms and (2) reduced function due to long-COVID. Binary (outcome 1) and ordered (outcome 2) logistic regression were used to estimate odds ratios (OR)and prevalence (marginal means). RESULTS: Public facing industries, including teaching and education, social care, healthcare, civil service, retail and transport industries and occupations, had the highest likelihood of long-COVID. By major SOC group, those in caring, leisure and other services (OR 1.44, 95% CIs 1.38 to 1.52) had substantially elevated odds than average. For almost all exposures, the pattern of ORs for long-COVID symptoms followed SARS-CoV-2 infections, except for professional occupations (eg, some healthcare, education, scientific occupations) (infection: OR<1 ; long-COVID: OR>1). The probability of reporting long-COVID for industry ranged from 7.7% (financial services) to 11.6% (teaching and education); whereas the prevalence of reduced function by 'a lot' ranged from 17.1% (arts, entertainment and recreation) to 22%-23% (teaching and education and armed forces) and to 27% (not working). CONCLUSIONS: The risk and prevalence of long-COVID differs across industries and occupations. Generally, it appears that likelihood of developing long-COVID symptoms follows likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection, except for professional occupations. These findings highlight sectors and occupations where further research is needed to understand the occupational factors resulting in long-COVID.

Occupational environment and ovarian cancer risk.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate employment in an occupation or industry and specific occupational exposures in relation to ovarian cancer risk. METHODS: In a population-based case-control study conducted in Montreal, Canada (2011-2016), lifetime occupational histories were collected for 491 cases of ovarian cancer and 897 controls. An industrial hygienist coded the occupation and industry of each participant's job. Associations with ovarian cancer risk were estimated for each of several occupations and industries. Job codes were linked to the Canadian job-exposure matrix, thereby generating exposure histories to many agents. The relationship between exposure to each of the 29 most prevalent agents and ovarian cancer risk was assessed. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (OR (95% CI)) for associations with ovarian cancer risk were estimated using logistic regression and controlling for multiple covariates. RESULTS: Elevated ORs (95% CI) were observed for employment ≥10 years as Accountants (2.05 (1.10 to 3.79)); Hairdressers, Barbers, Beauticians and Related Workers (3.22 (1.25 to 8.27)); Sewers and Embroiderers (1.85 (0.77 to 4.45)); and Salespeople, Shop Assistants and Demonstrators (1.45 (0.71 to 2.96)); and in the industries of Retail Trade (1.59 (1.05 to 2.39)) and Construction (2.79 (0.52 to 4.83)). Positive associations with ORs above 1.42 were seen for high cumulative exposure versus never exposure to 18 agents: cosmetic talc, ammonia, hydrogen peroxide, hair dust, synthetic fibres, polyester fibres, organic dyes and pigments, cellulose, formaldehyde, propellant gases, aliphatic alcohols, ethanol, isopropanol, fluorocarbons, alkanes (C5-C17), mononuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from petroleum and bleaches. CONCLUSIONS: Certain occupations, industries and specific occupational exposures may be associated with ovarian cancer risk. Further research is needed to provide a more solid grounding for any inferences in this regard.

Lung cancer risk in relation to jobs held in a nationwide case-control study in Iran.

BACKGROUND: Globally, lung cancer is the most frequent occupational cancer, but the risk associated with the occupations or occupational environment in Iran is not clear. We aimed to assess occupations with the risk of lung cancer. METHODS: We used the IROPICAN nationwide case-control study data including 658 incident lung cancer cases and 3477 controls. We assessed the risk of lung cancer in relation to ever working in major groups of International Standard Classification of Occupations, high-risk occupations for lung cancer and duration of employment and lung cancer subtype among construction workers and farmers while controlling for cigarette smoking and opium consumption. We used unconditional regression logistic models to estimate ORs for the association between increased lung cancer risk and occupations. RESULTS: We observed elevated ORs for lung cancer in male construction workers (OR=1.4; 95% CI: 1.0 to 1.8), petroleum industry workers (OR=3.2; 95% CI: 1.1 to 9.8), female farmers (OR=2.6; 95% CI: 1.3 to 5.3) and female bakers (OR=5.5; 95% CI: 1.0 to 29.8). A positive trend by the duration of employment was observed for male construction workers (p< 0.001). Increased risk of squamous cell carcinoma was observed in male construction workers (OR=1.9; 95% CI: 1.2 to 3.0) and female farmers (OR=4.3; 95% CI: 1.1 to 17.2), who also experienced an increased risk of adenocarcinoma (OR=3.8; 95% CI: 1.4 to 9.9). DISCUSSION: Although we observed associations between some occupations and lung cancer consistent with the literature, further studies with larger samples focusing on exposures are needed to better understand the occupational lung cancer burden in Iran.