itative Research of Occupational Injury Experiences of Laboratory Animal Workers / 浙江中医药大学学报

Objective] To discuss the inner experiences of occupational injury of laboratory animal workers, and provide basis for conducting targeted occupational protective education and health management. [Methods] The phenomenological methodology was used in the study. 12 laboratory animal workers were participated in non-structured interview regarding the experiences of occupational injury. [Results] 3 themes were found including:category of occupational injury(physical injury, chemical injury, biological injury); emotional experiences of occupational injury(fears and concerns, helplessness and self-abasement); help most needed(more attention, knowledge supports, advanced and convenient protective equipment and hardware facilities). [Conclusion] Management of experimental animal industry should lay great emphasis on occupational health and protection of laboratory animal workers, increase both financial and material resources, and enhance occupational protection education, in order to maximize bad physical and psychological effects from occupational injury.

Laboratory animals and respiratory allergies: The prevalence of allergies among laboratory animal workers and the need for prophylaxis

OBJECTIVE: Subjects exposed to laboratory animals are at a heightened risk of developing respiratory and allergic diseases. These diseases can be prevented by simple measures such as the use of personal protective equipment. We report here the primary findings of the Laboratory Animals and Respiratory Allergies Study regarding the prevalence of allergic diseases among laboratory animal workers, the routine use of preventive measures in laboratories and animal facilities, and the need for prevention programs. METHODS: Animal handlers and non-animal handlers from 2 Brazilian universities (University of São Paulo and State University of Campinas) answered specific questionnaires to assess work conditions and symptoms. These subjects also underwent spirometry, a bronchial challenge test with mannitol, and skin prick tests for 11 common allergens and 5 occupational allergens (rat, mouse, guinea pig, hamster, and rabbit). RESULTS: Four hundred fifty-five animal handlers (32±10 years old [mean±SD], 209 men) and 387 non-animal handlers (33±11 years old, 121 men) were evaluated. Sensitization to occupational allergens was higher among animal handlers (16%) than non-animal handlers (3%, p<0.01). Accessibility to personal protective equipment was measured at 85% (median, considering 73 workplaces of the animal handler group). Nineteen percent of the animal handlers indicated that they wear a respirator at all times while handling animals or working in the animal room, and only 25% of the animal handlers had received an orientation about animal-induced allergies, asthma, or rhinitis. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, our data indicate that preventive programs are necessary. We suggest providing individual advice to workers associated with institutional programs to promote a safer work environment. .