Housing conditions and changes in professional activity during lockdown and the risk of prevalent and incident depression: Findings from the CONSTANCES cohort.

BACKGROUND: Material conditions of lockdown and changes in regular functioning may have played a role on depressive manifestations. We aimed to examine the association between housing conditions and changes in professional activity and depression during the first COVID-19 outbreak in France. METHOD: Participants of the CONSTANCES cohort were followed online. A first questionnaire covered the lockdown period (assessing housing conditions and changes in professional activity), and a second the post-lockdown period (assessing depression using the Center of Epidemiologic Studies Depression-Scale (CES-D)). Incident depression was also estimated (with a previous CES-D measure). Logistic regression models were applied. RESULTS: 22,042 participants (median age 46 years, 53.2 % women) were included and 20,534 had a previous CES-D measure. Depression was associated with female gender, lower household income and past history of depression. A negative gradient between the number of rooms and the likelihood of depression was consistently observed (OR = 1.55 95 % [1.19-2.00] for one room, OR = 0.76 [0.65-0.88] for seven rooms), while a U-shape relationship was observed with the number of people living together (OR = 1.62 [1.42-1.84] for living alone, OR = 1.44 [1.07-1.92] for six persons). These associations were also observed with incident depression. Changes in professional activity were associated with depression (Started distance working (OR = 1.33 [1.17-1.50]). Starting distance working was also associated with incident depression (OR = 1.27 [1.08-1.48]). LIMITATION: A cross-sectional design was used. CONCLUSION: The consequences of lockdown on depression may vary depending on living conditions and changes in professional activity, including distance working. These results could help to better identify vulnerable people to promote mental health.

Teleworking and Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Systematic Review.

Teleworking has spread drastically during the COVID-19 pandemic, but its effect on musculo-skeletal disorders (MSD) remains unclear. We aimed to make a qualitative systematic review on the effect of teleworking on MSD. Following the PRISMA guidelines, several databases were searched using strings based on MSD and teleworking keywords. A two-step selection process was used to select relevant studies and a risk of bias assessment was made. Relevant variables were extracted from the articles included, with a focus on study design, population, definition of MSD, confounding factors, and main results. Of 205 studies identified, 25 were included in the final selection. Most studies used validated questionnaires to assess MSD, six considered confounders extensively, and seven had a control group. The most reported MSD were lower back and neck pain. Some studies found increased prevalence or pain intensity, while others did not. Risk of bias was high, with only 5 studies with low/probably low risk of bias. Conflicting results on the effect of teleworking on MSD were found, though an increase in MSD related to organizational and ergonomic factors seems to emerge. Future studies should focus on longitudinal approaches and consider ergonomic and work organization factors as well as socio-economic status.

Cardiac Arrest Management in the Workplace: Improving but Not Enough?

The aim was to describe out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) occurring in the workplace of a large emergency network, and compare the evolution of their management in the last 15 years. A retrospective study based on data from the Northern Alps Emergency Network compared characteristics of OHCA between cases in and out the workplace, and between cases occurring from January 2004 to December 2010 and from January 2011 to December 2017. Among the 15,320 OHCA cases included, 320 occurred in the workplace (2.1%). They were more often in younger men, and happened more frequently in an area with access to public defibrillation, had more often a shockable rhythm, had a cardiopulmonary resuscitation started by a bystander more frequently, and had a better outcome. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation started by a bystander was the only chain of survival link that improved for cases occurring after December 2010. Workplace OHCA seems to be managed more effectively than others; however, only a slight survival improvement was observed, suggesting that progress is still needed.

Comparison of different estimators of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic activity on geographical and temporal levels.

Background: Studies began investigating occupational exposures as a source of contamination to SARS-CoV-2, yet few considered the variation in SARS-Cov2 pandemic activity for these exposures. Several indicators were built to assess SARS-Cov2 activity though they usually serve a specific purpose and have limitations. The aim was to compare qualitatively different estimators of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic activity and to create an estimator of pandemic activity level based on daily hospital admissions for job-exposure matrices (JEM) usage. Methods: From publicly available French databases, we retrieved all data from March 19, 2020 (first day available) to March 25, 2021 (day of data collection) on four different estimators: percentage of intensive care bed occupied, reproductive number, tests' positive rate and number positive tests. An indicator based on new daily hospital admissions was created for a COVID JEM. Due to the heterogeneity of the estimators, a qualitative comparison was carried out. Results: During the study period, three major outbreaks took place. Though the number of positive tests was the first indicator to worsen during the 2nd outbreak, it failed to identify variation during the outbreak. Though each indicators behaved differently during the study period, the indicator based on new daily hospital admissions and the positive rate seemed to be the closest to one another. Conclusion: This study highlights the heterogeneity of the indicators used during the first and second SARS-Cov2 outbreaks in France. An indicator based on new daily hospital admissions seems to be a good candidate for estimating SARS-CoV-2 epidemic activity for COVID JEMs and is easily available in countries where usual indicators are not commonly accessible.

Association between COVID-19 infection and work exposure assessed by the Mat-O-Covid job exposure matrix in the CONSTANCES cohort.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has brought to light a new occupational health threat. We aimed to evaluate the association between COVID-19 infection and work exposure to SARS-CoV-2 assessed by a job-exposure matrix (JEM), in a large population cohort. We also estimated the population-attributable fraction among exposed subjects. METHODS: We used the SAPRIS-SERO sample of the CONSTANCES cohort, limited to subjects actively working, and with a job code available and a questionnaire on extra work activities. The following outcomes were assessed: COVID-19 diagnosis was made by a physician; a seropositivity to the ELISA-S test ('serology strict') and ELISA-S test intermediate with positive ELISA-NP or a positive neutralising antibodies SN ('serology large'). Job exposure was assessed using Mat-O-Covid, an expert-based JEM with an Index used as a continuous variable and a threshold at 13/1000. RESULTS: The sample included 18 999 subjects with 389 different jobs, 47.7% were men with a mean age of 46.2 years (±9.2 years). The Mat-O-Covid index taken as a continuous variable or with a threshold greater than 13/1000 was associated with all the outcomes in bivariable and multivariable logistic models. ORs were between 1.30 and 1.58, and proportion of COVID-19 attributable to work among exposed participants was between 20% and 40%. DISCUSSION: Using the Mat-O-Covid JEM applied to a large population, we found a significant association between work exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 infection, though the estimation of attributable fraction among exposed people remained low to moderate. Further studies during other exposed periods and with other methods are necessary.

Temporal trends in calls for suicide attempts to poison control centers in France during the COVID-19 pandemic: a nationwide study.

Concerns have been raised about early vs. later impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on suicidal behavior. However, data remain sparse to date. We investigated all calls for intentional drug or other toxic ingestions to the eight Poison Control Centers in France between 1st January 2018 and 31st May 2022. Data were extracted from the French National Database of Poisonings. Calls during the study period were analyzed using time trends and time series analyses with SARIMA models (based on the first two years). Breakpoints were determined using Chow test. These analyses were performed together with examination of age groups (≤ 11, 12-24, 25-64, ≥ 65 years) and gender effects when possible. Over the studied period, 66,589 calls for suicide attempts were received. Overall, there was a downward trend from 2018, which slowed down in October 2019 and was followed by an increase from November 2020. Number of calls observed during the COVID period were above what was expected. However, important differences were found according to age and gender. The increase in calls from mid-2020 was particularly observed in young females, while middle-aged adults showed a persisting decrease. An increase in older-aged people was observed from mid-2019 and persisted during the pandemic. The pandemic may therefore have exacerbated a pre-existing fragile situation in adolescents and old-aged people. This study emphasizes the rapidly evolving situation regarding suicidal behaviour during the pandemic, the possibility of age and gender differences in impact, and the value of having access to real-time information to monitor suicidal acts.

Assessing the quality of evidence in studies estimating prevalence of exposure to occupational risk factors: The QoE-SPEO approach applied in the systematic reviews from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related burden of disease and Injury.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) have produced the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates). For these, systematic reviews of studies estimating the prevalence of exposure to selected occupational risk factors have been conducted to provide input data for estimations of the number of exposed workers. A critical part of systematic review methodology is to assess the quality of evidence across studies. In this article, we present the approach applied in these WHO/ILO systematic reviews for performing such assessments on studies of prevalence of exposure. It is called the Quality of Evidence in Studies estimating Prevalence of Exposure to Occupational risk factors (QoE-SPEO) approach. We describe QoE-SPEO's development to date, demonstrate its feasibility reporting results from pilot testing and case studies, note its strengths and limitations, and suggest how QoE-SPEO should be tested and developed further. METHODS: Following a comprehensive literature review, and using expert opinion, selected existing quality of evidence assessment approaches used in environmental and occupational health were reviewed and analysed for their relevance to prevalence studies. Relevant steps and components from the existing approaches were adopted or adapted for QoE-SPEO. New steps and components were developed. We elicited feedback from other systematic review methodologists and exposure scientists and reached consensus on the QoE-SPEO approach. Ten individual experts pilot-tested QoE-SPEO. To assess inter-rater agreement, we counted ratings of expected (actual and non-spurious) heterogeneity and quality of evidence and calculated a raw measure of agreement (Pi) between individual raters and rater teams for the downgrade domains. Pi ranged between 0.00 (no two pilot testers selected the same rating) and 1.00 (all pilot testers selected the same rating). Case studies were conducted of experiences of QoE-SPEO's use in two WHO/ILO systematic reviews. RESULTS: We found no existing quality of evidence assessment approach for occupational exposure prevalence studies. We identified three relevant, existing approaches for environmental and occupational health studies of the effect of exposures. Assessments using QoE-SPEO comprise three steps: (1) judge the level of expected heterogeneity (defined as non-spurious variability that can be expected in exposure prevalence, within or between individual persons, because exposure may change over space and/or time), (2) assess downgrade domains, and (3) reach a final rating on the quality of evidence. Assessments are conducted using the same five downgrade domains as the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach: (a) risk of bias, (b) indirectness, (c) inconsistency, (d) imprecision, and (e) publication bias. For downgrade domains (c) and (d), the assessment varies depending on the level of expected heterogeneity. There are no upgrade domains. The QoE-SPEO's ratings are "very low", "low", "moderate", and "high". To arrive at a final decision on the overall quality of evidence, the assessor starts at "high" quality of evidence and for each domain downgrades by one or two levels for serious concerns or very serious concerns, respectively. In pilot tests, there was reasonable agreement in ratings for expected heterogeneity; 70% of raters selected the same rating. Inter-rater agreement ranged considerably between downgrade domains, both for individual rater pairs (range Pi: 0.36-1.00) and rater teams (0.20-1.00). Sparse data prevented rigorous assessment of inter-rater agreement in quality of evidence ratings. CONCLUSIONS: We present QoE-SPEO as an approach for assessing quality of evidence in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors. It has been developed to its current version (as presented here), has undergone pilot testing, and was applied in the systematic reviews for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. While the approach requires further testing and development, it makes steps towards filling an identified gap, and progress made so far can be used to inform future work in this area.

Mat-O-Covid: Validation of a SARS-CoV-2 Job Exposure Matrix (JEM) Using Data from a National Compensation System for Occupational COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the validity of the Mat-O-Covid Job Exposure Matrix (JEM) on SARS-CoV-2 using compensation data from the French National Health Insurance compensation system for occupational-related COVID-19. METHODS: Deidentified compensation data for occupational COVID-19 in France were obtained between August 2020 and August 2021. The case acceptance was considered as the reference. Mat-O-Covid is an expert-based French JEM on workplace exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Bi- and multivariable models were used to study the association between the exposure assessed by Mat-O-Covid and the reference, as well as the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratios. RESULTS: In the 1140 cases included, there was a close association between the Mat-O-Covid index and the reference (p < 0.0001). The overall predictivity was good, with an AUC of 0.78 and an optimal threshold at 13 per thousand. Using Youden's J statistic resulted in 0.67 sensitivity and 0.87 specificity. Both positive and negative likelihood ratios were significant: 4.9 [2.4-6.4] and 0.4 [0.3-0.4], respectively. DISCUSSION: It was possible to assess Mat-O-Covid's validity using data from the national compensation system for occupational COVID-19. Though further studies are needed, Mat-O-Covid exposure assessment appears to be accurate enough to be used in research.

Matrice emplois-exposition pour le SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) :Création de « Mat-O-Covid », validité et perspectives

Résumé L’évaluation de l’exposition est difficile pour le chercheur du domaine des risques professionnels. L’objectif du travail est de développer et de valider une matrice emplois-exposition (MEE) pour l'exposition professionnelle au SARS-CoV-2 appelée " Mat-O-Covid ". Grâce à un groupe d’expert français, la matrice a été développée pour tous les travailleurs sur la profession et les catégories socioprofessionnelles de 2003 (avec une passerelle de transcodage vers la Classification internationale type des professions de 2008) et un focus sur le secteur de soin et médicosocial. La moyenne des codages des experts a été utilisée comme estimation pour l’exposition « sujets » (collègues et/ou public) et « patients » pour le focus secteurs sanitaires, ainsi que la probabilité de prévention pour chaque. Les corrélations intraclasses ont été considérés comme bonnes à excellentes, sauf pour la prévention en santé. Comparées à la matrice américaine O*Net, l’évaluation a été considérée comme satisfaisante. En conclusion, une MEE "Mat-O-Covid" fournissant une probabilité d'exposition professionnelle au SARS-CoV-2 aura des implications pour la recherche et en santé publique, sous réserve de connaître ses limites et de poursuivre sa validation. While exposure assessment is complex for the occupational risk researcher, the objective of our work is to develop and validate a job-exposure matrix (JEM) for SARS-CoV-2 exposure called “Mat-O-Covid” project (“COVID-Mate” in French). A group of French experts, the JEM was developed for all workers using the 2003 Occupation and Socioprofessional Categories (with a transcoding gateway to the 2008 International Standard Classification of Occupations) and a focus on the health and care sector. The average of the experts' coding was used as estimates for both estimates, exposure "subjects" (colleagues and/or public) and "patients" for the focus on the health and care sector, as well as the probability of prevention for each. Intraclass correlations were considered good to excellent except for health prevention. Compared to the United States O*Net JEM, the evaluation was considered as fair. In conclusion, a "Mat-O-Covid" JEM providing a probability of occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2 will have implications for research and public health, taking into account that its limitations are known, and its validation is still in progress.

Return-to-work, disabilities and occupational health in the age of COVID-19.

We have read with great interest the two editorials by Burdorf et al: "The COVID-19 pandemic: one year later - an occupational perspective" (1) and "The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic: consequences for occupational health" (2). The authors highlight the importance of the societal consequences of the outbreak and changes in the world of work to manage occupational health. The key points identified - such as individual socio-economic factors, psychological effects and occupations with highest risk of contamination - modify return-to-work approaches. It is estimated that around 800 million people of working age worldwide were living with disabilities before the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. In early January 2021, the cumulative COVID-19 hospitalisation rate reached 207.4/100 000 (18-49-year-olds) and 505.7/100 000 (50-64-year-olds), respectively, in the United States (3). In France, the hospitalisation rate was 411.5/100 000 across all ages (4). A recent cohort study of working-age men who were hospitalised for COVID-19 highlighted the long-term health consequences of such a disease (5). The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic creates new challenges for occupational health, shifting attention away from return-to-work after health problems to resuming work during an outbreak, dealing with lockdown, and taking special account of workers with vulnerabilities (6, 7). We recommend considering three different aspects of occupational medicine during a pandemic. Firstly, for most workers at high-risk of severe COVID-19, the issues of work disability and resuming work had never occurred before the epidemic. Recommendations such as physical and social distancing and wearing a facemask are highly advisable to protect against infection but may not be enough to enable some individuals to resume work. Therefore, decision-making requires individual comprehensive assessments of the underlying medical condition, the SARS-CoV-2 contamination risk associated with either regular work or teleworking, and vaccination opportunities. The second situation concerns workers who have suffered from COVID-19. Preliminary studies suggest that long recovery duration is related to high severity (7), but this is still a matter of debate for patients suffering from "long COVID-19" (5, 8, 9), a condition for which the long-term effects remain unknown. Any long-running recovery must be considered to be a potential sign of long COVID-19. These long-lasting syndromes occur among patients with severe symptoms but have also been reported independently of acute phase severity, hospitalisation and receiving medical oxygen (8, 9). Researchers worldwide are currently investigating such syndromes. Strategies promoting return to work for these workers will need to be implemented and could be similar to programmes developed for other chronic conditions. Moreover, numerous more serious sequelae following critical illness suggest the need for enhanced support by rehabilitation and occupational health specialists. Finally, the consequences of the epidemic must be evaluated over time for people who suffered from functional limitations before COVID-19 as their physical and mental condition may be modified by the epidemic and, specifically, the consequences of lockdown (10). In all of these situations, medical, social, financial and working contexts are key elements. In addition to a medical assessment, the use of scales such as the Work Ability Index (WAI) (11) or the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) (12) can help perform long-term follow-up and provide information about work capacity and workload. It also gives a "back to basics" perspective, urging politicians to move towards a `decent-work-for-all` policy, as advocated by the United Nation`s Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 8, which the WHO has endorsed (13). References 1. Burdorf A, Porru F, Rugulies R. The COVID-19 pandemic: one year later - an occupational perspective. Scand J Work Environ Health - online first. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3956 2. Burdorf A, Porru F, Rugulies R. The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic: consequences for occupational health. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2020;46(3):229-230. https://doi:org/10.5271/sjweh.3893. 3. COVID-19 Hospitalizations [Internet]. Available from: https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/COVIDNet/COVID19_3.html 4. COVID-19 in France, vaccine and allergy management in occupational setting. Descatha A et al. Arch Mal Prof Environ 2021. Accepted for publication. 5. Huang C, Huang L, Wang Y, Li X, Ren L, Gu X, et al. 6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study. Lancet 2021;397(10270):220-32 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32656-8 6. Shaw WS, Main CJ, Findley PA, Collie A, Kristman VL, Gross DP. Opening the Workplace After COVID-19: What Lessons Can be Learned from Return-to-Work Research? J Occup Rehabil. 2020;30(3):299-302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-020-09908-9 7. Taylor T, Das R, Mueller K, Pransky G, Christian J, Orford R, et al. Safely Returning America to Work: Part I: General Guidance for Employers. J Occup Environ Med. 2020;62(9):771-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000001984 8. Carfì A, Bernabei R, Landi F, Gemelli Against COVID-19 Post-Acute Care Study Group. Persistent Symptoms in Patients After Acute COVID-19. JAMA. 2020;324(6):603-5. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.12603 9. Tenforde MW, Kim SS, Lindsell CJ, Billig Rose E, Shapiro NI, Files DC, et al. Symptom Duration and Risk Factors for Delayed Return to Usual Health Among Outpatients with COVID-19 in a Multistate Health Care Systems Network - United States, March-June 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly. 2020;69(30):993-8. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6930e1 10. Chudasama YV, Gillies CL, Zaccardi F, Coles B, Davies MJ, Seidu S, et al. Impact of COVID-19 on routine care for chronic diseases: A global survey of views from healthcare professionals. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2020;14(5):965-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsx.2020.06.042 11. Tuomi K. Eleven-year follow-up of aging workers. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1997;23(1):1-71. 12. Reilly MC, Zbrozek AS, Dukes EM. The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument. PharmacoEconomics. 1993;4(5):353-65. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199304050-00006 13. Organization WH. Health in the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Sixty-Ninth World Health Assembly. Document A. 2016, p69.

Poisoning during the COVID-19 outbreak and lockdown: retrospective analysis of exposures reported to French poison control centres.

INTRODUCTION: The aim was to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on French Poison Control Centre (PCC) call characteristics. METHODS: Reported cases of xenobiotic exposures from 1 March to 30 April in 2018, 2019, and 2020 were extracted from the French National Database of Poisonings. The collected data included call, patient, and exposure characteristics for both general calls and for calls involving sentinel xenobiotic categories related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2020 exposures were compared to 2018-2019 exposures by using simple logistic models in order to provide effect size with odds ratios. RESULTS: From March to April 2020, 32,182 exposures were reported to French PCCs with an overall increase of 5.6% compared to exposures in the same time frame in 2018-2019. A similar increase in calls was observed in non-epidemic and epidemic COVID-19 areas with an increase in calls from the public (+13.6%) while calls from health-professionals decreased (-7.5%). Despite the increase in exposures, the incidence of symptomatic exposures remained stable (-0.4%) with a decrease in severity (moderate/severe -17.2%). A significant increase in exposures to home cleaning products containing biocides, essential oils, and alcohol-based hand sanitizers (odds ratio >1.3, p < .0001) was observed. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic altered calls to French PCCs with a small increase in calls during the study period and changes in the pattern of exposure. These changes possibly reflected the indirect consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic i.e., limited access to primary care, fear of contracting COVID-19 and anxiety related to home isolation.

Pediatric Eye Injuries by Hydroalcoholic Gel in the Context of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.

Importance: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has made alcohol-based hand sanitizers (ABHS) widely available in public places. This may warrant determining whether cases of unintentional ocular exposure are increasing, especially in children. Objective: To describe the epidemiologic trend of pediatric eye exposures to ABHS and to report the severity of the ocular lesions. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective case series conducted from April 1, 2020, to August 24, 2020. Cases were retrieved from the national database of the French Poison Control Centers (PCC) and from a pediatric ophthalmology referral hospital in Paris, France. Cases of ocular exposure to chemical agents in children younger than 18 years during the study period were reviewed. Cases of ABHS exposure were included. Exposures: The following data were collected: age, sex, circumstances of exposure, symptoms, size of the epithelial defect at first examination, time between the incident and re-epithelialization, and medical and/or surgical management. Main Outcomes and Measures: Comparison of the number of eye exposures to ABHS in children between April to August 2020 and April to August 2019. Results: Between April 1 and August 24, 2020, there were 7 times more pediatric cases of ABHS eye exposures reported in the PCC database compared with the same period in 2019 (9.9% of pediatric eye exposures in 2020 vs 1.3% in 2019; difference, 8.6%; 95% CI, 7.4-9.9; P < .001). The number of cases occurring in public places increased in 2020 (from 16.4% in May to 52.4% in August). Similarly, admissions to the eye hospital for ABHS exposure increased at the same period (16 children in 2020 including 10 boys; mean [SD] age, 3.5 [1.4] years vs 1 boy aged 16 months in 2019). Eight of them presented with a corneal and/or conjunctival ulcer, involving more than 50% of the corneal surface for 6 of them. Two cases required amniotic membrane transplant. Conclusions and Relevance: These data support the likelihood of an increasing number of unintentional ocular exposures to ABHS in the pediatric population. To maintain good public compliance with hand disinfection, these findings support that health authorities should ensure the safe use of these devices and warn the parents and caregivers about their potential danger for children.