RESUMEN
Personalized medicine, and particularly gender medicine, is becoming essential in daily medical practice. This narrative review aims to assess sex and gender differences in occupational risks among workers. We point out that female workers are more exposed to biological risks (i.e., 70% of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic were women), but also seem to be more protected against microorganisms (i.e., for HBV vaccination: OR 1.21, p = 0.0023);with regard to physical risks, women are more susceptible to radiations (the estimated incidence of solid tu-mors for 0.1 Gy of exposure is 0.013% in females and 0.008% in males), while men are more susceptible to heat (infertility prevalence was 22.7% in exposed workers vs 3.0% in con-trols);female video terminal workers are more susceptible to both computer vision syndrome (aOR 2.57 and aOR 2.35) and musculoskeletal symptoms (OR 3.6). From a psychological point of view, women are more at risk for work-relat-ed stress and burnout, as well as workplace mobbing (65% of affected workers are women) and verbal violence, while physical violence was more common among men. In conclu-sion, important sex and gender differences are present with regard to occupational risks and hazards, thus showing the necessity to improve medical surveillance and to allow occupational physicians to personalize health surveillance. © 2022, Il Pensiero Scientifico Editore s.r.l.. All rights reserved.
RESUMEN
Background Religious and cultural beliefs strongly influence people's attitudes and behaviors that, in turn, may positively or negatively affect both individual and public health. In this regard, we aimed to collect and analyze evidence on the impact of religion in the current COVID-19 pandemic. Methods We performed a scoping review investigating both scientific and grey literature available on the topic from the onset of the pandemic to September 2021. Pubmed, Web of Science and Google Scholar were investigated and a hand-search on Google was also performed. Studies dealing with religion and COVID-19 were included and narratively summarized according to topics. Results 46 articles were included in the review. Predominant topics emerged were 1) religious pilgrimages and rituals worldwide being relevant to COVID-19 outbreaks, especially in the first pandemic wave 2) difficulties to engage the Closed Religious Communities (e.g. Haredi, Amish, etc.) in which community way of life, restrictions in using media and resistance to comply to preventive measures were identified as significant COVID-19 risk 3) COVID-19 unofficial treatments and vaccine hesitancy also supported by concerns on the religious acceptability of vaccine composition or firm interpretation of the Ramadan fasting 4) a fuel of religious discrimination 5) religious communities and leaders strongly trusted in conveying COVID-19 information. Conclusions Our findings highlighted how religion has represented both a risk for the spreading of the virus and a precious opportunity to convey evidence-based and culturally-sensitive COVID-19 information engaging people in fighting the pandemic. To be prepared for similar future challenges, scientists, politicians and health professionals need to acknowledge the role that culture and religion have in influencing people's lives to design specific health policies and strategies to ensure that all people are effectively engaged in health production and protection. Key messages Religion has represented both a risk factor for COVID-19 outbreaks and a resource to convey evidence-based information and overcome resistance to implementing COVID-19 preventive measures. Health policy should become more sensitive to religious and cultural issues acknowledging the role played by religion in facing complex global health challenges.
RESUMEN
Background Emotional distress increasingly represents a major burden in children and adolescents (C&A), especially in conflict zones where its prevalence is estimated to reach 70%. Resilience training programmes (RTPs) are interventions that seek to enhance resilience in individuals or groups pursuing mental distress prevention. Literature suggests RTPs be particularly effective in C&A;however, their effectiveness and value for public health are still unclear. Methods A scoping review was performed in order to summarize evidence regarding the implementation and effectiveness of RTPs in children and adolescents. A search string has been built according to the PICO model and launched on PubMed, PsycInfo, Academia databases. Additional references were identified by a hand-search in Google Scholar. Studies included were narratively summarized according to topics that emerged. Results 18 articles were finally included in the review. Main issues were 1) RTPs seem to be more effective in adolescents rather than in children;2) COVID-19 pandemic has raised the attention towards RTPs in C&A;3) beyond conflict zones their implementation is increasingly recognized in supporting C&A management of daily stressors and traumas also in C&A with disabilities;4) school is identified as the key setting for RTPs;5) the high heterogeneity in RTPs approaches, contexts and study samples limits a conclusive effectiveness assessment. Conclusions Our findings highlighted how RTPs are increasingly recognized as a tool to improve C&A cognitive and behavioral functioning and resilience to external stressors, getting greater interest in the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite relevant theoretical support and promising study results, RTPs still lack strong evidence supporting their embracement by policymakers and effective implementation in public health policy. In order to not miss this chance, more efforts are needed in strengthening RTPs conceptualization and cost-effectiveness studies. Key messages • RTPs are a promising tool to enhance the resilience of children and adolescents gaining increasing interest due to the COVID-19 pandemic. • More studies are needed to provide a strong evidence base that supports their acknowledgment by policymakers and their implementation in public health policies.
RESUMEN
Introduction: During the pandemic, the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) has become essential for Healthcare Workers (HCWs) to fight safely against the virus. However, the extensive and prolonged use of PPE may cause various adverse skin reactions due to the use of alcohol hand cleanser and protracted use of masks and goggles. The aim of this study is to evaluate the skin problems caused by PPE in HCWs and the possible consequences on their work. Materials and methods: An online ad hoc questionnaire, composed by 35 questions about sociodemographic characteristics, work related issues and exposure/habits about PPE, was administered to a sample of Italian HCWs. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed in order to explore possible associations between variables. Results: We tested 3 types of PPE: Gloves, Hair Bonnets and Masks for different time of utilization (<1, 1-3, 3-6, >6 hours). The sample included 1184 participants: 292 workers reported a dermatological pathology nested in four different pathological groups: 45 (15%) had Psoriasis, 54 (19%) Eczema, 38 (13%) Acne, 48 (16%), seborrheic dermatitis and 107 (36%) other. 25 workers had a loss of occupational days due to dermatological illness;56 occupational physician surveillance visits were asked for;in 30 cases were recognized limitations in working duties. Conclusions: Protecting HCWs requires the use of PPE, but occupational dermatitis is an emerging problem in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. National data for affected healthcare professionals could contribute to a better understanding of the problem and prevention initiatives in the workplace
RESUMEN
The legal responsibility of the vaccinating doctor is one of the central issues in the current setting of the Covid-19 pandemic. The aim of this statement is to outline the profiles of the medical legal liability, with a focus on the figure of the vaccinating physician, in criminal, civil, and disciplinary terms, based on the Italian legislation in force. The vaccinating doctor responds for his work in the field of vaccination in the same way as any other health service should perform (diagnostic, therapeutic, etc.). Helpful in this context is the adoption of the L. 76/2021;it was developed to find a balance between safeguarding the person privacy and greater guarantees for the doctor. This law introduces a criminal shield that can put a limit to litigation, curbing the phenomenon of so-called defensive medicine. The climate of uncertainty and fear of legal repercussions for the doctors, and the constant updating and redefinition of the indications of operability in the vaccination campaigns, underline the need to focus on the knowledge of the responsibilities and the safeguard of the vaccinating doctors. In addition to the regulatory cornerstones, the statement also addresses the issue of informed consent and the role of the occupational doctor as a central figure in the vaccination campaign in the workplace.
RESUMEN
Knowledge about the new infectious disease COVID-19, which first spread in the city of Wuhan in China, in December 2019, is based on the evidence retrieved from coronaviruses previously known to humans. The main transmission ways of the new SARS-CoV-2 virus are respiratory droplets and direct and close contact with infected individuals and contaminated surfaces. To date, some scientific publications provide initial evidence that SARS-CoV-2 can be detected in the air, thus assuming a further route of infection, that airborne, although these results are to be considered preliminary and they need careful interpretation. In support of this hypothesis, ventilation systems, aimed to improve indoor air, could represent an easy way to spread and promote the virus infection especially in hospitals and in all health facilities where the presence of infected individuals is potentially high as well as the possibility of infection by air. Indeed, by generating jets of air at different speeds, they can interfere with the mission of respiratory particles and determine an environmental diffusion of the potentially contaminating droplet. Therefore, ventilation systems could provide a potential transmission channel for the viral load able to spread out in indoor air. Nonetheless, good management, technical and operational practices may lead to a low risk of contagion, both in community and health environments.