Personal protective equipment for preventing asbestos exposure in workers.

BACKGROUND: Asbestos exposure can lead to asbestos-related diseases. The European Union (EU) has adopted regulations for workplaces where asbestos is present. The EU occupational exposure limit (OEL) for asbestos is 0.1 fibres per cubic centimetre of air (f/cm3) as an eight-hour average. Different types of personal protective equipment (PPE) are available to provide protection and minimise exposure; however, their effectiveness is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of personal protective equipment (PPE), including donning and doffing procedures and individual hygienic behaviour, compared to no availability and use of such equipment or alternative equipment, on asbestos exposure in workers in asbestos demolition and repair work. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and Scopus (September 2022), and we checked the reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that measured asbestos concentration outside and inside PPE (considering outside concentration a surrogate for no PPE), exposure to asbestos after doffing PPE, donning and doffing errors, nonadherence to regulations, and adverse effects of PPE. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using ROBINS-I. We categorised PPE as full-face filtering masks, supplied air respirators (SARs), and powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs). Values for asbestos outside and inside PPE were transformed to logarithmic values for random-effects meta-analysis. Pooled logarithmic mean differences (MDs) were exponentiated to obtain the ratio of means (RoM) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). The RoM shows the degree of protection provided by the respirators (workplace protection factor). Since the RoM is likely to be much higher at higher outside concentrations, we presented separate results according to the outside asbestos concentration, as follows. • Below 0.01 f/cm3 (band 1) • 0.01 f/cm3 to below 0.1 f/cm3 (band 2) • 0.1 f/cm3 to below 1 f/cm3 (band 3) • 1 f/cm3 to below 10 f/cm3 (band 4) • 10 f/cm3 to below 100 f/cm3 (band 5) • 100 f/cm3 to below 1000 f/cm3 (band 6) Additionally, we determined whether the inside concentrations per respirator and concentration band complied with the current EU OEL (0.1 f/cm3) and proposed EU OEL (0.01 f/cm3). MAIN RESULTS: We identified six studies that measured asbestos concentrations outside and inside respiratory protective equipment (RPE) and one cross-over study that compared the effect of two different coveralls on body temperature. No studies evaluated the remaining predefined outcomes. Most studies were at overall moderate risk of bias due to insufficient reporting. The cross-over study was at high risk of bias. Full-face filtering masks Two studies evaluated full-face filtering masks. They provided insufficient data for band 1 and band 6. The results for the remaining bands were as follows. • Band 2: RoM 19 (95% CI 17.6 to 20.1; 1 study, 3 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 3: RoM 69 (95% CI 26.6 to 175.9; 2 studies, 17 measurements; very low certainty) • Band 4: RoM 455 (95% CI 270.4 to 765.1; 1 study, 16 measurements; low certainty) • Band 5: RoM 2752 (95% CI 1236.5 to 6063.2;1 study, 3 measurements; low certainty) The inside measurements in band 5 did not comply with the EU OEL of 0.1 f/cm3, and no inside measurements complied with the proposed EU OEL of 0.01 f/cm3. Supplied air respirators Two studies evaluated supplied air respirators. They provided no data for band 6. The results for the remaining bands were as follows. • Band 1: RoM 11 (95% CI 7.6 to 14.9; 1 study, 134 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 2: RoM 63 (95% CI 43.8 to 90.9; 1 study, 17 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 3: RoM 528 (95% CI 368.7 to 757.5; 1 study, 38 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 4: RoM 4638 (95% CI 3071.7 to 7044.5; 1 study, 49 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 5: RoM 26,134 (16,647.2 to 41,357.1; 1 study, 22 measurements; moderate certainty) All inside measurements complied with the current OEL of 0.1 f/cm3 and the proposed OEL of 0.01 f/cm3. Powered air-purifying respirators Three studies evaluated PAPRs. The results per band were as follows. • Band 1: RoM 8 (95% CI 3.7 to 19.1; 1 study, 23 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 2: RoM 90 (95% CI 64.7 to 126.5; 1 study, 17 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 3: RoM 104 (95% CI 23.1 to 464.1; 3 studies, 14 measurements; very low certainty) • Band 4: RoM 706 (95% CI 219.2 to 2253.0; 2 studies, 43 measurements; very low certainty) • Band 5: RoM 1366 (544.6 to 3428.9; 2 studies, 8 measurements; low certainty) • Band 6: RoM 18,958 (95% CI 4023.9 to 90,219.4; 2 studies, 13 measurements; very low certainty) All inside measurements complied with the 0.1 f/cm3 OEL when the outside concentration was below 10 f/cm3 (band 1 to band 4). From band 3, no measurements complied with the proposed OEL of 0.01 f/cm3. Different types of coveralls One study reported the adverse effects of coveralls. A polyethylene suit may increase the body temperature more than a ventilated impermeable polyvinyl (PVC) coverall, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD 0.17 °C, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.42; 1 study, 11 participants; very low certainty). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Where the outside asbestos concentration is below 0.1 f/cm3, SARS and PAPRs likely reduce exposure to below the proposed OEL of 0.01 f/cm3. For outside concentrations up to 10 f/cm3, all respirators may reduce exposure below the current OEL, but only SAR also below the proposed OEL. In band 5 (10 to < 100 f/cm3), full-face filtering masks may not reduce asbestos exposure below either OEL, SARs likely reduce exposure below both OELs, and there were no data for PAPRs. In band 6 (100 f/cm3 to < 1000 f/cm3), PAPRs may not reduce exposure below either OEL, and there were no data for full-face filtering masks or SARs. Some coveralls may increase body temperature more than others. Randomised studies are needed to directly compare PAPRs and SARs at higher asbestos concentrations and to assess adverse effects. Future studies should assess the effects of doffing procedures.

Global-, regional- and country-level estimates of the work-related burden of diseases and accidents in 2019.

OBJECTIVE: This study provides the global-, regional- and country-level estimates on the work-related burden of diseases and accidents for 2019, including deaths, disability adjusted life years (DALY) and economic losses. METHODS: Data on occupational illnesses and injuries from international organizations, institutions, and public websites were used. Risk ratios (RR) and population attributable fractions (PAF) for the risk factor-outcome pairs were derived from the literature. Estimated mortality and DALY for a group of seven major diseases covering 120 risk-outcome pairs attributable to work were calculated for 181 countries. RESULTS: Globally, 2.9 million deaths were attributed to work, with 2.58 million deaths due to work-related diseases and 0.32 million related to occupational injuries. Globally, work-related diseases with a long latency period are increasing, while the number of occupational injuries has decreased. Work-related circulatory diseases were the major cause of 912 000 deaths globally, followed by 843 000 work-related malignant neoplasms. In high-income, American, Eastern European and Western Pacific World Health Organization (WHO) regions, however, work-related malignant neoplasms comprised the biggest disease group. DALY attributable to work were estimated to be 180 million in 2019, with an associated economic loss of 5.8% of global GDP. New estimates of psychosocial factors increased the global loss. CONCLUSIONS: The burden of work-related diseases and injuries increased by 26% from 2.3 million annual deaths in 2014 to 2.9 million in 2019. The DALY attributable to work have also substantially increased from 123 million in 2014 to 180 million in 2019 (47% increase). We found large regional and country variations.

New global indicator for workers' health: mortality rate from diseases attributable to selected occupational risk factors.

Through sustainable development goals 3 and 8 and other policies, countries have committed to protect and promote workers' health by reducing the work-related burden of disease. To monitor progress on these commitments, indicators that capture the work-related burden of disease should be available for monitoring workers' health and sustainable development. The World Health Organization and the International Labour Organization estimate that only 363 283 (19%) of 1 879 890 work-related deaths globally in 2016 were due to injuries, whereas 1 516 607 (81%) deaths were due to diseases. Most monitoring systems focusing on workers' health or sustainable development, such as the global indicator framework for the sustainable development goals, include an indicator on the burden of occupational injuries. Few such systems, however, have an indicator on the burden of work-related diseases. To address this gap, we present a new global indicator: mortality rate from diseases attributable to selected occupational risk factors, by disease, risk factor, sex and age group. We outline the policy rationale of the indicator, describe its data sources and methods of calculation, and report and analyse the official indicator for 183 countries. We also provide examples of the use of the indicator in national workers' health monitoring systems and highlight the indicator's strengths and limitations. We conclude that integrating the new indicator into monitoring systems will provide more comprehensive and accurate surveillance of workers' health, and allow harmonization across global, regional and national monitoring systems. Inequalities in workers' health can be analysed and the evidence base can be improved towards more effective policy and systems on workers' health.

Par le biais des objectifs de développement durable 3 et 8 ainsi que d'autres mesures, plusieurs pays se sont engagés à protéger et promouvoir la santé des travailleurs en réduisant l'impact des maladies liées au travail. Mais pour évaluer leurs progrès en la matière, il convient de mettre en place des indicateurs estimant l'impact des maladies liées au travail afin de placer le développement durable et la santé des travailleurs sous surveillance. D'après l'Organisation mondiale de la Santé et l'Organisation internationale du Travail, seulement 363 283 (19%) des 1 879 890 décès liés au travail dans le monde en 2016 découlaient de blessures, tandis que 1 516 607 (81%) d'entre eux étaient causés par des maladies. La plupart des systèmes de surveillance qui s'intéressent à la santé des travailleurs ou au développement durable, comme le cadre mondial d'indicateurs pour les objectifs de développement durable, comportent un indicateur relatif à l'impact des accidents de travail. Cependant, rares sont ceux qui possèdent un indicateur concernant l'impact des maladies professionnelles. Pour combler cette lacune, nous dévoilons un nouvel indicateur mondial: le taux de mortalité dû aux maladies attribuables à certains facteurs de risque professionnels classé par maladie, facteur de risque, sexe et catégorie d'âge. Nous exposons le motif politique de l'indicateur, décrivons l'origine des données et les méthodes de calcul, et communiquons et analysons l'indicateur officiel pour 183 pays. Nous fournissons également des exemples de la façon dont l'indicateur peut être utilisé dans des systèmes nationaux de surveillance de la santé des travailleurs et soulignons ses forces et faiblesses. Nous concluons en affirmant que l'intégration de ce nouvel indicateur dans les systèmes de surveillance offrira un suivi plus complet et précis de la santé des travailleurs et ouvrira la voie à une harmonisation des systèmes mondiaux, nationaux et régionaux. Il est possible d'analyser les inégalités en matière de santé des travailleurs et d'en améliorer les bases factuelles afin d'établir des politiques et systèmes plus efficaces dans ce domaine.

A través de los objetivos de desarrollo sostenible 3 y 8 y de otras políticas, los países se han comprometido a proteger y promover la salud de los trabajadores reduciendo la carga de morbilidad relacionada con el trabajo. Para supervisar los avances en el cumplimiento de estos compromisos, debería disponerse de indicadores que reflejen la carga de morbilidad relacionada con el trabajo, a fin de controlar la salud de los trabajadores y el desarrollo sostenible. La Organización Mundial de la Salud y la Organización Internacional del Trabajo estiman que solo 363 283 (19%) de las 1 879 890 muertes relacionadas con el trabajo a nivel mundial en 2016 se debieron a lesiones, mientras que 1 516 607 (81%) muertes se debieron a enfermedades. La mayoría de los sistemas de vigilancia centrados en la salud de los trabajadores o el desarrollo sostenible, como el marco de indicadores mundiales para los objetivos de desarrollo sostenible, incluyen un indicador sobre la carga de las lesiones laborales. No obstante, pocos de estos sistemas cuentan con un indicador sobre la carga de las enfermedades relacionadas con el trabajo. Para subsanar esta carencia, presentamos un nuevo indicador mundial: la tasa de mortalidad por enfermedades atribuibles a factores de riesgo laborales seleccionados, por enfermedad, factor de riesgo, sexo y grupo de edad. Describimos la justificación política del indicador, describimos sus fuentes de datos y métodos de cálculo, e informamos y analizamos el indicador oficial para 183 países. También proporcionamos ejemplos del uso del indicador en los sistemas nacionales de vigilancia de la salud de los trabajadores y destacamos las ventajas y las limitaciones del indicador. Concluimos que la integración del nuevo indicador en los sistemas de vigilancia proporcionará una vigilancia más exhaustiva y precisa de la salud de los trabajadores, y permitirá la armonización entre los sistemas de vigilancia mundiales, regionales y nacionales. Se podrán analizar las desigualdades en la salud de los trabajadores y se podrá mejorar la base de evidencias para lograr políticas y sistemas más eficaces en materia de salud de los trabajadores.

The Impact of the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Healthcare Workers: An Italian Retrospective Study.

Healthcare workers (HCWs) played an essential role in managing the COVID-19 pandemic. The Italian Workers' Compensation Authority (INAIL) and the Italian National Institute of Health (ISS) developed a retrospective study to analyze and understand trends and characteristics of infections among HCWs during the first wave of the pandemic. Between May and September 2020, Italian Regions retrospectively collected anonymous data regarding HCWs infected from the beginning of the pandemic until 30 April 2020 from their administrative sources through a questionnaire asking for socio-demographic and occupational information about the characteristics of contagion and disease outcome. Almost 16,000 valid questionnaires were received. Logistic regression was performed to ascertain the effect of age, gender, geographical macro area, profession, and pre-existing health conditions on the likelihood of HCWs developing more severe forms of COVID-19 (at least hospitalization with mild symptoms). All predictor variables were statistically significant. HCWs at higher risk of developing a more severe disease were males (OR: 1.90; 95% CI: 1.44-2.51), older than 60 years of age (OR: 6.00; 95% CI: 3.30-10.91), doctors (OR: 4.22; 95% CI: 2.22-9.02), working in Lombardy (OR: 55.24; 95% CI: 34.96-87.29) and with pre-existing health conditions (OR: 1.90; 95% CI: 1.43-2.51). This study analyses the main reasons for the overload put on the National Health Service by the first wave of the pandemic and the risk of infection for HCWs by age, gender, occupational profile and pre-existing health conditions. Improved knowledge, availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) and a tight vaccination campaign for HCWs strongly changed the trend of infections among HCWs, with substantial elimination of serious and fatal cases.

Global Policy Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Results of the ICOH Survey.

Background: On the basis of its role for the development of occupational health research, information, good practices, the International Commission on Occupational Health (ICOH) launched the present survey to collect information on public health and prevention policies put in place by the governments of the countries in the world to contain the pandemic. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted through an online questionnaire focused on COVID-19 data, public health policies, prevention measures, support measures for economy, work, and education, personal protective equipment, intensive care units, contact tracing, return to work, and the role of ICOH against COVID-19. The questionnaire was administered to 113 ICOH National Secretaries and senior OSH experts. Collected data refer to the period ranging from the beginning of the pandemic in each country to June 30, 2020. Results: A total of 73 questionnaires from 73 countries around the world were considered valid, with a 64.6% response rate. Most of the respondents (71.2%) reported that the state of emergency was declared in their country, and 86.1% reported lockdown measures. Most of the respondents (66.7%) affirmed that the use of face masks was compulsory in their country. As for containment measures, 97.2% indicated that mass gatherings (meetings) were limited. Regarding workplace closing, the most affected sector was entertainment (90.1%). Conclusion: The results of this survey are useful to gain a global view on COVID-19 policy responses at country level.

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.

Assessor burden, inter-rater agreement and user experience of the RoB-SPEO tool for assessing risk of bias in studies estimating prevalence of exposure to occupational risk factors: An analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury.

BACKGROUND: As part of the development of the World Health Organization (WHO)/International Labour Organization (ILO) Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury, WHO and ILO carried out several systematic reviews to determine the prevalence of exposure to selected occupational risk factors. Risk of bias assessment for individual studies is a critical step of a systematic review. No tool existed for assessing the risk of bias in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors, so WHO and ILO developed and pilot tested the RoB-SPEO tool for this purpose. Here, we investigate the assessor burden, inter-rater agreement, and user experience of this new instrument, based on the abovementioned WHO/ILO systematic reviews. METHODS: Twenty-seven individual experts applied RoB-SPEO to assess risk of bias. Four systematic reviews provided a total of 283 individual assessments, carried out for 137 studies. For each study, two or more assessors independently assessed risk of bias across the eight RoB-SPEO domains selecting one of RoB-SPEO's six ratings (i.e., "low", "probably low", "probably high", "high", "unclear" or "cannot be determined"). Assessors were asked to report time taken (i.e. indicator of assessor burden) to complete each assessment and describe their user experience. To gauge assessor burden, we calculated the median and inter-quartile range of times taken per individual risk of bias assessment. To assess inter-rater reliability, we calculated a raw measure of inter-rater agreement (Pi) for each RoB-SPEO domain, between Pi = 0.00, indicating no agreement and Pi = 1.00, indicating perfect agreement. As subgroup analyses, Pi was also disaggregated by systematic review, assessor experience with RoB-SPEO (≤10 assessments versus > 10 assessments), and assessment time (tertiles: ≤25 min versus 26-66 min versus ≥ 67 min). To describe user experience, we synthesised the assessors' comments and recommendations. RESULTS: Assessors reported a median of 40 min to complete one assessment (interquartile range 21-120 min). For all domains, raw inter-rater agreement ranged from 0.54 to 0.82. Agreement varied by systematic review and assessor experience with RoB-SPEO between domains, and increased with increasing assessment time. A small number of users recommended further development of instructions for selected RoB-SPEO domains, especially bias in selection of participants into the study (domain 1) and bias due to differences in numerator and denominator (domain 7). DISCUSSION: Overall, our results indicated good agreement across the eight domains of the RoB-SPEO tool. The median assessment time was comparable to that of other risk of bias tools, indicating comparable assessor burden. However, there was considerable variation in time taken to complete assessments. Additional time spent on assessments may improve inter-rater agreement. Further development of the RoB-SPEO tool could focus on refining instructions for selected RoB-SPEO domains and additional testing to assess agreement for different topic areas and with a wider range of assessors from different research backgrounds.

The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemics on the Development of Health Risk Communication: Challenges and Opportunities.

Starting from an analysis of communication in Italy during the COVID-19 emergency period (February-June 2020), this paper provides an overview of the main challenges and opportunities for communication during pandemics. The purpose of this study is to perform a literature review contributing to the identification of practical recommendations for the improvement of current risk communication strategies. Given the variety of the parties involved in communication and the peculiarity of the theme, an integrated analysis approach was adopted, based on the connections between institutional, scientific and mass communication. On one hand, the "emotional" character of Italian institutional communication aimed at promoting solidarity and unity among citizens. On the other hand, scientific communication played a key role both as a technical and scientific consultation for the policymaker, and as a guide for mass communication. Nevertheless, a lack of awareness emerged from the institutional and scientific side of the importance of an interface between science and effective, transparent policy. It thus becomes necessary to develop new and effective communication strategies aimed at facing uncertainties and the challenges of risk communication in epidemics and pandemics. Such strategies should consider interaction between public health, human and social sciences, political science, law, ethics, communication and media studies, as each of these areas may give an important contribution to the understanding of the context in which communication occurs.

Contribution of ICOH to Address the Different OSH Needs among Countries: Results of a Survey.

The aim of this study is to map the coverage of occupational safety and health (OSH) rules and provisions and their enforcement at a country level worldwide. Members' participation in the International Commission on Occupational Health (ICOH) activities was also investigated. We used a questionnaire-based survey to collect data. An online questionnaire was administered from February 14 to March 18, 2018 to all ICOH members for the triennium 2015 to 2017 (n = 1929). We received 384 completed questionnaires from 79 countries, with a 20% response rate. To synthesize information about the coverage of OSH rules and provisions and their level of enforcement, a synthetic coverage index was calculated and combined with country, gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and the human development index (HDI). We used multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) to analyze the members' participation in ICOH activities. More than 90.0% of the sample declared that in their own country there is a set of rules and provisions regulating OSH in the workplace, and training procedures and tools to improve workers' awareness. However, these rules and training procedures are mainly "partially" enforced and utilized (39.0% and 45.4%). There was no statistically significant association between country and GDP per capita and the synthetic coverage index, whilst controlling for HDI. The level of engagement in ICOH activities is higher in senior members (aged 65 years or older), coming from high-income countries, having held a position within ICOH, with a higher level of education and a researcher position. An integrated and multidisciplinary approach, which includes research, education and training, is needed to address OSH issues and their impact both at global and country level.

Risk assessment at work and prevention strategies on COVID-19 in Italy.

The COVID-19 pandemic has spread worldwide, with considerable public health and socio-economic impacts that are seriously affecting health and safety of workers, as well as their employment stability. Italy was the first of many other western countries to implement extended containment measures. Health workers and others employed in essential sectors have continued their activity, reporting high infection rate with many fatalities. The epidemiological trend highlighted the importance of work as a substantial factor to consider both when implementing strategies aimed at containing the pandemic and shaping the lockdown mitigation strategy required for sustained economic recovery. To support the decision-making process, we have developed a strategy to predict the risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 in the workplace based on the analysis of the working process and proximity between employees; risk of infection connected to the type of activity; involvement of third parties in the working processes and risk of social aggregation. We applied this approach to outline a risk index for each economic activity sector, with different levels of detail, also considering the impact on mobility of the working population. This method was implemented into the national epidemiological surveillance model in order to estimate the impact of re-activation of specific activities on the reproduction number. It has also been adopted by the national scientific committee set up by the Italian Government for action-oriented policy advice on the COVID-19 emergency in the post lockdown phase. This approach may play a key role for public health if associated with measures for risk mitigation in enterprises through strategies of business process re-engineering. Furthermore, it will make a contribution to reconsidering the organization of work, including also innovation and fostering the integration with the national occupational safety and health (OSH) system.

The effect of occupational exposure to noise on ischaemic heart disease, stroke and hypertension: A systematic review and meta-analysis 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) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large number of individual experts. Evidence from mechanistic data suggests that occupational exposure to noise may cause cardiovascular disease (CVD). In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of parameters for estimating the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from CVD that are attributable to occupational exposure to noise, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of any (high) occupational exposure to noise (≥85 dBA), compared with no (low) occupational exposure to noise (<85 dBA), on the prevalence, incidence and mortality of ischaemic heart disease (IHD), stroke, and hypertension. DATA SOURCES: A protocol was developed and published, applying the Navigation Guide as an organizing systematic review framework where feasible. We searched electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies up to 1 April 2019, including International Trials Register, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Lilacs, Scopus, Web of Science, and CISDOC. The MEDLINE and Pubmed searches were updated on 31 January 2020. We also searched grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consulted additional experts. STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA: We included working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but excluded children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. We included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the effect of any occupational exposure to noise on CVD prevalence, incidence or mortality, compared with the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (<85 dBA). STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. We prioritized evidence from cohort studies and combined relative risk estimates using random-effect meta-analysis. To assess the robustness of findings, we conducted sensitivity analyses (leave-one-out meta-analysis and used as alternative fixed effects and inverse-variance heterogeneity estimators). At least two review authors assessed the risk of bias, quality of evidence and strength of evidence, using Navigation Guide tools and approaches adapted to this project. RESULTS: Seventeen studies (11 cohort studies, six case-control studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 534,688 participants (39,947 or 7.47% females) in 11 countries in three WHO regions (the Americas, Europe, and the Western Pacific). The exposure was generally assessed with dosimetry, sound level meter and/or official or company records. The outcome was most commonly assessed using health records. We are very uncertain (low quality of evidence) about the effect of occupational exposure to noise (≥85 dBA), compared with no occupational exposure to noise (<85 dBA), on: having IHD (0 studies); acquiring IHD (relative risk (RR) 1.29, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.15 to 1.43, two studies, 11,758 participants, I2 0%); dying from IHD (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93-1.14, four studies, 198,926 participants, I2 26%); having stroke (0 studies); acquiring stroke (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.82-1.65, two studies, 170,000 participants, I2 0%); dying from stroke (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93-1.12, three studies, 195,539 participants, I2 0%); having hypertension (0 studies); acquiring hypertension (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.90-1.28, three studies, four estimates, 147,820 participants, I2 52%); and dying from hypertension (0 studies). Data for subgroup analyses were missing. Sensitivity analyses supported the main analyses. CONCLUSIONS: For acquiring IHD, we judged the existing body of evidence from human data to provide "limited evidence of harmfulness"; a positive relationship is observed between exposure and outcome where chance, bias, and confounding cannot be ruled out with reasonable confidence. For all other included outcomes, the bodies of evidence were judged as "inadequate evidence of harmfulness". Producing estimates for the burden of CVD attributable to occupational exposure to noise appears to not be evidence-based at this time. PROTOCOL IDENTIFIER: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.09.040. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018092272.

Cumulative Exposure to Long Working Hours and Occurrence of Ischemic Heart Disease: Evidence From the CONSTANCES Cohort at Inception.

Background Long-working hours (LWH) are a probable risk factor for ischemic heart diseases (IHD); however, no previous study has considered duration of exposure to LWH when addressing this topic. We aimed to determine the association between cumulative exposure to LWH and IHD while accounting for relevant confounders. Methods and Results In this retrospective study, we included all baseline participants from the French population-based cohort CONSTANCES. Part-time employees and those who reported a cardiac event in the 5 years before LWH exposure were excluded. From self-administered questionnaires and clinical examinations, we obtained participants' age, sex, body mass index, occupational status, smoking habits, high blood pressure, diabetes mellitus, familial history of cardiovascular disease, dyslipidemia, exposure to LWH, and its duration. We defined LWH as working for >10 hours daily for at least 50 days per year. The main outcome was reported history of IHD, ie, myocardial infarction or angina pectoris, during a clinical examination. Of 137 854 included participants, 69 774 were men. There were 1875 cases (1.36%) of IHD, and exposure to LWH was reported by 42 462 subjects (30.8%) among whom 14 474 (10.50%) reported exposure for at least 10 years. Overall, exposure to LWH for ≥10 years was associated with an increased risk of IHD, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.24 (1.08-1.43), P=0.0021. In stratified analyses, this effect was not observed in women, but was significant amongst men, aOR 1.28 (1.11-1.48), P=0.0008. Conclusions This large population-based study supports an association between cumulative exposure to LWH and IHD in men. Future research should consider relevant strategies for reducing LWH exposure and duration.

The effect of exposure to long working hours on stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis 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) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large network of individual experts. Evidence from mechanistic data and prior studies suggests that exposure to long working hours may cause stroke. In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of parameters for estimating the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from stroke that are attributable to exposure to long working hours, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of exposure to long working hours (three categories: 41-48, 49-54 and ≥55 h/week), compared with exposure to standard working hours (35-40 h/week), on stroke (three outcomes: prevalence, incidence, and mortality). DATA SOURCES: A protocol was developed and published, applying the Navigation Guide to systematic reviews as an organizing framework where feasible. We searched electronic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, CISDOC, PsycINFO, and WHO ICTRP. We also searched grey literature databases, Internet search engines, and organizational websites; hand-searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews; and consulted additional experts. STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA: We included working-age (≥15 years) individuals in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but excluded children (aged < 15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. We included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the effect of exposure to long working hours (41-48, 49-54 and ≥55 h/week), compared with exposure to standard working hours (35-40 h/week), on stroke (prevalence, incidence or mortality). STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first review stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. Missing data were requested from principal study authors. We combined relative risks using random-effects meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias, quality of evidence and strength of evidence, using the Navigation Guide and GRADE tools and approaches adapted to this project. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies (20 cohort studies, 2 case-control studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 839,680 participants (364,616 females) in eight countries from three WHO regions (Americas, Europe, and Western Pacific). The exposure was measured using self-reports in all studies, and the outcome was assessed with administrative health records (13 studies), self-reported physician diagnosis (7 studies), direct diagnosis by a physician (1 study) or during a medical interview (1 study). The outcome was defined as an incident non-fatal stroke event in nine studies (7 cohort studies, 2 case-control studies), incident fatal stroke event in one cohort study and incident non-fatal or fatal ("mixed") event in 12 studies (all cohort studies). Cohort studies were judged to have a relatively low risk of bias; therefore, we prioritized evidence from these studies, but synthesised evidence from case-control studies as supporting evidence. For the bodies of evidence for both outcomes with any eligible studies (i.e. stroke incidence and mortality), we did not have serious concerns for risk of bias (at least for the cohort studies). Eligible studies were found on the effects of long working hours on stroke incidence and mortality, but not prevalence. Compared with working 35-40 h/week, we were uncertain about the effect on incidence of stroke due to working 41-48 h/week (relative risk (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-1.14, 18 studies, 277,202 participants, I2 0%, low quality of evidence). There may have been an increased risk for acquiring stroke when working 49-54 h/week compared with 35-40 h/week (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.00-1.28, 17 studies, 275,181participants, I2 0%, p 0.04, moderate quality of evidence). Compared with working 35-40 h/week, working ≥55 h/week may have led to a moderate, clinically meaningful increase in the risk of acquiring stroke, when followed up between one year and 20 years (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.61, 7 studies, 162,644 participants, I2 3%, moderate quality of evidence). Compared with working 35-40 h/week, we were very uncertain about the effect on dying (mortality) of stroke due to working 41-48 h/week (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91-1.12, 12 studies, 265,937 participants, I2 0%, low quality of evidence), 49-54 h/week (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.99-1.29, 11 studies, 256,129 participants, I2 0%, low quality of evidence) and 55 h/week (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.89-1.31, 10 studies, 664,647 participants, I2 20%, low quality of evidence). Subgroup analyses found no evidence for differences by WHO region, age, sex, socioeconomic status and type of stroke. Sensitivity analyses found no differences by outcome definition (exclusively non-fatal or fatal versus "mixed") except for the comparison working ≥55 h/week versus 35-40 h/week for stroke incidence (p for subgroup differences: 0.05), risk of bias ("high"/"probably high" ratings in any domain versus "low"/"probably low" in all domains), effect estimate measures (risk versus hazard versus odds ratios) and comparator (exact versus approximate definition). CONCLUSIONS: We judged the existing bodies of evidence for human evidence as "inadequate evidence for harmfulness" for all exposure categories for stroke prevalence and mortality and for exposure to 41-48 h/week for stroke incidence. Evidence on exposure to 48-54 h/week and ≥55 h/week was judged as "limited evidence for harmfulness" and "sufficient evidence for harmfulness" for stroke incidence, respectively. Producing estimates for the burden of stroke attributable to exposures to working 48-54 and ≥55 h/week appears evidence-based, and the pooled effect estimates presented in this systematic review could be used as input data for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. PROTOCOL IDENTIFIER: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.06.016. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017060124.

RoB-SPEO: A tool for assessing risk of bias in studies estimating the prevalence of exposure to occupational risk factors 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) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates). For this, systematic reviews of studies estimating the prevalence of exposure to selected occupational risk factors will be conducted to provide input data for estimations of the number of exposed workers. A critical part of systematic review methods is to assess risk of bias (RoB) of individual studies. In this article, we present and describe the development of such a tool, called the Risk of Bias in Studies estimating Prevalence of Exposure to Occupational risk factors (RoB-SPEO) tool; report results from RoB-SPEO's pilot testing; note RoB-SPEO's limitations; and suggest how the tool might be tested and developed further. METHODS: Selected existing RoB tools used in environmental and occupational health systematic reviews were reviewed and analysed. From existing tools, we identified domains for the new tool and, if necessary, added new domains. For each domain, we then identified and integrated components from the existing tools (i.e. instructions, domains, guiding questions, considerations, ratings and rating criteria), and, if necessary, we developed new components. Finally, we elicited feedback from other systematic review methodologists and exposure scientists and agreed upon RoB-SPEO. Nine experts pilot tested RoB-SPEO, and we calculated a raw measure of inter-rater agreement (Pi) for each of its domain, rating Pi < 0.4 as poor, 0.4 ≤ Pi ≥ 0.8 as substantial and Pi > 0.80 as almost perfect agreement. RESULTS: Our review found no standard tool for assessing RoB in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors. We identified six existing tools for environmental and occupational health systematic reviews and found that their components for assessing RoB differ considerably. With the new RoB-SPEO tool, assessors judge RoB for each of eight domains: (1) bias in selection of participants into the study; (2) bias due to a lack of blinding of study personnel; (3) bias due to exposure misclassification; (4) bias due to incomplete exposure data; (5) bias due to conflict of interest; (6) bias due to selective reporting of exposures; (7) bias due to difference in numerator and denominator; and (8) other bias. The RoB-SPEO's ratings are low, probably low, probably high, high or no information. Pilot testing of the RoB-SPEO tool found substantial inter-rater agreement for six domains (range of Pi for these domains: 0.51-0.80), but poor agreement for two domains (i.e. Pi of 0.31 and 0.33 for biases due to incomplete exposure data and in selection of participants into the study, respectively). Limitations of RoB-SPEO include that it has not yet been fully performance-tested. CONCLUSIONS: We developed the RoB-SPEO tool for assessing RoB in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors. The tool will be applied and its performance tested in the ongoing systematic reviews for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates.

Association Between Reported Long Working Hours and History of Stroke in the CONSTANCES Cohort.

Background and Purpose- Long working hours (LWHs) are a potential risk factor for stroke. The aim of this study was to investigate this association in a large general population cohort. Methods- We used the French population-based cohort, CONSTANCES (Cohorte des Consultants des Centres d'Examens de Santé), to retrieve information on age, sex, smoking, and working hours from the baseline, self-administered questionnaire. Other cardiovascular risk factors and previous occurrence of stroke were taken from a parallel medical interview. We defined LWH as working time >10 hours daily for at least 50 days per year. Participants with primarily part-time jobs were excluded as were those with stroke before LWH exposure. We used logistic models to estimate the association between LWH and stroke, stratified by age, sex, and occupation. In additional modeling, we excluded subjects whose stroke occurred within 5 years of the first reported work exposure. Results- Among the 143 592 participants in the analyses, there were 1224 (0.9%) strokes, 42 542 (29.6%) reported LWH, and 14 481 (10.1%) reported LWH for 10 years or more. LWH was associated with an increased risk of stroke: adjusted odds ratio of 1.29 (95% CI, 1.11-1.49). Being exposed to LWH for 10 years or more was more strongly associated with stroke, adjusted odds ratio of 1.45 (95% CI, 1.21-1.74). The association showed no differences between men and women but was stronger in white-collar workers under 50 years of age. Conclusions- This large analysis reveals a significant association between stroke and exposure to LWH for 10 years or more. The findings are relevant for individual and global prevention.

Reply to "Comment on Iavicoli et al. Ethics and Occupational Health in the Contemporary World of Work. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1713".

The authors would like to extend their thanks for the fruitful comments and suggestions, which are useful for conducting deeper analyses of the ethical concerns related to occupational health. [...].

Ethics and Occupational Health in the Contemporary World of Work.

The last two decades have seen increasing attention to professional ethics in the field of occupational health in industrialized and developing countries, partly reflecting the changing world of work, demographic shifts and new technologies. These changes have led to the revisiting of traditional ethical principles and the emergence of ethical issues related to occupational health. This article looks at the problems raised by these ethical concerns and proposes some solutions. We revised the existing literature on the ethical conflict in occupational health in order to identifying drivers and barriers for correct professional ethics. The ethical choices are not only based on balanced risk and benefit assessment for various stakeholders, but there are a number of deontological aspects as well that go beyond the mere benefit domains. There is still no systematic approach for analysing the true extent of these issues and their solutions.

WHO/ILO work-related burden of disease and injury: Protocol for systematic reviews of exposure to long working hours and of the effect of exposure to long working hours on stroke.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing a joint methodology for estimating the national and global work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO joint methodology), with contributions from a large network of experts. In this paper, we present the protocol for two systematic reviews of parameters for estimating the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from stroke attributable to exposure to long working hours, to inform the development of the WHO/ILO joint methodology. OBJECTIVES: We aim to systematically review studies on occupational exposure to long working hours (called Systematic Review 1 in the protocol) and systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of long working hours on stroke (called Systematic Review 2), applying the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology as an organizing framework, conducting both systematic reviews in tandem and in a harmonized way. DATA SOURCES: Separately for Systematic Reviews 1 and 2, we will search electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CISDOC and PsychINFO. We will also search electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-search reference list of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consult additional experts. STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA: We will include working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State, but exclude children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. For Systematic Review 1, we will include quantitative prevalence studies of relevant levels of occupational exposure to long working hours (i.e. 35-40, 41-48, 49-54 and ≥55 h/week) stratified by country, sex, age and industrial sector or occupation, in the years 2005-2018. For Systematic Review 2, we will include randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the relative effect of a relevant level of long working hours on the incidence of or mortality due to stroke, compared with the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (i.e. 35-40 h/week). STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: At least two review authors will independently screen titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. At least two review authors will assess risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using the most suited tools currently available. For Systematic Review 2, if feasible, we will combine relative risks using meta-analysis. We will report results using the guidelines for accurate and transparent health estimates reporting (GATHER) for Systematic Review 1 and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines (PRISMA) for Systematic Review 2. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017060124.