Search

Introduction: The rising incidence of skin cancer over the years has made it a significant public and occupational health issue. However, skin cancer is highly preventable, mainly through reduced exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation (UVR), which can be achieved by a variety of individual and collective protective measures and interventions. The relative risk associated with different patterns of exposure to solar UVR differs for the subtypes of keratinocyte cancers (KC). Specifically, whether the exposure is intermittent or continuous, and occurs in an occupational or leisure/recreational setting. The main aim of the study using this protocol is to contribute to raising public and policy awareness on solar UVR-inflicted occupational skin cancers in Lisbon. This will be achieved by performing direct measurements of the solar UVR dose received by outdoor workers using a digital platform. Results will likely contribute to further understanding the risk estimates for keratinocyte cancer estimations in this population., Methods: A prospective observational study will be conducted in Lisbon, Portugal. Personal electronic dosimeters (GENESIS-UV system) integrated with a digital platform will be used to assess occupational solar UVR doses of gardeners, masons, and gravediggers of the municipality of Lisbon. Two hundred and ten outdoor workers will be selected to wear the dosimeter for 1 month each, between April and October during their daily working hours. A digital web-based platform that offers private access to information through dashboard visualization will provide information for the outdoor workers and facilitate communication with the participants., Discussion: The expected results of the overall proposal comprise the occupational solar UVR doses, expressed in standard erythemal dose (SEDs) per day of outdoor work for 7 months. Study data will provide outdoor workers with information on their personal solar UVR exposure during their working hours and an estimate of their risk of developing skin cancer. It is expected that the occupational solar UVR doses of the outdoor workers in Portugal will be above the threshold of 1 to 1.33 SED/day, due to the latitude of Lisbon and the nature of the occupations. The results prospectively should flow into the design of adequate prevention campaigns for skin cancer in outdoor workers., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Paulo, Symanzik, Maia, Lapão, Carvalho, Conneman, Dias, Gobba, John, Loney, Pinho, Rodrigues, Strehl, Tenkate, Wittlich and Modenese.)

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 (P i ) between individual raters and rater teams for the downgrade domains. P i 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 P i : 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., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

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 (P i ) for each RoB-SPEO domain, between P i  = 0.00, indicating no agreement and P i  = 1.00, indicating perfect agreement. As subgroup analyses, P i 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., (Copyright © 2021 World Health Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Healthcare workers (HCWs) can be considered at an increased risk of developing occupational contact dermatitis (OCD) due to repetitive hand washing with soaps and disinfectants and extended use of gloves for many hours during the day. The aim of this study was to summarize the incidence of OCD in HCWs. We searched the databases PubMed/MEDLINE (1980-present), EMBASE (1980-present) and Cochrane Library (1992-present) through May 2020 using the search term 'incidence of contact dermatitis in HCWs' according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Overall, 16 studies (six cohorts; 10 register-based) with follow-up periods between 1987 and 2013 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The incidence of OCD reported in studies using registers of occupational diseases ranged from 0.6 to 6.7 per 10 000 person-years. The cohort studies reported incidence from 15.9 to 780.0 per 10 000 person-years; the incidence was higher in studies which included apprentice nurses. A higher incidence was also observed amongst dental practitioners, particularly dental technicians and nurses, compared to other HCWs. Studies reporting incidence data are very scarce and results differed by study design, type of contact dermatitis and investigated HCWs. Our study highlighted the dearth of high-quality data on the incidence of OCD and the possible underestimation of disease burden. Prospective cohort studies with harmonized designs, especially exposure assessment and outcome ascertainment, are required to provide more accurate, valid and recent estimates of the incidence of OCD. A high incidence amongst specific occupational groups suggests the need to undertake intervention studies with a focus on prevention, particularly during pandemics such as COVID-19., (© 2020 The Authors. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.)

Individual studies have suggested that the association between occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation (UVR) and the development of keratinocyte cancers (KCs) may only be valid in populations of European ancestry living in certain geographical regions. Comparative global data are scarce and so this review aimed to summarize current evidence on the association between occupational exposure to solar UVR and the development of KCs, with a specific focus on geographical location and skin colour. Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase and Web of Science were searched for potentially relevant records. Extracted data were summarized by study, country and region. We included one prospective cohort study and 18 case-control studies (n = 15 233) from 12 countries in regions where the majority of the population is white skinned (Americas, Europe and Oceania). Eighteen of the 19 studies reported effect estimates suggesting an increased risk of basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and/or squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) among outdoor workers. Only 11 studies found a significantly increased risk and many had imprecise estimates. There was a significantly increased risk of BCC and SCC in individual studies in North America, Latin America and the Caribbean, Western Europe and Southern Europe, but not across regions or countries. Overall, 95% of studies reported higher risks among outdoor workers, although the increases in risk were statistically significant in just over half of the studies. Well-designed and sufficiently powered occupational case-control and cohort studies with adequate adjustment for confounding factors and other risk factors are required to provide more accurate risk estimates for occupational KC., (© 2020 The Authors. British Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

Background: Occupational exposure to cytotoxic drugs is associated with various unfavorable health outcomes. This protocol reports a methodology for a systematic review and meta-analysis that aims to systematically review the published literature and quantify the level of environmental contamination of healthcare settings with cytotoxic drugs., Methods: This protocol is developed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol-2015 (PRISMA-P) guidelines. Six electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and EMBASE) will be searched with no restrictions on publication period. Eligible studies will be identified and data will be extracted using a predefined data extraction form by at least two independent reviewers following best practice. Eligible studies should report calculated or calculable estimates on the proportion of positive samples tested for cytotoxic drugs and/or estimates on the concentration of the cytotoxic drug(s) in the tested samples. Risk of bias (RoB) will be assessed by using the RoB in Studies estimating Prevalence of Exposure to Occupational risk factors (RoB-SPEO) tool, which developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) and International Labour Organization (ILO) for environmental and occupational health systematic reviews. The random-effects model will be used to perform meta-analyses., Discussion: Occupational exposure to cytotoxic drugs is associated with short- and long-term adverse health outcomes. Following this protocol, the review to be carried out will be the first to fill an evidence gap on the environmental contamination of healthcare settings with cytotoxic drugs. The findings of this review will help in the understanding of the risk of occupational exposure of healthcare workers to cytotoxic drugs and facilitate the identification of priority areas for specific interventions., Ethics and Dissemination: The systematic review methodology does not require ethics approval due to the nature of the study design. The results of the systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and will be publicly available., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020162780 , dated July 14, 2020.

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 melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer (or keratinocyte carcinoma) from occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation, to inform the development of the WHO/ILO joint methodology., Objectives: We aim to systematically review studies on occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation (Systematic Review 1) and systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation on melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer (Systematic Review 2), applying the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology as an organizing framework and 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 Ovid Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science. 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 studies on the prevalence of relevant levels of occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation (i.e. <0.33 SED/d and ≥0.33 SED/d) and of the total working time spent outdoors, stratified by country, sex, age and industrial sector or occupation, in the years 1960 to 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 effect of any occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation (i.e., ≥0.33 SED/d) on the prevalence of, incidence of or mortality due to melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer, compared with the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (i.e. <0.33 SED/d)., 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 the 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: CRD42018094817., (Copyright © 2018 World Health Organization and International Labour Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)