Search

Background: Healthcare workers are occupationally exposed to various hazardous chemicals and agents that can potentially result in long‐term adverse health effects. These exposures have not been comprehensively examined at a population level. The aim of this study was to examine occupational exposures to a wide range of asthmagens, carcinogens, and ototoxic agents among healthcare workers in Australia. Methods: Data were collected as part of the Australian Work Exposures Studies, which were computer‐assisted telephone surveys conducted in 2011, 2014, and 2016 to assess the prevalence of occupational exposures to carcinogens, asthmagens, and ototoxic agents, respectively, among Australian workers. Using data on healthcare workers, the prevalence of exposures to these agents was calculated and associations of demographic variables and occupation groups with exposure status were examined. Results: The prevalence of exposure to at least one asthmagen, carcinogen, and ototoxic agent was 92.3%, 50.7%, and 44.6%, respectively. The most common exposures were to (a) cleaning and sterilizing agents in the asthmagen group; (b) shift work in the carcinogen group; and (c) toluene and p‐xylene among ototoxic agents. Exposure varied by occupation, with exposure to carcinogens and ototoxic agents highest among personal carers and exposure to carcinogens most likely among nursing professionals and health and welfare support workers. Conclusion: The results demonstrate that a substantial proportion of Australian healthcare workers are occupationally exposed to asthmagens, carcinogens, and ototoxic agents. These exposures are more common among certain occupational groups. The information provided by this study will be useful in prioritizing and implementing control strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is limited information on whether the prevalence of exposure to workplace carcinogens varies among shift workers and non‐shift workers. Methods: This analysis used data from the Australian Work Exposures Study‐Cancer, a telephone survey which examined exposure to carcinogens in the workplace. Workers were classified as shift workers if they indicated that their usual roster ever included work between the hours of midnight and 5 am. Modified Poisson regression was used to estimate the adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) and 95% confidence internals (CIs). Results: Among the 5425 workers, 6.88% reported being exposed to shift work. Overall, shift workers were more likely to be exposed to any carcinogen (aPR = 1.16; 95% 1.06‐1.26) and to specific carcinogens such as asbestos (aPR = 1.93; 95% 1.33‐2.83) than non‐shift workers. Conclusions: Our study shows that there are differences in exposure to carcinogenic agents among shift and non‐shift workers, and so there is a need for prevention programs in order to reduce these discrepancies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Limited information is available on exposure to high molecular weight (HMW) asthmagens derived from plants and on the main occupations and tasks that result in such exposure among workers. Methods: Data were collected as part of the Australian Work Exposures Study—Asthma. We estimated adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) using modified Poisson regression models to determine which factors were associated with exposure. Results: A 12.8% of 4878 workers were exposed to HMW asthmagens derived from plants. The highest prevalence of exposure was found among farmers/animal workers, education workers, and food processing workers. The main circumstances of exposure were through handling flour, freesias, or through raising livestock. Exposure was more common among female workers (aPR = 1.26, 1.10‐1.43) than males, while it was lower among workers born overseas (aPR = 0.70, 0.57‐0.86) than those born in Australia. Conclusion: Prevention of exposure to HMW asthmagens derived from plants requires a broad strategy targeting different tasks and occupations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Exposure to natural rubber latex, primarily through the use of gloves, is a well-recognized cause of occupational asthma. We investigated latex glove use among Australian workers and estimated the resultant burden of occupational asthma among healthcare workers (HCWs). Methods Data were collected in 2014 as part of the Australian Work Exposures Study-Asthma, a telephone survey investigating the prevalence of current occupational exposure to asthmagens, including latex. We estimated adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) to determine variables associated with the use of latex gloves among HCWs and calculated the asthma-related disability-adjusted life years due to latex exposure among HCWs. Results Latex gloves were used by 22% of respondents. Almost two-thirds (63%) of HCWs reported wearing latex gloves, with 26% using powdered latex gloves. The use of latex gloves was more common among those employed in micro companies (less than 5 employees) than large companies (200+ employees) (aPR = 1.5, 95% confidence interval 1.1-2.0). Latex exposure in HCWs was estimated to contribute 3% of the total asthma-related burden. Discussion Latex gloves are widely used by Australian workers and by HCWs in particular. Conclusions This is the first estimate of the burden of asthma attributable to occupational exposure to latex among HCWs. These results can be used to guide decisions regarding the control of occupational exposure to latex. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction About half of all workers in high-income countries work in small companies. However, regulatory bodies and researchers predominantly work with large companies because they are more convenient to study and easier to reach. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of exposure to asthmagens and the use of respiratory protective equipment (RPE) by company size. Methods This analysis used data from the Australian Work Exposures Study-Asthma, a telephone survey which investigated exposure to 27 asthmagen groups. Results Among 4844 respondents, 18.8, 19.9, 31.9, and 29.4% of workers reported working in micro (<5 employees), small (5–19 employees), medium (20–200 employees), and large (>200 employees) companies, respectively. Compared to workers in large companies, workers in micro, small, or medium companies had higher prevalence of exposure to most asthmagens and lesser use of RPE. Conclusion Our results suggest that policy actions and regulatory measures should target micro/small companies in order to have the greatest effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Exposure to isocyanates has consistently been reported as the most common cause of occupational asthma. The objectives of this study were to assess how many Australian workers are currently exposed to isocyanates, identify the occupations with highest proportion of exposed workers and identify the main circumstances of exposures. Data comes from the Australian Workplace Exposure Study-Asthma, a national telephone survey which explored the prevalence of current occupational exposure to 227 asthmagens, grouped into 27 groups, among current Australian workers aged 18-65 years. A web-based tool, OccIDEAS, was used to collect job task information and to assign exposure to asthmagens, including isocyanates. Of the 4,878 eligible participants, 2.5% of them were deemed to be probably exposed to isocyanates at work in their current job (extrapolated to 3.0% of the Australian working population). The majority of those exposed were males (90.8%). The most common tasks undertaken that led to these exposures were using expanding foam fillers/sprays and isocyanate and/or polyurethane paints. Exposure occurred mainly among construction workers, wood workers, and painters or printers. This study investigating occupational exposure to isocyanates in a national working population provides information that can be used to inform the direction of occupational interventions and policies to decrease occupational asthma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Objectives: Limited research indicates that using English language only surveys in prevalence studies conducted in the general population or in specific ethnic populations may result in unrepresentative samples and biased results. In this study, we investigated whether participants from ethnic minorities who chose to answer a study interview in a language other than English (LOTE) differed from those who completed the interview in English. Methods: This study was conducted within an Australian population-based telephone survey that assessed the prevalence of occupational exposure to carcinogens among 749 ethnic minority workers. We used modified Poisson regression to determine the factors associated with completing the interview in a LOTE. Results: Participants who elected to complete the interview in a LOTE differed from those who completed it in English on several factors, including sex, country of birth, education, occupation, and occupational exposure to carcinogens (40% compared with 29%, P < 0.01). Conclusions: The participants who chose to complete the study interview in their native language had several demographic differences from those participants who completed it in English, and were more likely to be exposed to carcinogens at work. Prevalence studies that offer only English language study instruments are unlikely to produce representative samples of minority groups, and may therefore produce biased results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]