Search

Although physical activity is often believed to be influenced by both environmental and individual factors, little is known about their interaction. This study explores interactions of perceived safety and social neighborhood factors with psychosocial cognitions for leisure-time walking. Cross-sectional data were obtained from residents (age 25-75 years) of 212 neighborhoods in the South-East of the Netherlands, who participated in the Dutch GLOBE study in 2004 (N = 4395, survey response 64.4%). Direct associations of, and interactions between perceived neighborhood safety, social neighborhood factors (social cohesion, social network and feeling at home) and psychosocial cognitions (attitude, self-efficacy, social influence and intention) on two outcomes of leisure-time walking [yes versus no (binary), and among walkers: minutes per week (continuous)] were analyzed in multilevel regression models. The association between attitude and participating in leisure-time walking was stronger in those who felt less at home in their neighborhood. Social influence and attitude were stronger associated with participation in leisure-time walking in those who sometimes felt unsafe in their neighborhood. A positive intention was associated with more minutes walked in those who perceived their neighborhood as unsafe among those who walked. Only limited support was found for interactions between neighborhood perceptions and psychosocial cognitions for leisure-time walking.

Purpose: To provide a quantitative assessment of the occurrence of voice disorders among teachers and to identify associated work-related and individual factors in the teaching profession. Method: A systematic review was conducted using three computerized databases on the occurrence of voice disorders among teachers and their associations with work-related and individual factors. Some of the keywords used were: "teacher", "voice disorder", "voice problem", and "dysphonia". Information regarding the occurrence of voice disorders and associations between work-related and individual factors and voice disorders were extracted from each paper. Occurrence and associations were expressed in prevalence and odds ratios, respectively. Results: In total, 23 publications met the criteria for inclusion. All publications were cross-sectional studies. Prevalence estimates varied widely, reflecting disparity in definitions of "voice problem". Teachers had a significantly increased occurrence of voice disorders compared to other occupations. Several work-related and individual factors were consistently associated with voice disorders, most notably high levels of noise in classrooms, being a physical education instructor, and habitual use of a loud speaking voice. Conclusion: This review shows that teachers report voice disorders more often than non-teachers. Various work-related and individual factors are associated with reported voice disorders. Longitudinal studies are urgently required to get more insight into the development of voice disorders, their work-related determinants, and the consequences of these voice disorders for functioning and work performance among teachers. Learning outcomes: (1) Describe the occurrence of voice disorders among teachers; (2) Identify some work-related factors of voice disorders among teachers; and (3) Interpret the quality of the publications to describe or analyze the relationship between working conditions and voice disorders among teachers. (Contains 4 tables and 1 figure.)

Objective This study aimed to assess whether workplace exposures as estimated via a COVID-19 job exposure matrix (JEM) are associated with SARS-CoV-2 in the UK. Methods Data on 244 470 participants were available from the Office for National Statistics Coronavirus Infection Survey (CIS) and 16 801 participants from the Virus Watch Cohort, restricted to workers aged 20–64 years. Analysis used logistic regression models with SARS-CoV-2 as the dependent variable for eight individual JEM domains (number of workers, nature of contacts, contact via surfaces, indoor or outdoor location, ability to social distance, use of face covering, job insecurity, and migrant workers) with adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, index of multiple deprivation (IMD), region, household size, urban versus rural area, and health conditions. Analyses were repeated for three time periods (i) February 2020 (Virus Watch)/April 2020 (CIS) to May 2021), (ii) June 2021 to November 2021, and (iii) December 2021 to January 2022. Results Overall, higher risk classifications for the first six domains tended to be associated with an increased risk of infection, with little evidence of a relationship for domains relating to proportion of workers with job insecurity or migrant workers. By time there was a clear exposure–response relationship for these domains in the first period only. Results were largely consistent across the two UK cohorts. Conclusions An exposure–response relationship exists in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic for number of contacts, nature of contacts, contacts via surfaces, indoor or outdoor location, ability to social distance and use of face coverings. These associations appear to have diminished over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]