Search

Estimates of occupational disease burden provide important information on which effective policy and regulations can be developed. However, there is no direct way that these data can be obtained, and most burden estimates are derived by merging different data from diverse sources to synthesize estimates of the number of people made ill or who have died from workplace exposures. In recent years, several research groups have published estimates of occupational health burden at national or global scales; these are not always consistent. The World Health Organisation and the International Labour Organisation have taken on the task of producing occupational disease burden estimates for several workplace agents, which we assume are to be seen as the definitive global, regional, and national data. In this commentary, we critique the WHO/ILO approach for their estimates of the non-melanoma skin cancer burden from solar ultraviolet radiation and some of their results for hazardous particulates. We provide recommendations for researchers undertaking occupational burden estimates that they should report along with their data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Several measures of occupational exposure to pesticides have been used to study associations between exposure to pesticides and neurobehavioral outcomes. This study assessed the impact of different exposure measures for glyphosate and mancozeb on the association with neurobehavioral outcomes based on original and recalled self-reported data with 246 smallholder farmers in Uganda. Methods The association between the 6 exposure measures and 6 selected neurobehavioral test scores was investigated using linear multivariable regression models. Exposure measures included original exposure measures for the previous year in 2017: (i) application status (yes/no), (ii) number of application days, (iii) average exposure-intensity scores (EIS) of an application and (iv) number of EIS-weighted application days. Two additional measures were collected in 2019: (v) recalled application status and (vi) recalled EIS for the respective periods in 2017. Results Recalled applicator status and EIS were between 1.2 and 1.4 times more frequent and higher for both pesticides than the original application status and EIS. Adverse associations between the different original measures of exposure to glyphosate and 4 neurobehavioral tests were observed. Glyphosate exposure based on recalled information and all mancozeb exposure measures were not associated with the neurobehavioral outcomes. Conclusions The relation between the different original self-reported glyphosate exposure measures and neurobehavioral test scores appeared to be robust. When based on recalled exposure measures, associations observed with the original exposure measures were no longer present. Therefore, future epidemiological studies on self-reported exposure should critically evaluate the potential bias towards the null in observed exposure–response associations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Occupational exposure to metals such as nickel, chromium and cobalt can be associated with contact dermatitis, which can adversely affect an individual's health, finances and employment. Despite this, little is known about the incidence of metal-related occupational contact dermatitis over prolonged periods of time. Objectives To investigate the medically reported trends in the incidence of work-related contact dermatitis attributed to nickel, chromium and cobalt in the UK. Methods Incidence and trends in cases of occupational contact dermatitis caused by nickel, chromium or cobalt between 1996 and 2019 (inclusive), reported to the EPIDERM surveillance scheme, were investigated and compared with trends in the incidence of occupational contact dermatitis attributed to agents other than the aforementioned metals. A sensitivity analysis restricting the study cohort to cases attributed to only one type of metal was also conducted. Results Of all cases reported to EPIDERM during the study period, 2374 (12%) were attributed to nickel, chromium or cobalt. Cases predominantly comprised females (59%), with a mean (SD) age (males and females) of 38 (13) years. Cases were most frequently reported in manufacturing, construction, and human health and social activity industries. The most frequently reported occupations were hairdressing, and sales and retail (assistants, cashiers and checkout operators). The highest annual incidence rate of contact dermatitis was observed in females (2.60 per 100 000 persons employed per year), with the first and second peak seen in those aged 16–24 and ≥ 65 years, respectively. A statistically significant decrease in the incidence of occupational contact dermatitis attributed to metals over the study period was observed for all occupations (annual average change –6.9%, 95% confidence interval –7.8 to –5.9), with much of the decrease occurring between 1996 and 2007. Similar findings were obtained in the sensitivity analyses. Conclusions Over a period of 24 years, there has been a statistically significant decline in the incidence of metal-related occupational contact dermatitis in the UK. This could be attributed not only to improvements in working conditions, which have reduced metal exposure, but could also be due to the closure of industries in the UK that might have generated cases of contact dermatitis owing to metal exposure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We read with great interest the paper by Reuter et al (1) on the differences in risk of SARS-CoV2 infection by occupation during the first pandemic wave in Germany. Occupation has been linked with differential risks of infection (2, 3) as well as severe disease and death (4, 5). Hence, this is a potentially very important paper, advancing the evidence in relation to occupational risk factors for infection. This study makes use of an existing cohort (the German National Cohort – NAKO), with data from over 100 000 workers who were employed or self-employed and completed a COVID-19 questionnaire. SARS-CoV2 infection was assessed through a self-reported positive PCR test carried out in a doctor’s practice, test centre or in a hospital. The main analyses used a Poisson regression model to obtain incidence rates of infection by occupation, both crude and analyses adjusted for potential confounding factors (sociodemographic and employment related factors) were carried out. Based on the results of the analyses, the authors conclude that (i) there were relatively high infection rates in healthcare and personal services but also in business management and business services, (ii) there were relatively low infection rates in manufacturing and production related occupations, and (iii) there was an inverse social gradient between occupational position and risk of infection, with higher risk in occupations with advanced tertiary degrees/managers. Like other studies, these analyses found relatively high infection rates in essential occupations. However, important differences with other studies included the inverse social gradient and the relatively high infection rates in occupations with management responsibility and requiring higher degrees. The authors postulated a possible explanation for this finding, stating that managers in Germany may be at higher risk due to recreational ski trips. Although this may well be a partial explanation, we argue that there is a more likely explanation for the high rates in higher educated people and those working in the healthcare sector. These groups are more likely to have been tested, particularly during the early stage of the pandemic, compared to other occupations such as those working in manufacturing and production-related occupations. This could be due to differential access to testing due to employer requirements or financial restraints (especially at times when tests were not free for all in Germany, https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/germany-offer-free-covid-19-tests-saturday-2021-11-12/) or different motivations for testing (due to lack of sick pay or self-employment). The authors estimate the infection rates using these positive tests as the numerator and the total cohort population (many of whom have never been tested) as the denominator. Therefore, if there is a differential likelihood of testing between different occupations, this would lead to bias in the results. It is relatively simple to address this problem by using a test-negative design (6, 7), which is a type of case–control approach where those with a positive test are compared to those who have tested negative (ie, excluding those who have never been tested). This has been widely used as the gold standard method for studying vaccine effectiveness (8) and is increasingly being used to study risk factors for COVID-19 infection. We would encourage the authors to carry out such analyses and present the results in their response to this letter. If, as we expect, the high relative risks in those with higher education and/or managers are reduced in these analyses, this would strongly indicate that the reported findings are primarily due to selection bias. References 1. Reuter M, Rigó M, Formazin M, Liebers F, Latza U, Castell S et al. Occupation and SARS-CoV-2 infection risk in 108 960 workers during the first pandemic wave in Germany. Scand J Work Environ Health – online first. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4037 2. Rhodes S, Wilkinson J, Pearce N, Mueller W, Cherrie M, Stocking K, et al. Occupational differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection: Analysis of the UK ONS Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey. medRxiv. 2022 https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.04.28.22273177 3. Beale S, Patel P, Rodger A, Braithwaite I, Byrne T, Fong WLE, et al. Occupation, work-related contact and SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid serological status: findings from the Virus Watch prospective cohort study. Occup Environ Med. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2021-107920 4. Nafilyan V, Pawelek P, Ayoubkhani D, Rhodes S, Pembrey L, Matz M, et al. Occupation and COVID-19 mortality in England: a national linked data study of 14.3 million adults. Occup Environ Med. 2022;79(7):433-41. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2021-107818 5. Mutambudzi M, Niedzwiedz C, Macdonald EB, Leyland A, Mair F, Anderson J, et al. Occupation and risk of severe COVID-19: prospective cohort study of 120 075 UK Biobank participants. Occup Environ Med. 2021;78(5):307-14. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2020-106731 6. Vandenbroucke JP, Brickley EB, Pearce N, Vandenbroucke-Grauls CMJE. The Evolving Usefulness of the Test-negative Design in Studying Risk Factors for COVID-19. Epidemiology. 2022;33(2):e7-e8. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000001438 7. Vandenbroucke JP, Brickley EB, Vandenbroucke-Grauls CMJE, Pearce N. A Test-Negative Design with Additional Population Controls Can Be Used to Rapidly Study Causes of the SARS-CoV-2 Epidemic. Epidemiology. 2020;31(6):836-43. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000001251 8. Cerqueira-Silva T, Katikireddi SV, de Araujo Oliveira V, Flores-Ortiz R, Júnior JB, Paixão ES, et al. Vaccine effectiveness of heterologous CoronaVac plus BNT162b2 in Brazil. Nature Med. 2022;28(4):838-43. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01701-w

Background Cleaning product use has been associated with adverse respiratory health effects such as asthma in cleaning staff and healthcare workers. Research in health effects from cleaning products has largely depended upon collecting exposure information by questionnaires which has limitations such as recall bias and underestimation of exposure. The aim of this study was to develop a Cleaning and Hazardous Products Exposure Logging (CHaPEL) app with a barcode scanner and to test the feasibility of this app with university cleaners. Methods The CHaPEL app was developed to collect information on demographics, individual product information, and exposure information. It also included an ease-of-use survey. A pilot study with university cleaning workers was undertaken in which cleaning workers scanned each product after use and answered the survey. Respiratory hazards of cleaning substances in the scanned cleaning products were screened by safety data sheets, a Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship model and an asthmagen list established by an expert group in the US. Results Eighteen university cleaners participated in this study over a period of 5 weeks. In total, 77 survey responses and 6 cleaning products were collected and all reported that using the app was easy. The most frequently used product was a multi-surface cleaner followed by a disinfectant. Out of 14 substances in cleaning products, ethanolamine and Alkyl (C12-16) dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride were found as respiratory hazardous substances. Conclusion The CHaPEL app is a user-friendly immediate way to successfully collect exposure information using the barcodes of cleaning products. This tool could be useful for future epidemiological studies focused on exposure assessment with less interruption to the workers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Wearing face coverings to prevent airborne viral transmission has at times been legally mandated, followed by periods when rules were relaxed. The present study tracks changes in face covering and the impacts on people's perceptions of their capabilities, opportunities and motivations. Methods Three-wave survey. At wave 1 (25 January–6 February 2022), 10 622 UK adults reported: (a) sociodemographic characteristics; (b) face covering in work, public transport and indoor leisure settings and (c) capabilities, opportunities and motivations. Measures were repeated 1–18 March 2022 and 20 May–6 June 2022. Data were analyzed descriptively, within-participants analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and multiple linear regression. Results Face covering decreased over time as rules around the wearing of face coverings relaxed. Perceptions of capabilities, opportunities and motivations to wear face coverings were consistently associated with the actual wearing of face coverings, with marked decreases in motivations over time. Conclusions Decreases in motivations seem to explain best the reasons for declining levels of face covering. Further work is required to develop interventions to change people's motivations and promote the wearing of face coverings, should they be required in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Transmission of airborne viruses can be mitigated by wearing face coverings but evidence suggests that face covering declines with the removal of relevant legislation, partly due to low automatic motivation. Purpose Test whether an intervention based on implementation intentions could support people's automatic motivation and promote face covering during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods Randomized controlled design. At baseline (May 20 to June 6, 2022), 7,835 UK adults reported how much time they spent wearing face coverings in work, public transport, and indoor leisure settings as well as their capabilities, opportunities, and motivations. 3,871 participants were randomized to form implementation intentions; 3,964 control participants completed questionnaires only. Measures were repeated 6 months postbaseline (November 1 to November 14, 2022). Data were analyzed using mixed measures ANOVAs and Bayes Factors to examine whether the observed data supported the experimental hypothesis. Results The proportion of time spend wearing face coverings declined substantially across the 6-month study period, from 15.28% to 9.87% in work settings, 38.31% to 24.55% on public transport, and 9.58% to 7.85% in leisure settings. Bayes Factors indicated moderate relative evidence of no effect of implementation intentions on behavior in work and leisure settings, and inconclusive evidence of a positive effect on public transport. Conclusions In the context of declining COVID-19 rates and removal of legal mandates, implementation intentions were not effective in sustaining face covering. Further research is required to ensure that evidence-based interventions are prepared and deployed in the event of future pandemics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives When it comes to controlling workplace transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, different workplaces and industrial sectors face different challenges, both in terms of likely transmission routes and which control measures can be practically, economically, and effectively implemented. This article considers a large body of research in the United Kingdom across different work sectors and time points during the COVID-19 pandemic to better understand mitigation measures, challenges to mitigating the risk of SARS-COV-2 transmission, knowledge gaps, and barriers and enablers to control viral transmission. Methods Data is drawn from 2 phases of research. Phase 1 gathered data from an interactive workshop (April 2022) where PROTECT researchers working across 8 work sectors shared knowledge and expertise from research conducted between 2020 and 2022. Phase 2 revisited 6 of these sectors to explore participants' views on the "living with COVID" phase of the pandemic (February–October 2022) through qualitative interviews. Results Our findings emphasise the importance of considering the characteristics of each work sector (and their sub-sectors), relative to the physical workplace and workforce, the ways organisations operate, and how they interact with the public. Study findings show that participant's views and organisational practices changed quickly and significantly over the course of the pandemic. Most participants initially perceived that the majority of risk mitigations would remain in place for the foreseeable future. However, following the change in Government Guidance towards "living with COVID", most mitigation measures were quickly removed and it had become necessary for sectors/organisations to restore normal operations, thereby treating the COVID-19 virus like any other illness, while remaining prepared for future health emergencies that may arise. Conclusion We suggest that national policy makers and organisational leaders remain mindful of the lessons learned and knowledge gained at all levels (national, regional, local, organisational, and individual) during the COVID-19 pandemic. We make recommendations in support of recovery as sectors/organisations continue "living with COVID" and other respiratory diseases; balanced with longer term planning for the next public health crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Wood dust is an established carcinogen also linked to several non malignant respiratory disorders. A major limitation in research on wood dust and its health effects is the lack of (historical) quantitative estimates of occupational exposure for use in general population-based case-control or cohort studies. The present study aimed to develop a multinational quantitative Job Exposure Matrix (JEM) for wood dust exposure using exposure data from several Northern and Central European countries. For this, an occupational exposure database containing 12653 personal wood dust measurements collected between 1978 and 2007 in Denmark, Finland, France, The Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom (UK) was established. Measurement data were adjusted for differences in inhalable dust sampling efficiency resulting from the use of different dust samplers and analysed using linear mixed effect regression with job codes (ISCO-88) and country treated as random effects. Fixed effects were the year of measurement, the expert assessment of exposure intensity (no, low, and high exposure) for every ISCO-88 job code from an existing wood dust JEM and sampling duration. The results of the models suggest that wood dust exposure has declined annually by approximately 8%. Substantial differences in exposure levels between countries were observed with the highest levels in the United Kingdom and the lowest in Denmark and Norway, albeit with similar job rankings across countries. The jobs with the highest predicted exposure are floor layers and tile setters, wood-products machine operators, and building construction labourers with geometric mean levels for the year 1997 between 1.7 and 1.9 mg/m3. The predicted exposure estimates by the model are compared with the results of wood dust measurement data reported in the literature. The model predicted estimates for full-shift exposures were used to develop a time-dependent quantitative JEM for exposure to wood dust that can be used to estimate exposure for participants of general population studies in Northern European countries on the health effects from occupational exposure to wood dust. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Automatic job coding tools were developed to reduce the laborious task of manually assigning job codes based on free-text job descriptions in census and survey data sources, including large occupational health studies. The objective of this study is to provide a case study of comparative performance of job coding and JEM (Job-Exposure Matrix)-assigned exposures agreement using existing coding tools. Methods We compared three automatic job coding tools [AUTONOC, CASCOT (Computer-Assisted Structured Coding Tool), and LabourR], which were selected based on availability, coding of English free-text into coding systems closely related to the 1988 version of the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO-88), and capability to perform batch coding. We used manually coded job histories from the AsiaLymph case-control study that were translated into English prior to auto-coding to assess their performance. We applied two general population JEMs to assess agreement at exposure level. Percent agreement and PABAK (Prevalence-Adjusted Bias-Adjusted Kappa) were used to compare the agreement of results from manual coders and automatic coding tools. Results The coding per cent agreement among the three tools ranged from 17.7 to 26.0% for exact matches at the most detailed 4-digit ISCO-88 level. The agreement was better at a more general level of job coding (e.g. 43.8–58.1% in 1-digit ISCO-88), and in exposure assignments (median values of PABAK coefficient ranging 0.69–0.78 across 12 JEM-assigned exposures). Based on our testing data, CASCOT was found to outperform others in terms of better agreement in both job coding (26% 4-digit agreement) and exposure assignment (median kappa 0.61). Conclusions In this study, we observed that agreement on job coding was generally low for the three tools but noted a higher degree of agreement in assigned exposures. The results indicate the need for study-specific evaluations prior to their automatic use in general population studies, as well as improvements in the evaluated automatic coding tools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose We aimed to understand which non-household activities increased infection odds and contributed greatest to SARS-CoV-2 infections following the lifting of public health restrictions in England and Wales. Procedures We undertook multivariable logistic regressions assessing the contribution to infections of activities reported by adult Virus Watch Community Cohort Study participants. We calculated adjusted weighted population attributable fractions (aPAF) estimating which activity contributed greatest to infections. Findings Among 11 413 participants (493 infections), infection was associated with: leaving home for work (aOR 1.35 (1.11–1.64), aPAF 17%), public transport (aOR 1.27 (1.04–1.57), aPAF 12%), shopping once (aOR 1.83 (1.36–2.45)) vs. more than three times a week, indoor leisure (aOR 1.24 (1.02–1.51), aPAF 10%) and indoor hospitality (aOR 1.21 (0.98–1.48), aPAF 7%). We found no association for outdoor hospitality (1.14 (0.94–1.39), aPAF 5%) or outdoor leisure (1.14 (0.82–1.59), aPAF 1%). Conclusion Essential activities (work and public transport) carried the greatest risk and were the dominant contributors to infections. Non-essential indoor activities (hospitality and leisure) increased risk but contributed less. Outdoor activities carried no statistical risk and contributed to fewer infections. As countries aim to 'live with COVID', mitigating transmission in essential and indoor venues becomes increasingly relevant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Harmonized tools and approaches for data collection can help to detect similarities and differences within and between countries and support the development, implementation, and assessment of effective and consistent preventive strategies. We developed open source occupational questionnaires on COVID-19 within COVID-19 working groups in the OMEGA-NET COST action (Network on the Coordination and Harmonisation of European Occupational Cohorts, omeganetcohorts.eu), and the EU funded EPHOR project (Exposome project for health and occupational research, ephor-project.eu). We defined domains to be included in order to cover key working life aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Where possible, we selected questionnaire items and instruments from existing questionnaire resources. Both a general occupational COVID-19 questionnaire and a specific occupational COVID-19 questionnaire are available. The general occupational COVID-19 questionnaire covers key working life aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic, including the domains: COVID-19 diagnosis and prevention, Health and demographics, Use of personal protective equipment and face covering, Health effects, Work-related effects (e.g. change in work schedule and work–life balance), Financial effects, Work-based risk factors (e.g. physical distancing, contact with COVID-19-infected persons), Psychosocial risk factors, Lifestyle risk factors, and Personal evaluation of the impact of COVID-19. For each domain, additional questions are available. The specific occupational COVID-19 questionnaire focusses on occupational risk factors and mitigating factors for SARS-CoV2 infection and COVID-19 disease and includes questions about the type of job, amount of home working, social distancing, human contact (colleagues, patients, and members of the public), commuting, and use of personal protective equipment and face coverings. The strength of this initiative is the broad working life approach to various important issues related to SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 disease, and potentially future pandemics. It requires further work to validate the questionnaires, and we welcome collaboration with researchers willing to do this. A limitation is the moderate number of questions for each of the domains in the general questionnaire. Only few questions on general core information like ethnicity, demographics, lifestyle factors, and general health status are included, but the OMEGA-NET questionnaires can be integrated in existing questionnaires about sociodemographic and health-related aspects. The questionnaires are freely accessible from the OMEGA-NET and the EPHOR homepages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Food processing facilities represent critical infrastructure that have stayed open during much of the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding the burden of COVID-19 in this sector is thus important to help reduce the potential for workplace infection in future outbreaks. Methods We undertook a workplace survey in the UK food and drink processing sector and collected information on workplace size, characteristics (e.g. temperature, ventilation), and experience with COVID-19 (e.g. numbers of positive cases). For each site, we calculated COVID-19 case rates per month per 1000 workers. We performed an ecological analysis using negative binomial regression to assess the association between COVID-19 rates and workplace and local risk factors. Results Respondents from 33 companies including 66 individual sites completed the survey. COVID-19 cases were reported from the start of the pandemic up to June 2021. Respondents represented a range of industry subgroups, including grain milling/storage (n = 16), manufacture of malt (n = 14), manufacture of prepared meals (n = 12), manufacture of beverages (n = 8), distilling (n = 5), manufacture of baked goods (n = 5), and other (n = 6), with a total of 15 563 workers across all sites. Average monthly case rates per 1000 workers ranged from 0.9 in distilling to 6.1 in grain milling/storage. Incidence rate ratios were partially attenuated after adjusting for several local and workplace factors, though risks for one subgroup (grain milling/storage) remained elevated. Certain local and workplace characteristics were related to higher infection rates, such as higher deprivation (5 km only), a lower proportion of remote workers, lower proportion of workers in close proximity, and higher numbers of workers overall. Conclusions Our analysis suggests some heterogeneity in the rates of COVID-19 across sectors of the UK food and drink processing industry. Infection rates were associated with deprivation, the proportions of remote workers and workers in close proximity, and the number of workers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives A COVID-19 Job Exposure Matrix (COVID-19-JEM) has been developed, consisting of four dimensions on transmission, two on mitigation measures, and two on precarious work. This study aims to validate the COVID-19-JEM by (i) comparing risk scores assigned by the COVID-19-JEM with self-reported data, and (ii) estimating the associations between the COVID-19-JEM risk scores and self-reported COVID-19. Methods Data from measurements 2 (July 2020, n = 7690) and 4 (March 2021, n = 6794) of the Netherlands Working Conditions Survey-COVID-19 (NWCS-COVID-19) cohort study were used. Responses to questions related to the transmission risks and mitigation measures of Measurement 2 were used to calculate self-reported risk scores. These scores were compared with the COVID-19-JEM attributed risk scores, by assessing the percentage agreement and weighted kappa (κ). Based on Measurement 4, logistic regression analyses were conducted to estimate the associations between all COVID-19-JEM risk scores and self-reported COVID-19 (infection in general and infected at work). Results The agreement between the COVID-19-JEM and questionnaire-based risk scores was good (κ ≥ 0.70) for most dimensions, except work location (κ = 0.56), and face covering (κ = 0.41). Apart from the precarious work dimensions, higher COVID-19-JEM assigned risk scores had higher odds ratios (ORs; ranging between 1.28 and 1.80) on having had COVID-19. Associations were stronger when the infection were thought to have happened at work (ORs between 2.33 and 11.62). Conclusions Generally, the COVID-19-JEM showed a good agreement with self-reported infection risks and infection rates at work. The next step is to validate the COVID-19-JEM with objective data in the Netherlands and beyond. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Age-standardized mortality rates for taxi drivers, chauffeurs, bus and coach drivers show that public transport workers were at high risk at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, the public transport sector was required to continue services throughout the pandemic. Objectives This paper aims to develop a better understanding of the experiences of organizational leaders and workers within the UK public transport sector (bus, rail, and tram). Specifically, it aims to explore the perceived balance of risk and mitigation of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, report on their perceptions of safety in public transport during the pandemic and in the future, and consider how these perceptions and changes impact on long-term worker health and wellbeing. Methods This study formed part of a larger stakeholder engagement with the public transport sector. Organizational leaders and workers were recruited (n = 18) and semi-structured interviews carried out between January and May 2021. Data were analysed thematically. Results Overarching and subthemes were identified. Themes relating to perceptions and impacts of risk of COVID-19 for employees included: acceptability of risk for workers, perceptions of risk mitigation effectiveness, changes to working practices and their impact on morale and wellbeing, issues with compliance to mitigations such as social distancing and face coverings in passenger and co-worker groups alongside a lack of power to challenge behaviour effectively, and the roles of leadership and messaging. Themes related to long-lasting impacts of COVID-19 on working practices and effects on health and wellbeing included: continuing mitigations, impact of increasing passenger numbers, impact of vaccination programme, and impact of changes to business structure. Conclusions Most public transport employees reported feeling safe, related to the extent to which their role was public-facing. However, data were collected during a time of very low passenger numbers. Current mitigation measures were thought effective in reducing the risk of viral transmission, although measures may have a detrimental effect on worker morale and wellbeing. Issues relating to non-compliance with guidance and 'in-group' behaviour were identified. Impacts on wider business sustainability and individual wellbeing of staff should be considered when developing responses to any future pandemics. Recommendations are made for prioritizing employee engagement with colleagues, and the importance of strong leadership and clear messaging in promoting adherence to behavioural mitigations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background This study quantifies the risk of Covid-19 among ethnic groups of healthcare staff during the first pandemic wave in England. Methods We analysed data on 959 356 employees employed by 191 National Health Service trusts during 1 January 2019 to 31 July 2020, comparing rates of Covid-19 sickness absence in different ethnic groups. Results In comparison with White ethnic groups, the risk of short-duration Covid-19 sickness absence was modestly elevated in South Asian but not Black groups. However, all Black and ethnic minority groups were at higher risk of prolonged Covid-19 sickness absence. Odds ratios (ORs) relative to White ethnicity were more than doubled in South Asian groups (Indian OR 2.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.36–2.63; Pakistani OR 2.38, 2.15–2.64; Bangladeshi OR 2.38, 1.98–2.86), while that for Black African ethnicity was 1.82 (1.71–1.93). In nursing/midwifery staff, the association of ethnicity with prolonged Covid-19 sickness absence was strong; the odds of South Asian nurses/midwives having a prolonged episode of Covid-19 sickness absence were increased 3-fold (OR 3.05, 2.82–3.30). Conclusions Residual differences in risk of short term Covid-19 sickness absences among ethnic groups may reflect differences in non-occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Our results indicate ethnic differences in vulnerability to Covid-19, which may be only partly explained by medical comorbidities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Occupational epidemiological studies on pesticide use commonly rely on self-reported questionnaire or interview data to assess exposure. Insight into recall accuracy is important, as misclassification of exposures due to imperfect recall can bias risk estimates. Methods We assessed the ability of workers in three UK cohorts (Prospective Investigation of Pesticide Applicators' Health [PIPAH], Pesticide Users' Health Study [PUHS], and Study of Health in Agricultural Work [SHAW]) to remember their working history related to pesticide exposure over time periods ranging from 3 to 14 years prior. During 2019–2020, cohort participants were re-surveyed using a similar questionnaire to that used previously. We compared recall of responses at follow-up to those reported at baseline related to crops/areas of work, use of personal protective equipment (PPE) items, hygiene habits, frequency of pesticide use, and application method. To assess the extent of recall, we used sensitivity, specificity, the percentage of overall agreement, and area under the curve (AUC) values. We also examined the presence of over or underestimation of recalled years, and days and hours per year, of working with pesticides using geometric mean ratios (GMR) and regression analysis to investigate any trends based on demographic characteristics. Results There were 643 individuals who completed both the baseline and follow-up surveys in the three cohorts with response rates ranging from 17 to 46%. There was a strong correlation (rho = 0.77) between the baseline and recalled years working with pesticides, though higher values were reported at follow-up (GMR = 1.18 [95% confidence interval: 1.07–1.30]) with no consistent differences by demographic characteristics. There was stronger agreement in the recalled days compared to hours per year in two of the cohorts. Recall for a number of exposure determinants across short and longer periods entailed overall agreement of >70%, though with some differences: for example, sensitivity for long-term recall of crops was poor (<43% in PUHS), whereas short-term recall of hygiene practices was good (AUC range = 0.65–1.00 in PIPAH). Conclusion Results indicate that recall ability may deteriorate over a longer period. Although low-response rates may require these findings to be interpreted with caution, recall for a number of exposure determinants appeared reliable, such as crops and hygiene practices within 3 years, as well as days per year working with pesticides. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, we have responded to the key statements in the article by Koivisto et al. (2022) that were incorrect and considered to be a biased critique on a subset of the exposure models used in Europe (i.e. ART and Stoffenmanager®) used for regulatory exposure assessment. We welcome scientific discussions on exposure modelling (as was done during the ISES Europe workshop) and criticism based on scientific evidence to contribute to the advancement of occupational exposure estimation tools. The tiered approach to risk assessment allows various exposure assessment models from screening tools (control/hazard banding) through to higher-tiered approaches. There is a place for every type of model, but we do need to recognize the cost and data requirements of highly bespoke assessments. That is why model developers have taken pragmatic approaches to develop tools for exposure assessments based on imperfect data. We encourage Koivisto et al. to focus on further scientifically robust work to develop mass-balance models and by independent external validations studies, compare these models with alternative model tools such as ART and Stoffenmanager®. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Patterns of sickness absence shed useful light on disease occurrence and illness-related behaviours in working populations. Methods We analysed prospectively collected, pseudonymized data on 959 356 employees who were continuously employed by National Health Service trusts in England from 1 January 2019 to 31 July 2020, comparing the frequency of new sickness absence in 2020 with that at corresponding times in 2019. Results After exclusion of episodes directly related to COVID-19, the overall incidence of sickness absence during the initial 10 weeks of the pandemic (March–May 2020) was more than 20% lower than in corresponding weeks of 2019. Trends for specific categories of illness varied substantially, with a fall by 24% for cancer, but an increase for mental illness. A doubling of new absences for pregnancy-related disorders during May–July of 2020 was limited to women with earlier COVID-19 sickness absence. Conclusions Various factors will have contributed to the large and divergent changes that were observed. The findings reinforce concerns regarding delays in diagnosis and treatment of cancers and support a need to plan for a large backlog of treatment for many other diseases. Further research should explore the rise in absence for pregnancy-related disorders among women with earlier COVID-19 sickness absence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives The processing of seafood (fish and shellfish) for human consumption can lead to health consequences, including occupational asthma (OA). Several non-UK studies have reported both respiratory outcomes and airborne levels of major allergens in seafood processing. However, there is a paucity of such evidence in the UK land-based seafood processing sector, which employs some 20 000 workers. Methods University of Manchester's Surveillance of Work-related and Occupational Respiratory Disease (SWORD) reporting system has been interrogated over the period 1992–2017 to define the incidence rate of OA cases that can be ascribed to the UK land-based processing sector, and the seafood species implicated. Airborne allergen monitoring data undertaken at Health and Safety Executive's laboratory from 2003 to 2019 have also been collated. Results The estimated annual OA incidence rate in seafood processors was 70 [95% confidence intervals (CIs) 48.9, 91.1] per 100 000 workers compared with 2.9 (95% CIs 2.8, 3.1) in 'all other industries'. The annual calculated percentage trend in OA (1992–2017) was −8.1% (95% CIs −15.9, 0.4) in seafood processing showing a similar trend to 'all other industries' (mean −7.0%; 95% CIs −7.8, −6.1). Prawns and salmon/trout were notably implicated by SWORD as causative species related to OA. There is a general paucity of available UK airborne allergen monitoring data, particularly concerning processing salmon or trout. Available airborne monitoring for salmon parvalbumin in seven processors ranged between the limit of detection and 816 ng m−3 (n = 64). Available air monitoring levels of the major shellfish allergen (tropomyosin) during processing of crabs and prawns ranged between 1 and 101 600 ng m−3 (n = 280), highlighting that high levels of exposure can occur. Conclusions These data show an excess incidence of OA in the UK seafood processing industry during 1992–2017, with limited airborne monitoring data for the processing of prawn, crab, and salmon suggesting that significant exposure to major seafood allergens can occur in this industry. Further investigation of current levels of respiratory ill-health and the sources of allergen exposure are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Tier 1 occupational exposure assessment tools recommended for use under the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and restriction of CHemicals (REACH) were evaluated using newly collected measurement data. Evaluated tools included the ECETOC TRAv2 and TRAv3, MEASEv1.02.01, and EMKG-EXPO-TOOL. Fifty-three exposure situations (ESs) based on tasks/chemicals were developed from National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health field surveys. During the field surveys, high quality contextual information required for evaluating the tools was also collected. For each ES, applicable tools were then used to generate exposure estimates using a consensus approach. Among 53 ESs, only those related to an exposure category of liquids with vapor pressure (VP) > 10 Pa had sufficient numbers of exposure measurements (42 ESs with n = 251 for TRAv2 and TRAv3 and 40 ESs with n = 243 for EMKG-EXPO-TOOL) to be considered in detail. The results for other exposure categories (aqueous solutions, liquids with VP ≤ 10 Pa, metal processing, powders, and solid objects) had insufficient measurement to allow detailed analyses (results listed in the Supplementary File). Overall, EMKG-EXPO-TOOL generated more conservative results than TRAv2 and TRAv3 for liquids with high VP. This finding is at least partly due to the fact that the EMKG-EXPO-TOOL only considers pure substances and not mixtures of chemical agents. For 34 out of 40 ESs available for chemicals with VP > 10 Pa, the liquid was a mixture rather than a pure substance. TRAv3 was less conservative than TRAv2, probably due to additional refinement of some input parameters. The percentages of exposure measurement results exceeding the corresponding tool estimates for liquids with VP > 10 Pa by process category and by input parameters were always higher for TRAv3 compared to those for TRAv2. Although the conclusions of this study are limited to liquids with VP > 10 Pa and few process categories, this study utilized the most transparent contextual information compared to previous studies, reducing uncertainty from assumptions for unknown input parameters. A further validation is recommended by collecting sufficient exposure data covering other exposure categories and all process categories under REACH. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Stoffenmanager®v4.5 and Advanced REACH Tool (ART) v1.5, two higher tier exposure assessment tools for use under REACH, were evaluated by determining accuracy and robustness. A total of 282 exposure measurements from 51 exposure situations (ESs) were collected and categorized by exposure category. In this study, only the results of liquids with vapor pressure (VP) > 10 Pa category having a sufficient number of exposure measurements (n = 251 with 42 ESs) were utilized. In addition, the results were presented by handling/activity description and input parameters for the same exposure category. It should be noted that the performance results of Stoffenmanager and ART in this study cannot be directly compared for some ESs because ART allows a combination of up to four subtasks (and nonexposed periods) to be included, whereas the database for Stoffenmanager, separately developed under the permission of the legal owner of Stoffenmanager, permits the use of only one task to predict exposure estimates. Thus, it would be most appropriate to compare full-shift measurements against ART predictions (full shift including nonexposed periods) and task-based measurements against task-based Stoffenmanager predictions. For liquids with VP > 10 Pa category, Stoffenmanager®v4.5 appeared to be reasonably accurate and robust when predicting exposures [percentage of measurements exceeding the tool's 90th percentile estimate (%M > T) was 15%]. Areas that could potentially be improved include ESs involving the task of handling of liquids on large surfaces or large work pieces, allocation of high and medium VP inputs, and absence of local exhaust ventilation input. Although the ART's median predictions appeared to be reasonably accurate for liquids with VP > 10 Pa, the %M > T for the 90th percentile estimates was 41%, indicating that variance in exposure levels is underestimated by ART. The %M > T using the estimates of the upper value of 90% confidence interval (CI) of the 90th percentile estimate (UCI90) was considerably reduced to 18% for liquids with VP > 10 Pa. On the basis of this observation, users might be to consider using the upper limit value of 90% CI of the 90th percentile estimate for predicting reasonable worst case situations. Nevertheless, for some activities and input parameters, ART still shows areas to be improved. Hence, it is suggested that ART developers review the assumptions in relation to exposure variability within the tool, toward improving the tool performance in estimating percentile exposure levels. In addition, for both tools, only some handling/activity descriptions and input parameters were considered. Thus, further validation studies are still necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the highlights of the 9th International Conference on the Science of Exposure Assessment. Topics covered include aspects of new exposure hazards and ways of working, the challenges of conducting exposure science in developing countries, and the European Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals legislation.