Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health最新文献

Objective: The study investigated experiences of different types of work-related gender-based harassment (GBH), specifically sexual and gender harassment, as risk factors for alcohol-related morbidity and mortality (ARMM).

Methods: Information about experiences of (i) sexual harassment (SH-I) and (ii) gender harassment (GH-I) from inside the organization and (iii) sexual harassment from a person external to the organization (SH-E) were obtained from the Swedish Work Environment Survey 1995-2013, a biannual cross-sectional survey, administered to a representative sample of the Swedish working population. The survey responses from 86 033 individuals were connected to multiple registers containing information about alcohol-related diagnoses, treatment, or cause of death. Cox proportional hazard models were fitted to assess hazard ratios (HR) of incident ARMM during a mean follow-up of eight (SH-I and GH-I) and ten (SH-E) years.

Results: A higher prospective risk estimate of ARMM was found among participants who reported experiences of SH-E [HR 2.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.61-2.52], GH-I (HR 1.33, CI 1.03-1.70), or SH-I (HR 2.37, CI 1.42-3.00). Additional analyses, distinguishing one-time from reoccurring harassment experiences, indicated a dose-response relationship for all three harassment types. Gender did not modify the associations. Under the assumption of causality, 9.3% (95% CI 5.4-13.1) of the risk of ARMM among Swedish women and 2.1% (95% CI 0.6-3.6) among Swedish men would be attributable to any of the three types of GBH included in this study.

Conclusions: Experiences of GBH in the work context may be a highly relevant factor in the etiology of ARMM.

Objectives: Patients with idiopathic inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IIRD) often have decreased working capacity resulting in indirect costs. However, data on patients' short-term sick leave has been limited. This retrospective cohort study evaluated the number and length of sick leave, including short-term leave, and occupational healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) of the working-aged patients with IIRD compared to controls.

Methods: The data on sick leave and occupational HCRU were gathered from the electronic medical records of the largest occupational healthcare provider in Finland from January 2012 to December 2019. Employed patients with an IIRD (including rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, psoriatic and enteropathic arthritis, juvenile arthritis, and reactive arthritis) with at least a 12-months follow-up were identified and compared to age-, sex-, and follow-up matched controls without IIRD.

Results: Altogether 5405 patients with IIRD were identified and compared with an equal number of controls. The patients incurred approximately 2.5 times more sick leave than controls: 21.7 versus 8.5 days per patient year, respectively. Short-term sick leave was common: 83% of sickness absence periods of the patients lasted 1-9 days and represented 30% of the total absenteeism. Loss of productivity due to lost workdays was on average €4572 (95% confidence interval €4352-4804) per patient year. Occupational HCRU was approximately 1.8 times higher among IIRD patients than controls.

Conclusions: Workers with an IIRD incur considerably more sick leave and use more occupational healthcare services than controls. Short sick leave not registered in national insurance registers constitute a significant portion of days off work among patients with IIRD.

Objectives: In a cohort of workers disabled by a work-related injury or illness, this study aimed to: (i) compare pre-injury prevalence estimates for common chronic conditions to chronic condition prevalence in a representative sample of working adults; (ii) calculate the incidence of chronic conditions post-injury; and (iii) estimate the association between persistent pain symptoms and the incidence of common chronic conditions.

Methods: Eighteen months post-injury, 1832 workers disabled by a work-related injury or illness in Ontario, Canada, completed an interviewer-administered survey. Participants reported pre- and post-injury prevalence of seven physician-diagnosed chronic conditions, and demographic, employment, and health characteristics. Pre-injury prevalence estimates were compared to estimates from a representative sample of workers. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association of persistent pain with post-injury chronic condition incidence.

Results: Age-standardized pre-injury prevalence rates for diabetes, hypertension, arthritis, and back problems were similar to prevalence rates observed among working adults in Ontario, while prevalence rates for mood disorder, asthma and migraine were moderately elevated. Post-injury prevalence rates of mood disorder, migraine, hypertension, arthritis, and back problems were elevated substantially in this cohort. High persistent pain symptoms were strongly associated with the 18-month incidence of these conditions.

Conclusions: The incidence of five chronic conditions over an 18-month follow-up period post injury was substantial. Persistent pain at 18 months was associated with this elevated incidence, with population attributable fraction estimates suggesting that 37-39% of incident conditions may be attributed to exposure to high levels of persistent pain.

Objective: This study aimed to systematically review the effectiveness of organizational-level interventions in improving the psychosocial work environment and workers' health and retention.

Methods: We conducted an overview of systematic reviews on organizational-level interventions published between 2000 and 2020. We systematically searched academic databases, screened reference lists, and contacted experts, yielding 27 736 records. Of the 76 eligible reviews, 24 of weak quality were excluded, yielding 52 reviews of moderate (N=32) or strong (N=20) quality, covering 957 primary studies. We assessed quality of evidence based on quality of review, consistency of results, and proportion of controlled studies.

Results: Of the 52 reviews, 30 studied a specific intervention approach and 22 specific outcomes. Regarding intervention approaches, we found strong quality of evidence for interventions focusing on "changes in working time arrangements" and moderate quality of evidence for "influence on work tasks or work organization", "health care approach changes", and "improvements of the psychosocial work environment". Regarding outcomes, we found strong quality of evidence for interventions about "burnout" and moderate quality evidence for "various health and wellbeing outcomes". For all other types of interventions, quality of evidence was either low or inconclusive, including interventions on retention.

Conclusions: This overview of reviews identified strong or moderate quality of evidence for the effectiveness of organizational-level interventions for four specific intervention approaches and two health outcomes. This suggests that the work environment and the health of employees can be improved by certain organizational-level interventions. We need more research, especially about implementation and context, to improve the evidence.

Objectives: COVID-19 mitigations have had a profound impact on workplaces, however, multisectoral comparisons of how work-related mitigations were applied are limited. This study aimed to investigate (i) occupational differences in the usage of key work-related mitigations over time and (ii) workers' perceptions of these mitigations.

Methods: Employed/self-employed Virus Watch study participants (N=6279) responded to a mitigation-related online survey covering the periods of December 2020-February 2022. Logistic regression was used to investigate occupation- and time-related differences in the usage of work-related mitigation methods. Participants' perceptions of mitigation methods were investigated descriptively using proportions.

Results: Usage of work-related mitigation methods differed between occupations and over time, likely reflecting variation in job roles, workplace environments, legislation and guidance. Healthcare workers had the highest predicted probabilities for several mitigations, including reporting frequent hand hygiene [predicted probability across all survey periods 0.61 (95% CI 0.56-0.66)] and always wearing face coverings [predicted probability range 0.71 (95% CI 0.66-0.75) - 0.80 (95% CI 0.76-0.84) across survey periods]. There were significant cross-occupational trends towards reduced mitigations during periods of less stringent national restrictions. The majority of participants across occupations (55-88%) agreed that most mitigations were reasonable and worthwhile even after the relaxation of national restrictions; agreement was lower for physical distancing (39-44%).

Conclusions: While usage of work-related mitigations appeared to vary alongside stringency of national restrictions, agreement that most mitigations were reasonable and worthwhile remained substantial. Further investigation into the factors underlying between-occupational differences could assist pandemic planning and prevention of workplace COVID-19 transmission.

Objectives: Integrating vocational rehabilitation and mental healthcare has shown effects on vocational outcomes during sick leave with common mental disorders. In a previous paper, we showed that a Danish integrated healthcare and vocational rehabilitation intervention (INT) had a surprisingly negative impact on vocational outcomes compared to service as usual (SAU) at 6- and 12-month follow-up. That was also the case with a mental healthcare intervention (MHC) tested in the same study. This article reports the 24-month follow-up results of that same study.

Method: A randomized, parallel-group, three-arm, multi-centre superiority trial was conducted to test the effectiveness of INT and MHC compared to SAU.

Results: In total, 631 persons were randomized. Contrary to our hypothesis, SAU showed faster return to work than both INT [hazard rate (HR) 1.39, P=0.0027] and MHC (HR 1.30, P=0.013) at 24-month follow-up. Overall, no differences were observed regarding mental health and functional level. Compared to SAU, we observed some health benefits of MHC, but not INT, at 6-month follow-up but not thereafter, and lower rates of employment at all follow-ups. Since implementation problems might explain the results of INT, we cannot conclude that INT is no better that SAU. The MHC intervention was implemented with good fidelity and did not improve return to work.

Conclusion: This trial does not support the hypothesis that INT lead to faster return to work. However, implementation failure may explain the negative results.

Objective: This study aimed to investigate the effects of occupational exposures on the risk of a positive COVID-19 test, and whether this differed across pandemic waves.

Methods: Data from 207 034 workers from The Netherlands with test data on COVID-19 from June 2020 until August 2021 were available. Occupational exposure was estimated by using the eight dimensions of a COVID-19 job exposure matrix (JEM). Personal characteristics, household composition and residence area were derived from Statistics Netherlands. A test-negative design was applied in which the risk of a positive test was analyzed in a conditional logit model.

Results: All eight dimensions of occupational exposure included in the JEM increased the odds of a positive test for the entire study period and three pandemic waves [OR ranging from 1.09, (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.17) to 1.77 (95% CI 1.61-1.96)]. Adjusting for a previous positive test and other covariates strongly reduced the odds to be infected, but most dimensions remained at elevated risk. Fully adjusted models showed that contaminated work spaces and face covering were mostly relevant in the first two pandemic waves, whereas income insecurity showed higher odds in the third wave. Several occupations have a higher predicted value for a positive COVID-19 test, with variation over time. Discussion Occupational exposures are associated with a higher risk of a positive test, but variations over time exist in occupations with the highest risks. These findings provide insights for interventions among workers for future pandemic waves of COVID-19 or other respiratory epidemics.