Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health最新文献

Objectives: The aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the association between occupational mechanical exposures and hip osteoarthritis.

Methods: The study was registered in PROSPERO. A systematic literature search was conducted in six databases to identify relevant articles. Two authors independently excluded articles, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias of each included article, and graded the level of evidence. We conducted a meta-analysis using random-effects model and performed a sensitivity analysis stratifying articles based on the risk of bias assessment, study design, and the outcome measurement.

Results: Twenty-four articles were eligible for inclusion. The highest pooled odds ratio (OR) was found for combined mechanical exposures [OR 1.7, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4-2.0], non-neutral postures (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.4-2.1), lifting/carrying loads (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.3-1.9), and climbing stairs (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.2). The range of pooled OR for the remaining mechanical exposures (eg, standing, walking, kneeling, squatting, and sitting) was 0.6-1.6. Grading the quality of evidence, a moderate level of evidence was found for the combined mechanical exposures and for lifting/carrying loads. The remaining exposure categories were graded as having either low or very low levels of evidence.

Conclusions: Considerable heterogeneity was observed across the included studies, and high-quality literature using objective exposure measurements is warranted. Despite various limitations affecting the comparability, occupational mechanical exposures seem to influence the likelihood of developing hip osteoarthritis.

Objectives: Long working hours and overwork are growing public health concerns in the Western-Pacific region. We explored the relationship between working hours and smoking behaviors of Korean workers.

Methods: This study included 284 782 observations (50 508 workers) from four nationwide cohort studies in Korea. Using generalized estimating equations, we estimated the associations of working hours with current smoking status, smoking initiation, and smoking cessation within each cohort. Cohort-specific estimates were combined through random-effect meta-analysis. Effect sizes were presented as odds ratios (OR) and 95 confidence intervals (CI).

Results: The overall smoking prevalence was 26.8% within the cohorts. The adjusted OR (95% CI) of the association between working hours and current smoking were 1.01 (0.94-1.08) for <35 hours/week, 1.04 (1.01-1.09) for 41-48 hours/week, 1.06 (1.01-1.10) for 49-54 hours/week, and 1.07 (1.04-1.10) for ≥55 hours/week compared with 35-40 hours/week. The adjusted OR (95% CI) of the association between working hours and smoking cessation in the follow-up were 0.93 (0.85-1.02) for <35 hours/week, 0.89 (0.83-0.96) for 41-48 hours/week, 0.87 (0.81-0.95) for 48-54 hours/week, and 0.91 (0.85-0.98) for ≥55 hours/week compared with 35-40 hours/week. No clear associations were observed between working hours and smoking initiation.

Conclusion: Long working hours are associated with high current smoking risk and reduced likelihood of smoking cessation among Korean workers. Policy interventions are required to promote smoking cessation and reduce excess overwork for individuals experiencing long working hours.

Objective: This paper discusses the past and present highlights of working hours and health research and identifies key research needs for the future.

Method: We analyzed over 220 original articles and reviews on working hours and health in the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health published during the last 50 years. Key publications from other journals were also included.

Results: The majority of identified articles focussed on the effects of shift and night work, with fewer studying long and reduced working hours and work time control. We observed a transition from small-scale experimental and intensive field studies to large-scale epidemiological studies utilizing precise exposure assessment, reflecting the recent emergence of register-based datasets and the development of analytic methods and alternative study designs for randomized controlled designs. The cumulative findings provide convincing evidence that shift work and long working hours, which are often associated with night work and insufficient recovery, increase the risk of poor sleep and fatigue, sickness absence, occupational injuries, and several chronic health conditions such as cardiovascular diseases and cancer. The observed risks are strongly modified by individual and work-related factors.

Conclusions: Although the observed health risks of shift work and long working hours are mostly low or moderate, the widespread prevalence of exposure and the hazardousness of the many associated potential outcomes makes such working time arrangements major occupational health risks. Further research is needed to identify exposure-response associations, especially in relation to the chronic health effects, and to elucidate underlying pathways and effective personalized intervention strategies.

Objective: This study aimed to determine if there is an increased risk of incident cardiovascular diseases (CVD) resulting from cumulative night shift work in the German population-based Gutenberg Health Study (GHS).

Methods: We examined working participants of the GHS at baseline and after five years. Cumulative night shift work in the 10 years before baseline was assessed and categorized as low (1-220 nights ≙ up to 1 year), middle (221-660 nights ≙ 1-3 years), and high (>660 nights ≙ more than 3 years) night shift exposure. Hazard ratios (HR) were estimated for incident "quality-assured CVD events" using Cox proportional hazard models.

Results: At baseline, 1092 of 8167 working participants performed night shift work. During the follow-up, 202 incident cardiovascular events occurred. The crude incidence rates for CVD per 1000 person-years were 6.88 [95% confidence interval (CI) 4.80-9.55] for night shift workers and 5.19 (95% CI 4.44-6.04) for day workers. Cumulative incidence curves showed a higher cumulative incidence in workers exposed to night shift work compared to day workers after five years. The adjusted HR for incident CVD events were 1.26 (95% CI 0.68-2.33), 1.37 (95% CI 0.74-2.53) and 1.19 (95% CI 0.67-2.12) for employees in the low, middle and high night shift categories compared to employees without night shift work, respectively.

Conclusions: The observed tendencies indicate that night shift work might be negatively associated with cardiovascular health. We expect the continued follow-up will clarify the long-term impact of night shift work.

Objectives: This study aimed to estimate the validity of self-reported information on ever-night shift work among women with and without breast cancer and illustrate the consequences for breast cancer risk estimates.

Methods: During 2015-2016, 225 women diagnosed with breast cancer and 1800 matched controls without breast cancer employed within the Danish hospital regions during 2007-2016 participated in a questionnaire-based survey. Their reported night shift work status was linked with objective payroll register day-by-day working hour data from the Danish Working Hour Database and the Danish Cancer Registry. For the breast cancer patients and their matched controls, we estimated sensitivity and specificity for ever-working night shifts using the payroll data as the gold standard. We also used quantitative bias analysis to estimate the impact on relative risk estimates for a hypothetical population.

Results: For breast cancer patients, we observed a sensitivity of ever-night shifts of 86.2% and a specificity of never-night shifts of 82.6%. For controls, the sensitivity was 80.6% and the specificity 83.7%. Odds ratio for breast cancer in a hypothetical population decreased from 1.12 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.21] to 1.05 (95% CI 0.95-1.16) when corrected by the sensitivity and specificity estimates.

Conclusion: This study shows that female breast cancer patients had slightly better recall of previous night shift work than controls. Additionally, both breast cancer patients and controls recalled previous never-night shift work with low specificity. The net effect of this misclassification is a small over-estimation of the relative breast cancer risk due to night shift work.