Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology最新文献

Background: Pest control workers may be exposed to zoonotic pathogens during their work, yet data on the prevalence of zoonotic infections in this occupational group in Germany is scarce. This study investigated the seroprevalence of antibodies against four pathogens commonly transmitted by rodents and pigeons among pest control workers in Germany.

Methods: Blood samples of participants were analysed for antibodies against hantavirus, Leptospira, lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus (LCM virus) and Chlamydia psittaci. Additional data was collected using a questionnaire.

Results: Among the 154 participants, five were seropositive for hantavirus (3.2%), seven for Leptospira (4.6%) and two for Chlamydia psittaci (1.5%). No participants tested positive for LCM virus. Seropositive participants were mostly male (85.7%), aged 31-63 years and were predominantly engaged in field service pest control activities (85.7%). Both highly experienced (> 20 years of experience) and fairly inexperienced (< 1 year of experience) workers were affected. Notably, 42.9% of seropositive participants reported no or only occasional occupational exposure to the respective reservoir species. Most reported only occasional use of personal protective equipment (57.1%). Self-rated knowledge of zoonotic diseases was most commonly rated as moderate (50.0%) or good (42.9%).

Conclusion: Seroprevalence of antibodies against hantavirus, Leptospira, LCM virus, and Chlamydia psittaci was low among pest control workers in Germany. This may be indicative of effective infection control in this occupational group. Workers should receive intensified, regular training to further strengthen their knowledge of zoonotic diseases and improve adherence to precautionary measures.

Background: Falls from heights are a leading cause of occupational injury and death globally, with construction workers disproportionately affected. In South Africa, employers must ensure that workers performing fall-risk tasks are certified as fit to work at heights, yet regulations provide little guidance on how such assessments should be conducted. Within a broader two-phase research project undertaken by the authors, Phase 1 comprised a scoping review that identified limited peer-reviewed evidence and a lack of standardised frameworks for assessing fitness for work at heights, followed by a qualitative study that found inconsistent, predominantly medicalised assessment practices that inadequately reflect job-specific risks and demands. In response, a draft interdisciplinary consensus statement was developed. This study reports Phase 2, a structured expert consensus process undertaken to systematically revise and consolidate the draft consensus statement.

Methods: A virtual Modified Nominal Group Technique was conducted with six experts from occupational medicine, occupational health nursing, occupational therapy, and construction health and safety. Participants reviewed the draft consensus statement prior to a facilitated online discussion, followed by an anonymous post-session rating survey. Quantitative ratings were analysed using medians and interquartile ranges against predefined consensus criteria, while qualitative data from transcripts, field notes, and participant annotations were analysed using directed qualitative content analysis.

Results: Consensus was achieved on 20 of 27 items, indicating strong support for the draft statement's overall structure and intent. Items not reaching consensus mainly concerned definitional clarity, occupational risk-exposure profiling, and follow-up procedures. Revisions focused on clarifying terminology; strengthening guidance on occupational risk exposure and worker-job specification; recognising behavioural and psychosocial factors alongside physical, cognitive, and environmental considerations; and introducing the concept of a competent, registered and authorised person.

Conclusions: This study presents an interdisciplinary consensus statement, developed through expert consensus, providing a principles- and process-based framework for assessing fitness for work at heights. It promotes consistent, transparent, job-specific, risk-based fitness assessments beyond generic medical certification. Future efforts should focus on translating this framework into practical tools and evaluating its feasibility across various construction settings.