Search

Additional file 2.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to investigate the exposure-risk relationship between psychosocial occupational stress and mental illness. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review with meta-analyses as an update of a systematic review published in 2014. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020170032). Literature searches were carried out in the MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Embase databases. All procedural steps were performed independently by two reviewers; discordances were solved by consensus. All of the included full texts were subject to a methodological appraisal. Certainty of evidence was determined with the GRADE procedure. RESULTS: The pooled risk of depression was found to be approximately doubled in workers exposed to high job strain, which is defined as high work demands combined with low job control (effect estimate [EE] = 1.99, 95% CI [1.68; 2.35], heterogeneity [I2] = 24.7%, n = 8). In particular, high work demands are associated with incident depression (ES = 13.8 [1.19; 1.61], I2 = 69.0%, n = 9) and with incident anxiety disorder (ES = 1.79 [1.44; 2.23], I2 = 48.1%, n = 5). There were only a small number of methodologically adequate studies available on burnout, somatoform disorders, suicidal ideation, and suicide. Thus, no pooled risk estimates were calculated, although some individual studies showed a considerably increased risk. CONCLUSION: Psychosocial occupational stress is clearly associated with depression and anxiety disorders.

In this scoping review, we study stigmatization in association with work due to new infectious respiratory diseases, especially SARS-CoV-2.

A number of epidemiological studies report an association between occupational noise exposure and arterial hypertension. Existing systematic reviews report conflicting results, so we conducted an updated systematic review with meta-analysis. We registered the review protocol with PROSPERO (registration no.: CRD 42019147923) and searched for observational epidemiological studies in literature databases (Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science). Two independent reviewers screened the titles/abstracts and full texts of the studies. Two reviewers also did the quality assessment and data extraction. Studies without adequate information on recruitment, response, or without a comparison group that was exposed to occupational noise under 80 dB(A) were excluded. The literature search yielded 4583 studies, and 58 studies were found through hand searching. Twenty-four studies were included in the review. The meta-analysis found a pooled effect size (ES) for hypertension (systolic/diastolic blood pressure ≥140/90 mmHg) due to noise exposures ≥80 dB(A) of 1.81 (95% CI 1.51–2.18). There is no substantial risk difference between men and women, but data concerning this question are limited. We found a positive dose-response-relationship: ES = 1.21 (95% CI 0.78–1.87) ≤ 80 dB(A), ES = 1.77 (95% CI 1.36–2.29) > 80–≤85 dB(A), and ES = 3.50 (95% CI 1.56–7.86) > 85–≤90 dB(A). We found high quality of evidence that occupational noise exposure increases the risk of hypertension.

Recent evidence suggests that traffic noise may negatively impact mental health. However, existing systematic reviews provide an incomplete overview of the effects of all traffic noise sources on mental health. We conducted a systematic literature search and summarized the evidence for road, railway, or aircraft noise-related risks of depression, anxiety, cognitive decline, and dementia among adults. We included 31 studies (26 on depression and/or anxiety disorders, 5 on dementia). The meta-analysis of five aircraft noise studies found that depression risk increased significantly by 12% per 10 dB LDEN (Effect Size = 1.12, 95% CI 1.02–1.23). The meta-analyses of road (11 studies) and railway traffic noise (3 studies) indicated 2–3% (not statistically significant) increases in depression risk per 10 dB LDEN. Results for road traffic noise related anxiety were similar. We did not find enough studies to meta-analyze anxiety and railway or aircraft noise, and dementia/ cognitive impairment and any traffic noise. In conclusion, aircraft noise exposure increases the risk for depression. Otherwise, we did not detect statistically significant risk increases due to road and railway traffic noise or for anxiety. More research on the association of cognitive disorders and traffic noise is required. Public policies to reduce environmental traffic noise might not only increase wellness (by reducing noise-induced annoyance), but might contribute to the prevention of depression and anxiety disorders.

Objective: In this systematic review, we aimed to summarize the evidence on the association between being a daycare educator working with children and the possible increased risk of parvovirus B19 infection compared to the general population. Methods: The Medline and Embase databases were searched using a defined search to find studies published since 2000. Two reviewers evaluated the search hits using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The resulting studies were extracted and were assessed in eight domains of bias. A pooled relative risk (RR) of parvovirus infection for daycare workers compared to the general population was calculated. Results: After evaluating the 7781 search hits and manual search, four methodologically-adequate studies were identified: three cross-sectional studies and one retrospective cohort study. Of the three studies investigating the risk of infection, one evaluated parvovirus B19 seroconversion rates for daycare workers. There was an indication for an increased risk for daycare workers compared to the unexposed population (RR = 1.12, 95% CI 0.98–1.27) using prevalence estimators. Furthermore, daycare workers had a higher seroconversion rate compared to the unexposed population (RR = 2.63, 95% CI 1.27–5.45) in the low risk of bias study. Conclusions: Our findings suggest a higher risk of parvovirus B19 infection for daycare workers compared to an unexposed comparison population, which necessitate preventative efforts. Considering the underestimation of the occupational seroconversion risk by prevalence-based estimators, parvovirus B19 infections among daycare workers might mostly be occupationally acquired.

Table S1. Cumulative exposure percentiles of the male reference population restricted to individuals ≥50 years. (DOC 28 kb)

Multiple epidemiological studies have revealed an association between occupational physical strain and the risk of developing hip osteoarthritis.To determine the association between the lifting and carrying of heavy loads or other physically demanding work and the risk of hip osteoarthritis (HOA) or total hip replacement (THR), we systematically searched the literature for primary studies on the effects of exposure to physical strain and meta-analytically reviewed the results that were amenable to comparisons across studies. We separately assessed studies that had hip pain as an endpoint.5 cohort studies and 18 case-control studies were found suitable for inclusion. The lifting of heavy loads increases the risk of HOA or THR: exposure doubles the risk in men (relative risk [RR] 2.09, 95% confidence interval [1.4; 3.1]) and increases it by roughly 40% in women (RR 1.41 [1.0; 1.9]). Physically demanding work consisting of a combination of activities of various kinds (dealing with heavy loads, heavy manual work, or prolonged walking and standing) increases the risk by roughly 150% in men (RR 2.46 [1.3; 4.8]) and 40% in women (RR 1.38 [0.9; 2.2]). Hip pain was also reported more commonly in the exposed groups.The studies are moderately to highly heterogeneous. An association exists between years of lifting heavy loads or other kinds of physical strain on the job and the risk of developing osteoarthritis of the hip. The greater the exposure, the greater the risk. The evidence base for risk assessment in women is currently inadequate.

Background According to international study results, physical therapists are afflicted with work-related musculoskeletal, psychosocial and dermal disorders as well as infections. The few existing studies in German-speaking regions focus mainly on dermal and psychosocial exposures and resulting complaints. An overview of all relevant work-related exposures and complaints of physical therapists is currently lacking. We sought to identify work-related exposures based on the subjective experiences and beliefs of physiotherapeutic representatives, in order to identify relevant work-related complaints and diseases. Likewise we aimed to compare the international evidence with the actual situation of physical therapists in Germany. Methods Two complementary qualitative approaches were used: 1) a focus group discussion with representatives of professional physiotherapy associations as well as health and safety stakeholders and 2) qualitative semi-structured telephone interviews incorporating currently employed physical therapists. The group discussion was conducted applying a moderation technique, and interviews were analyzed using the content analysis approach by Mayring. Results The focus group discussion with five participants and the 40 semi-structured interviews with physical therapists identified comparable results. The main exposures of physiotherapeutic work were considered to be musculoskeletal (e.g., awkward body postures during treatment, patient transfers, passive mobilization), psychosocial (e.g., statutory audit of prescriptions and the associated conflicts with doctors and health insurance providers) and partly dermal and infectious (e.g., wet work and risk of infection) factors. Diseases of the spine, wrist or finger joints, burnout syndrome and infections were mentioned as possible consequences. Conclusions The subjective data generated by both groups (focus group discussion and interviews) were comparable and consistent with the current state of research. The results provide new insight regarding work-related exposures and diseases of physical therapists working in Germany. These findings aided the design of a German-wide representative survey of practicing physical therapists.

The Kinaesthetics care conception is a nursing approach for patient handling which aims to prevent work-related complaints and diseases. The evidence about the influence of Kinaesthetics on musculoskeletal disorders among persons who handle patients is unclear to date. The purposes of the scoping review are to gain insight into the current state of research regarding the clinical effectiveness of Kinaesthetics (in terms of perceived exertion and musculoskeletal complaints) among persons who handle patients and to identify potential research gaps. A scoping review was conducted. The search strategy comprised a systematic search in electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL), a hand search, a fast forward search (Web of Science) and a Google scholar-search. The review process was carried out independently by two reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed for all studies using three methodological main categories (reporting quality, internal validity, external validity). Thirteen studies with different study designs were included. Seven studies investigated musculoskeletal complaints and nine studies the perceived exertion of nursing staff. Most studies were of very low methodology. Most studies reported a decrease of musculoskeletal complaints and perceived exertion due to Kinaesthetics. In conclusion, there is only little evidence of very low quality about the effectiveness of Kinaesthetics. Out of the studies it could be assumed that Kinaesthetics may decrease the patient handling related perceived exertion and musculoskeletal pain of persons who handle patients. But an overestimation of these results is likely, due to inadequate methodology of included studies. As a result, no clear recommendations about the effectiveness of the Kinaesthetics care conception can be made yet. Since a research gap was shown, further high quality intervention studies are necessary for clarifying the effectiveness of Kinaesthetics.