Search

(1) Background: Aspergillus spp. is a widely distributed filamentous fungus in the environment due to its high sporulation capacity. Currently, invasive aspergillosis (IA) is the most common invasive fungal infection in patients with hematologic malignancies, with high rates of mortality and morbidity. The multifactorial nature of the disease requires appropriate risk stratification to enable the most appropriate preventive measures to be adapted and implemented according to the characteristics of the patient. In this sense, the present research aims to identify recent risk factors and environmental control measures against invasive aspergillosis to establish preventive actions to reduce the incidence of invasive aspergillosis in hospitals. (2) Methods: We conducted a qualitative systematic review of the scientific literature on environmental risk factors and preventive measures for invasive aspergillosis in patients with hematologic malignancies. The Medline, Cochrane, and Scopus databases were consulted, following the PRISMA and STROBE guidelines. (3) Results: Adequate implementation of environmental control measures is presented as the most efficient intervention in terms of prevention to decrease the incidence of invasive aspergillosis in hospitals. Neutropenia, fungal contamination, insufficient environmental control measures in hospital and home settings, length of hospital stay, and anemia, are identified as independent risk factors. We show that HEPA, LAF, and Plasmair® systems are suitable methods to reduce the concentration of airborne fungal spores. Antifungal prophylaxis did not significantly influence IA reduction in our study. (4) Conclusions: Proper professional training and environmental control measures in hospitals are essential for the prevention of invasive aspergillosis. We should optimize risk stratification for patients with hematologic malignancies. Antifungal prophylaxis should be complementary to environmental control measures and should never be substituted for the latter. Studies should also be undertaken to evaluate the efficiency of environmental control measures against IA at patients’ homes.

Objectives: To validate the items of the Emotional Impact Questionnaire coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) related to risk perception, estimating its degree, among healthcare workers in the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic, identifying possible associated factors.Methods: cross-sectional study in 1872 healthcare workers of Brazil. The population was characterized by sociodemographic and occupational information, knowledge about COVID-19, quality of information received, risk perception and preventive measures about the disease, and sense of coherence. Results: Being divorced, having a chronic disease, spending more than 1 h per day getting informed about COVID-19, and always or almost always wearing a mask regardless of symptoms, as well as self-perception of health were associated with high-risk perception. An inverse association was found between risk perception, sense of coherence and not knowing if one has had occasional contact with confirmed COVID-19 cases. Conclusion: Risk perception is influenced by emotions, experiences, and knowledge. Sense of coherence and resilience have a role in reducing risk perception. Understanding risk perception is crucial for developing effective strategies to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and other similar scenarios.

BackgroundCOVID-19 pandemic imposed drastic and abrupt changes to working environment and organization and that might have caused additional negative effects on mental health. Thus, this study aimed to quantify and assess the severity of psychological distress experienced by Brazilian essential and nonessential workers during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsThis descriptive study included 2,903 participants who answered an online questionnaire between April and May 2020. The research questionnaire was translated and culturally adapted to the Brazilian population from a questionnaire developed and validated for the Spanish population. Variables were analyzed using simple and cumulative percentage distributions and measures of central tendency and dispersion. The Wilson score interval was used to calculate confidence interval (CI) for the main outcome, psychological distress.ResultsIt was observed a high prevalence (72.6%) of psychological distress among the study’s participants. They also presented a median risk perception score of 60 (out of a maximum of 90), and their greatest concern was transmitting the virus to family members, close contacts or patients. Furthermore, it was found a lower sense of coherence and work engagement among the participants than those observed in previous studies conducted in other countries.ConclusionAlmost three quarters of the study’s participants were classified as presenting psychological distress. Thus, it is imperative to provide mental health remotely delivered interventions to workers during public health events that require prolonged social distancing measures.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, a major impact on the mental health of the population has been observed, with women being one of the most affected groups. From the lockdown to “de-escalation” phases, sex differences have been recognised as significant determinants of mental health. Thus, equally ensuring physical and mental protection at work remains one of the challenges faced by industrial companies, especially in the construction sector, where the percentage of employed women has increased in recent years. This study aims to examine the impact of sex differences on psychological distress and work engagement in the productive construction sector, as well as related variables. For this, a cross-sectional descriptive study was performed. Descriptive statistical analyses were completed, and non-parametric Mann-Whitney U and Chi-squared tests were used to identify differences between men and women. This was followed by logistic regression analysis by sex. Psychological distress is more prevalent among women, even after controlling for most variables. Both sexes receive equal preventive measures and training from the companies, yet women still experience higher levels of psychological distress. At the beginning of the pandemic, women reported higher levels of anxiety and fear of COVID-19 and of perceived danger associated with the pandemic than men. However, these differences were not present by 2023. For men, work engagement appeared to be a determining factor for a stable mental health, while for women, health and physical status seemed to be more influential. In both sexes, psychological distress was found to be conditioned by mental and emotional well-being. In a sector where women are increasingly present, the differences observed in terms of how physical and mental health are affected across the two sexes justify the need to promote data analysis that acknowledges this reality.

ObjectivesThe aim of this review was to assess the possible risk factors arising from working conditions, that could have an impact on the stress, fear, and anxiety of construction workers.MethodsA systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA format in the Pubmed, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, and PsycInfo electronic databases on February 3, 2023, using the following key words: anxiety, stress, fear, and construction workers. Methodological quality was assessed using the critical appraisal tools of the Joanna Briggs Institute.ResultsA total of 35 studies were included. The results showed a number of conditioning factors for stress, anxiety, and fear among construction workers such as age, inappropriate safety equipment, safety culture, high workload and long working hours, physical pain, low social support from direct supervisor or co-workers, lack of organizational justice and lack of reward, financial situation, maladaptive coping strategies, and characteristics of the pandemic.ConclusionsThere are a number of risk factors related to working conditions, organizations, and individuals that can affect the levels of stress, anxiety, and fear among construction workers, such as age, work hardship, safety culture and, especially, the long hours that construction professionals work. This may lead to an increase in the number of occupational accidents and higher associated fatality rates.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022367724, identifier: CRD42022367724.

Objective: To assess the risk factors perceived as stressors by pregnant women in the work environment and the possible adverse consequences of such exposure for the normal development of pregnancy.Methods: Systematic review, guided by the PRISMA guidelines, and using Pubmed, Web of Science, Dialnet, SciELO, and REDIB databases. Methodological quality was assessed using the critical appraisal tools for non-randomised studies of the Joanna Briggs Institute.Results: A total of 38 studies were included. The main risk factors found in the work environment of pregnant women were chemical, psychosocial, physical-ergonomic-mechanical factors, and other work-related factors. The main adverse consequences of exposure to these factors include low birth weight, preterm birth, miscarriage, hypertension and pre-eclampsia, as well as various obstetric complications.Conclusion: During pregnancy, working conditions that are considered acceptable in normal situations may not be so during this stage due to the major changes that occur during pregnancy. Many obstetric effects may have an important impact in the mother’s psychological status; therefore, it is important to optimise working conditions during this stage and to reduce or eliminate possible risks.