The prevalence of occupational exposure to noise: A systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury

An exploration of biomarkers for noise exposure: mitochondrial DNA copy number and micronucleus frequencies in Chinese workers

Few studies have been conducted that use biomarkers as early warning signals for noise-associated health hazards. To explore potentially effective biomarkers for noise-exposed populations, we recruited 218 noise-exposed male workers in China. We calculated cumulative noise exposure (CNE) through noise intensity and noise-exposed duration. When the model was fully adjusted, ln-transformed relative mitochondrial DNA copy number (mtDNAcn) decreased by 0.014 (95% confidence interval (CI): -0.026, -0.003) units with each 1 dB(A)∙year increase in CNE levels. CNE was further included in the model as a grouping variable, and the results showed a negative dose-effect relationship between relative mtDNAcn and CNE (P-trend = 0.045). However, we did not find a correlation between CNE and micronucleus (MN) frequencies. Our findings suggest that CNE in workers was associated with a decrease in relative mtDNAcn which may provide a potential biomarker for noise and for certain health risk but not with MN frequencies.

Work-related diseases and risk factors associated with work-related musculoskeletal disorders among unionized metal industry workers: a cross-sectional study

Objectives. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of work-related diseases (WRDs) and work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WR-MSDs), as well as investigate WR-MSD-associated risk factors, among metal industry workers in Turkey. Methods. The cross-sectional study was conducted with 1374 members of the Birleşik Metal İş Union from 121 companies. Data were collected using a self-administered 30-item questionnaire. Results. The survey response rate was 81.4% (1374/1686). Almost one out of every six workers (14.8%) stated that they had been diagnosed with a WRD, 3.6% reported that they had been diagnosed with an occupational disease and 38.6% of them indicated that they had suffered an occupational accident (OA) at least once. The prevalence of WR-MSDs was 10.7%, of work-related lung diseases was 1.8% and of occupational hearing loss was 0.6%. Quitting smoking, smoking, OA, heavy lifting, time pressure and working in the automotive industry were all associated with WR-MSDs. Conclusions. Interventions aimed at reducing musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) should focus on smoking cessation, training workers in proper techniques and equipment for lifting and pushing/pulling heavy loads, preventing OAs and injuries, and reducing the time pressure in the workplace in the metal industry.

Occupational noise and hypertension in Southern Chinese workers: a large occupational population-based study

INTRODUCTION

An increasing number of original studies suggested that occupational noise exposure might be associated with the risk of hypertension, but the results remain inconsistent and inconclusive. In addition, the attributable fraction (AF) of occupational noise exposure has not been well quantified. We aimed to conduct a large-scale occupational population-based study to comprehensively investigate the relationship between occupational noise exposure and blood pressure and different hypertension subtypes and to estimate the AF for hypertension burden attributable to occupational noise exposure.

METHODS

A total of 715,135 workers aged 18-60 years were included in this study based on the Key Occupational Diseases Surveillance Project of Guangdong in 2020. Multiple linear regression was performed to explore the relationships of occupational noise exposure status, the combination of occupational noise exposure and binaural high frequency threshold on average (BHFTA) with systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP, DBP). Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the relationshipassociation between occupational noise exposure status, occupational noise exposure combined with BHFTA and hypertension. Furthermore, the attributable risk (AR) was calculated to estimate the hypertension burden attributed to occupational exposure to noise.

RESULTS

The prevalence of hypertension among occupational noise-exposed participants was 13·7%. SBP and DBP were both significantly associated with the occupational noise exposure status and classification of occupational noise exposure combined with BHFTA in the crude and adjusted models (all P < 0·0001). Compared with workers without occupational noise exposure, the risk of hypertension was 50% greater among those exposed to occupational noise in the adjusted model (95% CI 1·42-1·58). For participants of occupational noise exposed with BHFTA normal, and occupational noise exposed with BHFTA elevated, the corresponding risks of hypertension were 48% (1·41-1·56) and 56% (1·46-1·63) greater than those of occupational noise non-exposed with BHFTA normal, respectively. A similar association was found in isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) and prehypertension. Subgroup analysis by sex and age showed that the positive associations between occupational noise exposure and hypertension remained statistically significant across all subgroups (all P < 0.001). Significant interactions between occupational noise status, classification of occupational noise exposure combined with BHFTA, and age in relation to hypertension risk were identified (all P for interaction < 0.001). The associations of occupational noise status, classification of occupational noise exposure combined with BHFTA and hypertension were most pronounced in the 18-29 age groups. The AR% of occupational noise exposure for hypertension was 28·05% in the final adjusted model.

CONCLUSIONS

Occupational noise exposure was positively associated with blood pressure levels and the prevalence of hypertension, ISH, and prehypertension in a large occupational population-based study. A significantly increased risk of hypertension was found even in individuals with normal BHFTA exposed to occupational noise, with a further elevated risk observed in those with elevated BHFTA. Our findings provide epidemiological evidence for key groups associated with occupational noise exposure and hypertension, and more than one-fourth of hypertension cases would have been prevented by avoiding occupational noise exposure.

Occupational Risk Factors for Stroke: A Comprehensive Review

For primary prevention, it is important for public health and clinical medicine to identify and characterize modifiable risk factors of stroke. In existing literature, the impact of occupational variables on ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke has been extensively studied. This review summarizes the available data on the significance of occupational variables in stroke. The results of this review suggest that there is sufficient evidence for the relationship between increased risk of stroke and job stress, working in extreme temperatures, long working hours, and/or shift work. The association between long working hours and occupational exposure to noise and chemicals remains inconclusive although several studies have reported this finding. This review will act as a step toward future research and provide information that may serve as a baseline for developing targeted interventions to prevent stroke in the working population.

The prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres (silica, asbestos and coal): A systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large number of individual experts. Evidence from human, animal and mechanistic data suggests that occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres (silica, asbestos and coal dust) causes pneumoconiosis. In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust. These estimates of prevalences and levels will serve as input data for estimating (if feasible) the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years that are attributable to occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust among working-age (≥ 15 years) workers.

DATA SOURCES

We searched electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Ovid Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and CISDOC. We also searched electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consulted additional experts.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA

We included working-age (≥ 15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but excluded children (< 15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. We included all study types with objective dust or fibre measurements, published between 1960 and 2018, that directly or indirectly reported an estimate of the prevalence and/or level of occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and/or coal dust.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, then data were extracted from qualifying studies. We combined prevalence estimates by industrial sector (ISIC-4 2-digit level with additional merging within Mining, Manufacturing and Construction) using random-effects meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias and all available authors assessed the quality of evidence, using the ROB-SPEO tool and QoE-SPEO approach developed specifically for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight studies (82 cross-sectional studies and 6 longitudinal studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising > 2.4 million measurements covering 23 countries from all WHO regions (Africa, Americas, Eastern Mediterranean, South-East Asia, Europe, and Western Pacific). The target population in all 88 included studies was from major ISCO groups 3 (Technicians and Associate Professionals), 6 (Skilled Agricultural, Forestry and Fishery Workers), 7 (Craft and Related Trades Workers), 8 (Plant and Machine Operators and Assemblers), and 9 (Elementary Occupations), hereafter called manual workers. Most studies were performed in Construction, Manufacturing and Mining. For occupational exposure to silica, 65 studies (61 cross-sectional studies and 4 longitudinal studies) were included with > 2.3 million measurements collected in 22 countries in all six WHO regions. For occupational exposure to asbestos, 18 studies (17 cross-sectional studies and 1 longitudinal) were included with > 20,000 measurements collected in eight countries in five WHO regions (no data for Africa). For occupational exposure to coal dust, eight studies (all cross-sectional) were included comprising > 100,000 samples in six countries in five WHO regions (no data for Eastern Mediterranean). Occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust was assessed with personal or stationary active filter sampling; for silica and asbestos, gravimetric assessment was followed by technical analysis. Risk of bias profiles varied between the bodies of evidence looking at asbestos, silica and coal dust, as well as between industrial sectors. However, risk of bias was generally highest for the domain of selection of participants into the studies. The largest bodies of evidence for silica related to the industrial sectors of Construction (ISIC 41-43), Manufacturing (ISIC 20, 23-25, 27, 31-32) and Mining (ISIC 05, 07, 08). For Construction, the pooled prevalence estimate was 0.89 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.93, 17 studies, I2 91%, moderate quality of evidence) and the level estimate was rated as of very low quality of evidence. For Manufacturing, the pooled prevalence estimate was 0.85 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.91, 24 studies, I2 100%, moderate quality of evidence) and the pooled level estimate was rated as of very low quality of evidence. The pooled prevalence estimate for Mining was 0.75 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.82, 20 studies, I2 100%, moderate quality of evidence) and the pooled level estimate was 0.04 mg/m3 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.05, 17 studies, I2 100%, low quality of evidence). Smaller bodies of evidence were identified for Crop and animal production (ISIC 01; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); Professional, scientific and technical activities (ISIC 71, 74; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); and Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (ISIC 35; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level). For asbestos, the pooled prevalence estimate for Construction (ISIC 41, 43, 45,) was 0.77 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.87, six studies, I2 99%, low quality of evidence) and the level estimate was rated as of very low quality of evidence. For Manufacturing (ISIC 13, 23-24, 29-30), the pooled prevalence and level estimates were rated as being of very low quality of evidence. Smaller bodies of evidence were identified for Other mining and quarrying (ISIC 08; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (ISIC 35; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); and Water supply, sewerage, waste management and remediation (ISIC 37; very low quality of evidence for levels). For coal dust, the pooled prevalence estimate for Mining of coal and lignite (ISIC 05), was 1.00 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.00, six studies, I2 16%, moderate quality of evidence) and the pooled level estimate was 0.77 mg/m3 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.86, three studies, I2 100%, low quality of evidence). A small body of evidence was identified for Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (ISIC 35); with very low quality of evidence for prevalence, and the pooled level estimate being 0.60 mg/m3 (95% CI -6.95 to 8.14, one study, low quality of evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, we judged the bodies of evidence for occupational exposure to silica to vary by industrial sector between very low and moderate quality of evidence for prevalence, and very low and low for level. For occupational exposure to asbestos, the bodies of evidence varied by industrial sector between very low and low quality of evidence for prevalence and were of very low quality of evidence for level. For occupational exposure to coal dust, the bodies of evidence were of very low or moderate quality of evidence for prevalence, and low for level. None of the included studies were population-based studies (i.e., covered the entire workers' population in the industrial sector), which we judged to present serious concern for indirectness, except for occupational exposure to coal dust within the industrial sector of mining of coal and lignite. Selected estimates of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to silica by industrial sector are considered suitable as input data for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates, and selected estimates of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to asbestos and coal dust may perhaps also be suitable for estimation purposes. Protocol identifier: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.06.005. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018084131.

Occupational Risk Factors by Sectors: An Observational Study of 20,000 Workers

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the prevalence of exposure by sector and the sectors of activity most exposed to each exposure, using routine occupational health data, and to quantify the risk of being exposed.

METHOD

Occupational risk factors were assessed by workers followed by the Occupational Health Service of Cher, using self-reported questionnaires. The sectors of activity were grouped into seven sectors, and the risks were grouped into six occupational exposure groups. Comparisons were made using the Chi-squared test and Cramer's V, and the odds ratios were calculated by using logistic regression.

RESULTS

We included 19,891 workers. The construction sector had the highest prevalence (p < 0.05 vs. all other sectors) of exposure to physical (76%) and biomechanical factors (82%), as well as chemical risks (75%). Human health and social work was the sector with the highest prevalence of exposure to biological factors (69%), psychosocial factors (90%), and atypical working hours (61%). With workers from administrative and support sectors as the reference, construction workers had more chance of declaring exposure to physical factors (OR = 3.28, 95%CI = 2.89 to 3.72), biomechanical factors (1.82, 1.58 to 2.09), and chemical agents (3.83, 3.38 to 4.33). Workers from the human health and social sectors had more chance of being exposed to biological agents (13.4, 11.9 to 15.2), atypical working hours (1.93, 1.75 to 2.14), and psychosocial factors (2.74, 2.38 to 3.16).

CONCLUSION

Psychosocial risk factors were commonly reported in all sectors. Workers in the construction, human health, and social sectors seem to report more exposures than those in other sectors. The analysis of occupational exposures is a necessary basis to build an efficient preventive strategy for occupational health.

Estimating the population exposed to a risk factor over a time window: A microsimulation modelling approach from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury

OBJECTIVES

Burden of disease estimation commonly requires estimates of the population exposed to a risk factor over a time window (yeart to yeart+n). We present a microsimulation modelling approach for producing such estimates and apply it to calculate the population exposed to long working hours for one country (Italy).

METHODS

We developed a three-model approach: Model 1, a multilevel model, estimates exposure to the risk factor at the first year of the time window (yeart). Model 2, a regression model, estimates transition probabilities between exposure categories during the time window (yeart to yeart+n). Model 3, a microsimulation model, estimates the exposed population over the time window, using the Monte Carlo method. The microsimulation is carried out in three steps: (a) a representative synthetic population is initiated in the first year of the time window using prevalence estimates from Model 1, (b) the exposed population is simulated over the time window using the transition probabilities from Model 2; and (c) the population is censored for deaths during the time window.

RESULTS

We estimated the population exposed to long working hours (i.e. 41-48, 49-54 and ≥55 hours/week) over a 10-year time window (2002-11) in Italy. We populated all three models with official data from Labour Force Surveys, United Nations population estimates and World Health Organization life tables. Estimates were produced of populations exposed over the time window, disaggregated by sex and 5-year age group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our modelling approach for estimating the population exposed to a risk factor over a time window is simple, versatile, and flexible. It however requires longitudinal exposure data and Model 3 (the microsimulation model) is stochastic. The approach can improve accuracy and transparency in exposure and burden of disease estimations. To improve the approach, a logical next step is changing Model 3 to a deterministic microsimulation method, such as modelling of microflows.

The effect of occupational exposure to welding fumes on trachea, bronchus and lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are the producers of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates). Welding fumes have been classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1) by the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in IARC Monograph 118; this assessment found sufficient evidence from studies in humans that welding fumes are a cause of lung cancer. In this article, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of parameters for estimating the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer attributable to occupational exposure to welding fumes, to inform the development of WHO/ILO Joint Estimates on this burden of disease (if considered feasible).

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of any (or high) occupational exposure to welding fumes, compared with no (or low) occupational exposure to welding fumes, on trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer (three outcomes: prevalence, incidence, and mortality).

DATA SOURCES

We developed and published a protocol, applying the Navigation Guide as an organizing systematic review framework where feasible. We searched electronic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL and CISDOC. We also searched grey literature databases, Internet search engines, and organizational websites; hand-searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews; and consulted additional experts.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA

We included working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any Member State of WHO and/or ILO but excluded children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. We included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the effect of any (or high) occupational exposure to welding fumes, compared with occupational exposure to no (or low) welding fumes, on trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer (prevalence, incidence, and mortality).

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first review stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. If studies reported odds ratios, these were converted to risk ratios (RRs). We combined all RRs using random-effects meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias, quality of evidence, and strength of evidence, using the Navigation Guide tools and approaches adapted to this project. Subgroup (e.g., by WHO region and sex) and sensitivity analyses (e.g., studies judged to be of "high"/"probably high" risk of bias compared with "low"/"probably low" risk of bias) were conducted.

RESULTS

Forty-one records from 40 studies (29 case control studies and 11 cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising over 1,265,512 participants (≥22,761 females) in 21 countries in three WHO regions (Region of the Americas, European Region, and Western Pacific Region). The exposure and outcome were generally assessed by job title or self-report, and medical or administrative records, respectively. Across included studies, risk of bias was overall generally probably low/low, with risk judged high or probably high for several studies in the domains for misclassification bias and confounding. Our search identified no evidence on the outcome of having trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer (prevalence). Compared with no (or low) occupational exposure to welding fumes, any (or high) occupational exposure to welding fumes increased the risk of acquiring trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer (incidence) by an estimated 48 % (RR 1.48, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.29-1.70, 23 studies, 57,931 participants, I² 24 %; moderate quality of evidence). Compared with no (or low) occupational exposure to welding fumes, any (or high) occupational exposure to welding fumes increased the risk dying from trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer (mortality) by an estimated 27 % (RR 1.27, 95 % CI 1.04-1.56, 3 studies, 8,686 participants, I² 0 %; low quality of evidence). Our subgroup analyses found no evidence for difference by WHO region and sex. Sensitivity analyses supported the main analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, for incidence and mortality of trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer, we judged the existing body of evidence for human data as "sufficient evidence of harmfulness" and "limited evidence of harmfulness", respectively. Occupational exposure to welding fumes increased the risk of acquiring and dying from trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer. Producing estimates for the burden of trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer attributable to any (or high) occupational exposure to welding fumes appears evidence-based, and the pooled effect estimates presented in this systematic review could be used as input data for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. PROTOCOL IDENTIFIER: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106089.

Association between noise exposure during pregnancy and pregnancy complications: A meta-analysis

Background

Noise exposure has a significant impact on human health. However, the effect of occupational and residential noise on the risk of pregnancy complications was controversial in the literature. This study looked at previous research and performed a meta-analysis to determine how noise exposure during pregnancy affected the risk of pregnancy complications.

Methods

Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, Ovid, and Cochrane, and all relevant studies were included. Two investigators independently evaluated the eligibility of these studies. The risk of bias in each study and the quality and strength of each outcome was evaluated by using the GRADE approach and Navigation Guide. Random effects meta-analysis model was used.

Results

The meta-analysis retrieved 1,461 study records and finally included 11 studies. Occupational noise exposure during pregnancy was associated with preeclampsia (RR = 1.07, 95%CI: 1.04, 1.10). Neither occupational nor residential noise exposure was associated with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) (RR = 1.10, 95%CI: 0.96, 1.25 and RR = 1.05, 95%CI: 0.98, 1.11) or gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) (RR = 0.94, 95%CI: 0.88, 1.00 and RR = 1.06, 95%CI: 0.98, 1.16). Further bias analysis showed that the results were reliable. All outcomes were rated as low in quality and inadequate evidence of harmfulness in strength.

Conclusions

Occupational noise exposure could increase the risk of preeclampsia, according to the findings. There was no clear evidence of a harmful effect of noise exposure during pregnancy on HDP or GDM.

Relationship Between Occupational Noise and Hypertension in Modern Enterprise Workers: A Case–Control Study

Objective: The association between occupational noise exposure and hypertension is controversial. Thus, we aimed to assess the relationship between occupational noise exposure and hypertension.

Methods: This was a case‒control study, and 509 cases and 1,018 controls from an automobile company were included between July and October 2013. Occupational noise exposure was defined as exposure to noise level ≥80 dB(A) (Lex, 8 h) or cumulative noise exposure (CNE) ≥ 80 dB(A)-years. To assess the associations of noise level and CNE with hypertension, univariate and multivariate logistic regression were performed to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The restricted cubic spline function was used to establish dose‒response curves.

Results: A noise level ≥80 dB (A) (Lex, 8 h) was significantly associated with hypertension (OR 2.48, 95% CI 1.89–3.24). CNE ≥80 dB (A)-years was significantly associated with hypertension (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.18–2.00). Nonlinear relationships between noise level, CNE and hypertension were found (p- nonlinear<0.05).

Conclusion: Our study suggests that occupational noise exposure is a potential risk factor for hypertension in automobile company workers.

Occupational risk factors for hypertension

The identification and characterization of the modifiable risk factors of hypertension is of great value for public health and clinical medicine to achieve primary prevention. A large amount of literature on the effects of occupational factors on blood pressure and hypertension has been published. In this review, I summarize current evidence regarding the role of occupational factors in hypertension. The results of this review suggest that there is sufficient evidence to support the association between increased risk of hypertension and job stress, shift work, occupational lead exposure, and noise exposure. The association of hypertension with physical inactivity, sedentary behavior, and occupational exposure to mercury, arsenic, cadmium, or carbon disulfide remains inconclusive, although several studies have reported this finding. This review will serve as a step toward future research and provide baseline information for developing strategic interventions to prevent hypertension in the working population.

Risk Factors for Locomotive Crew Members Depending on Their Place of Work

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to examine the prevalence of workplace exposure, behavior, and individual health conditions, along with resulting medical activity among locomotive crew members depending on their place of work.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Participants included 5585 train drivers and 3723 train drivers' assistants (7% of the total train operators in the Russian Federation). Measured height and weight were used to calculate body mass index (BMI), and waist circumference, pulse rate, and blood pressure were also measured. The risk assessment was conducted using the STEPS tool. The level of commitment to a Healthy Lifestyle was assessed based on World Health Organization recommendations. Occupational risk factors were surveyed. Morbidity was analyzed over the past year.

RESULTS

The lowest frequency of work exposure risk factors was found for employees of the Trans-Baikal railway; the highest was among Krasnoyarsk, North, and South-East. The participants from the Far East and October Railways had the lowest self-reported frequency of behavioral risk factors. The participants from the Eastern Siberian, October, and Southern Urals railways had the lowest occurrence of individual health conditions. The participants from the East Siberian, Far East, Kuibyshev, and Sverdlovsk railways were the least likely to visit their doctor, take temporary disability leave, or be hospitalized. The total assessed Healthy Lifestyle commitment index was higher for participants from the Far Eastern and Southern Urals railways. The participants from the Moscow and October railways were the least committed to a Healthy Lifestyle.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant differences exist between risk factors and Healthy Lifestyle commitment between railways. Future research should examine changes due to a new corporate health program introduced in 2020.

Are Smartwatches a Suitable Tool to Monitor Noise Exposure for Public Health Awareness and Otoprotection?

Introduction and Objectives

Noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) and tinnitus are common problems that can be prevented with hearing protection measures. Sound level meters and noise dosimeters enable to monitor and identify health-threatening occupational or recreational noise, but are limited in their daily application because they are usually difficult to operate, bulky, and expensive. Smartwatches, which are becoming increasingly available and popular, could be a valuable alternative to professional systems. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the applicability of smartwatches for accurate environmental noise monitoring.

Methods

The A-weighted equivalent continuous sound pressure level (L_Aeq) was recorded and compared between a professional sound level meter and a popular smartwatch. Noise exposure was assessed in 13 occupational and recreational settings, covering a large range of sound pressure levels between 35 and 110 dBA. To assess measurement agreement, a Bland-Altman plot, linear regression, the intra-class correlation coefficient, and descriptive statistics were used.

Results

Overall, the smartwatch underestimated the sound level meter measurements by 0.5 dBA (95% confidence interval [0.2, 0.8]). The intra-class correlation coefficient showed excellent agreement between the two devices (ICC = 0.99), ranging from 0.65 (music club) to 0.99 (concert) across settings. The smartwatch's sampling rate decreased significantly with lower sound pressure levels, which could have introduced measurement inaccuracies in dynamic acoustic environments.

Conclusions

The assessment of ambient noise with the tested smartwatch is sufficiently accurate and reliable to improve awareness of hazardous noise levels in the personal environment and to conduct exploratory clinical research. For professional and legally binding measurements, we recommend specialized sound level meters or noise dosimeters. In the future, smartwatches will play an important role in monitoring personal noise exposure and will provide a widely available and cost-effective measure for otoprotection.

Assessing the quality of evidence in studies estimating prevalence of exposure to occupational risk factors: The QoE-SPEO approach applied in the systematic reviews from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related burden of disease and Injury

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) have produced the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates). For these, systematic reviews of studies estimating the prevalence of exposure to selected occupational risk factors have been conducted to provide input data for estimations of the number of exposed workers. A critical part of systematic review methodology is to assess the quality of evidence across studies. In this article, we present the approach applied in these WHO/ILO systematic reviews for performing such assessments on studies of prevalence of exposure. It is called the Quality of Evidence in Studies estimating Prevalence of Exposure to Occupational risk factors (QoE-SPEO) approach. We describe QoE-SPEO's development to date, demonstrate its feasibility reporting results from pilot testing and case studies, note its strengths and limitations, and suggest how QoE-SPEO should be tested and developed further.

METHODS

Following a comprehensive literature review, and using expert opinion, selected existing quality of evidence assessment approaches used in environmental and occupational health were reviewed and analysed for their relevance to prevalence studies. Relevant steps and components from the existing approaches were adopted or adapted for QoE-SPEO. New steps and components were developed. We elicited feedback from other systematic review methodologists and exposure scientists and reached consensus on the QoE-SPEO approach. Ten individual experts pilot-tested QoE-SPEO. To assess inter-rater agreement, we counted ratings of expected (actual and non-spurious) heterogeneity and quality of evidence and calculated a raw measure of agreement (P_i) between individual raters and rater teams for the downgrade domains. P_i ranged between 0.00 (no two pilot testers selected the same rating) and 1.00 (all pilot testers selected the same rating). Case studies were conducted of experiences of QoE-SPEO's use in two WHO/ILO systematic reviews.

RESULTS

We found no existing quality of evidence assessment approach for occupational exposure prevalence studies. We identified three relevant, existing approaches for environmental and occupational health studies of the effect of exposures. Assessments using QoE-SPEO comprise three steps: (1) judge the level of expected heterogeneity (defined as non-spurious variability that can be expected in exposure prevalence, within or between individual persons, because exposure may change over space and/or time), (2) assess downgrade domains, and (3) reach a final rating on the quality of evidence. Assessments are conducted using the same five downgrade domains as the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach: (a) risk of bias, (b) indirectness, (c) inconsistency, (d) imprecision, and (e) publication bias. For downgrade domains (c) and (d), the assessment varies depending on the level of expected heterogeneity. There are no upgrade domains. The QoE-SPEO's ratings are "very low", "low", "moderate", and "high". To arrive at a final decision on the overall quality of evidence, the assessor starts at "high" quality of evidence and for each domain downgrades by one or two levels for serious concerns or very serious concerns, respectively. In pilot tests, there was reasonable agreement in ratings for expected heterogeneity; 70% of raters selected the same rating. Inter-rater agreement ranged considerably between downgrade domains, both for individual rater pairs (range P_i: 0.36-1.00) and rater teams (0.20-1.00). Sparse data prevented rigorous assessment of inter-rater agreement in quality of evidence ratings.

CONCLUSIONS

We present QoE-SPEO as an approach for assessing quality of evidence in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors. It has been developed to its current version (as presented here), has undergone pilot testing, and was applied in the systematic reviews for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. While the approach requires further testing and development, it makes steps towards filling an identified gap, and progress made so far can be used to inform future work in this area.

Community Response to Noise from Hot-Spots at a Major Road in Quito (Ecuador) and Its Application for Identification and Ranking These Areas

Environmental legislation in Ecuador is advancing with the legitimate aspiration of providing citizens with new standards of quality and environmental health. In the context of environmental noise, these legislative advances are based on the experience accumulated in other countries, which is an advantage that must be managed with caution by incorporating local factors into noise management procedures. This study advances two lines of work. The first is to survey the population about their attitude towards noise from a major road to try to detect local factors in the annoyance and sleep disturbances. The second uses this information to compare noise indicators for the detection and ranking of hot-spots from major roads. The interviewees exhibited a high level of annoyance and sleep disturbance due to noise compared with the results of other studies. Results show that there are small differences in the definition of hot-spots when using WHO’s dose–response curves for L_den ≥ 68 dB for and for L_night ≥ 58 dB, in comparison with the curves generated in this study (CS). Regarding the application of both dose–response curves (WHO vs. CS) to the estimation of the population at risk of the harmful effect of nighttime traffic noise (HSD), small oscillations are also observed even when L_night ≥ 58 dB and L_noche ≥ 60 dB are used.

Impact of Noise Exposure on Risk of Developing Stress-Related Health Effects Related to the Cardiovascular System: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

: Exposure to acute noise can cause an increase in biological stress reactions, which provides biological plausibility for a potential association between sustained noise exposure and stress-related health effects. However, the certainty in the evidence for an association between exposures to noise on short- and long-term biomarkers of stress has not been widely explored. The objective of this review was to evaluate the strength of evidence between noise exposure and changes in the biological parameters known to contribute to the development of stress-related adverse cardiovascular responses.

Materials and Methods

This systematic review comprises English language comparative studies available in PubMed, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases from January 1, 1980 to December 29, 2021. Where possible, random-effects meta-analyses were used to examine the effect of noise exposure from various sources on stress-related cardiovascular biomarkers. The risk of bias of individual studies was assessed using the risk of bias of nonrandomized studies of exposures instrument. The certainty of the body of evidence for each outcome was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.

Results

: The search identified 133 primary studies reporting on blood pressure, hypertension, heart rate, cardiac arrhythmia, vascular resistance, and cardiac output. Meta-analyses of blood pressure, hypertension, and heart rate suggested there may be signals of increased risk in response to a higher noise threshold or incrementally higher levels of noise. Across all outcomes, the certainty of the evidence was very low due to concerns with the risk of bias, inconsistency across exposure sources, populations, and studies and imprecision in the estimates of effects.

Conclusions

: This review identifies that exposure to higher levels of noise may increase the risk of some short- and long-term cardiovascular events; however, the certainty of the evidence was very low. This likely represents the inability to compare across the totality of the evidence for each outcome, underscoring the value of continued research in this area. Findings from this review may be used to inform policies of noise reduction or mitigation interventions.

Assessor burden, inter-rater agreement and user experience of the RoB-SPEO tool for assessing risk of bias in studies estimating prevalence of exposure to occupational risk factors: An analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury

BACKGROUND

As part of the development of the World Health Organization (WHO)/International Labour Organization (ILO) Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury, WHO and ILO carried out several systematic reviews to determine the prevalence of exposure to selected occupational risk factors. Risk of bias assessment for individual studies is a critical step of a systematic review. No tool existed for assessing the risk of bias in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors, so WHO and ILO developed and pilot tested the RoB-SPEO tool for this purpose. Here, we investigate the assessor burden, inter-rater agreement, and user experience of this new instrument, based on the abovementioned WHO/ILO systematic reviews.

METHODS

Twenty-seven individual experts applied RoB-SPEO to assess risk of bias. Four systematic reviews provided a total of 283 individual assessments, carried out for 137 studies. For each study, two or more assessors independently assessed risk of bias across the eight RoB-SPEO domains selecting one of RoB-SPEO's six ratings (i.e., "low", "probably low", "probably high", "high", "unclear" or "cannot be determined"). Assessors were asked to report time taken (i.e. indicator of assessor burden) to complete each assessment and describe their user experience. To gauge assessor burden, we calculated the median and inter-quartile range of times taken per individual risk of bias assessment. To assess inter-rater reliability, we calculated a raw measure of inter-rater agreement (Pi) for each RoB-SPEO domain, between Pi = 0.00, indicating no agreement and Pi = 1.00, indicating perfect agreement. As subgroup analyses, Pi was also disaggregated by systematic review, assessor experience with RoB-SPEO (≤10 assessments versus > 10 assessments), and assessment time (tertiles: ≤25 min versus 26-66 min versus ≥ 67 min). To describe user experience, we synthesised the assessors' comments and recommendations.

RESULTS

Assessors reported a median of 40 min to complete one assessment (interquartile range 21-120 min). For all domains, raw inter-rater agreement ranged from 0.54 to 0.82. Agreement varied by systematic review and assessor experience with RoB-SPEO between domains, and increased with increasing assessment time. A small number of users recommended further development of instructions for selected RoB-SPEO domains, especially bias in selection of participants into the study (domain 1) and bias due to differences in numerator and denominator (domain 7).

DISCUSSION

Overall, our results indicated good agreement across the eight domains of the RoB-SPEO tool. The median assessment time was comparable to that of other risk of bias tools, indicating comparable assessor burden. However, there was considerable variation in time taken to complete assessments. Additional time spent on assessments may improve inter-rater agreement. Further development of the RoB-SPEO tool could focus on refining instructions for selected RoB-SPEO domains and additional testing to assess agreement for different topic areas and with a wider range of assessors from different research backgrounds.

Association of railway industry occupations with hypertension

The review considers the issues of the association of railway industry occupations with the hypertension (HTN) risk. There is a number of reviews have been published earlier, where the high prevalence of HTN in railway workers was mentioned. Scientific literature was studied using the following keywords: “railway” and “hypertension” both in Russian and in English. A large spread in HTN prevalence among footplate staff was revealed according to different sources — from 7 to 60%. When recalculating the literature data on HTN prevalence among footplate staff in the CIS unites, it turned out to be no higher than that obtained for working-age men according to the Epidemiology of Cardiovascular Diseases and their Risk Factors in Regions of Russian Federation (ESSE-RF). A number of studies indicate that HTN is developing faster for locomotive drivers than for people not working in the railway industry. In our opinion, scientific work on the high frequency of HTN among railway workers can only be considered preliminary. Probably, the development of HTN could be influenced not only by occupational, but also by the major risk factors, such as metabolic ones, obesity, etc.

The effect of exposure to long working hours on depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), supported by a large number of individual experts. Evidence from previous reviews suggests that exposure to long working hours may cause depression. In this article, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of parameters for estimating (if feasible) the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from depression that are attributable to exposure to long working hours, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of exposure to long working hours (three categories: 41-48, 49-54 and ≥55 h/week), compared with exposure to standard working hours (35-40 h/week), on depression (three outcomes: prevalence, incidence and mortality).

DATA SOURCES

We developed and published a protocol, applying the Navigation Guide as an organizing systematic review framework where feasible. We searched electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including the WHO International Clinical Trial Registers Platform, Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CISDOC and PsycInfo. We also searched grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews; and consulted additional experts.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA

We included working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but excluded children (aged <15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. We included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the effect of exposure to long working hours (41-48, 49-54 and ≥55 h/week), compared with exposure to standard working hours (35-40 h/week), on depression (prevalence, incidence and/or mortality).

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. Missing data were requested from principal study authors. We combined odds ratios using random-effects meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias, quality of evidence and strength of evidence, using Navigation Guide and GRADE tools and approaches adapted to this project.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies (all cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 109,906 participants (51,324 females) in 32 countries (as one study included multiple countries) in three WHO regions (Americas, Europe and Western Pacific). The exposure was measured using self-reports in all studies, and the outcome was assessed with a clinical diagnostic interview (four studies), interview questions about diagnosis and treatment of depression (three studies) or a validated self-administered rating scale (15 studies). The outcome was defined as incident depression in all 22 studies, with first time incident depression in 21 studies and recurrence of depression in one study. We did not identify any study on prevalence of depression or on mortality from depression. For the body of evidence for the outcome incident depression, we had serious concerns for risk of bias due to selection because of incomplete outcome data (most studies assessed depression only twice, at baseline and at a later follow-up measurement, and likely have missed cases of depression that occurred after baseline but were in remission at the time of the follow-up measurement) and due to missing information on life-time prevalence of depression before baseline measurement. Compared with working 35-40 h/week, we are uncertain about the effect on acquiring (or incidence of) depression of working 41-48 h/week (pooled odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.29, 8 studies, 49,392 participants, I² 46%, low quality of evidence); 49-54 h/week (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.21, 8 studies, 49,392 participants, I² 40%, low quality of evidence); and ≥ 55 h/week (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.24, 17 studies, 91,142 participants, I² 46%, low quality of evidence). Subgroup analyses found no evidence for statistically significant (P < 0.05) differences by WHO region, sex, age group and socioeconomic status. Sensitivity analyses found no statistically significant differences by outcome measurement (clinical diagnostic interview [gold standard] versus other measures) and risk of bias ("high"/"probably high" ratings in any domain versus "low"/"probably low" in all domains).

CONCLUSIONS

We judged the existing bodies of evidence from human data as "inadequate evidence for harmfulness" for all three exposure categories, 41-48, 48-54 and ≥55 h/week, for depression prevalence, incidence and mortality; the available evidence is insufficient to assess effects of the exposure. Producing estimates of the burden of depression attributable to exposure to long working appears not evidence-based at this point. Instead, studies examining the association between long working hours and risk of depression are needed that address the limitations of the current evidence.

The effect of occupational exposure to noise on ischaemic heart disease, stroke and hypertension: A systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-Related Burden of Disease and Injury

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large number of individual experts. Evidence from mechanistic data suggests that occupational exposure to noise may cause cardiovascular disease (CVD). In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of parameters for estimating the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from CVD that are attributable to occupational exposure to noise, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of any (high) occupational exposure to noise (≥85 dBA), compared with no (low) occupational exposure to noise (<85 dBA), on the prevalence, incidence and mortality of ischaemic heart disease (IHD), stroke, and hypertension.

DATA SOURCES

A protocol was developed and published, applying the Navigation Guide as an organizing systematic review framework where feasible. We searched electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies up to 1 April 2019, including International Trials Register, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Lilacs, Scopus, Web of Science, and CISDOC. The MEDLINE and Pubmed searches were updated on 31 January 2020. We also searched grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consulted additional experts.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA

We included working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but excluded children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. We included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the effect of any occupational exposure to noise on CVD prevalence, incidence or mortality, compared with the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (<85 dBA).

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. We prioritized evidence from cohort studies and combined relative risk estimates using random-effect meta-analysis. To assess the robustness of findings, we conducted sensitivity analyses (leave-one-out meta-analysis and used as alternative fixed effects and inverse-variance heterogeneity estimators). At least two review authors assessed the risk of bias, quality of evidence and strength of evidence, using Navigation Guide tools and approaches adapted to this project.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies (11 cohort studies, six case-control studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 534,688 participants (39,947 or 7.47% females) in 11 countries in three WHO regions (the Americas, Europe, and the Western Pacific). The exposure was generally assessed with dosimetry, sound level meter and/or official or company records. The outcome was most commonly assessed using health records. We are very uncertain (low quality of evidence) about the effect of occupational exposure to noise (≥85 dBA), compared with no occupational exposure to noise (<85 dBA), on: having IHD (0 studies); acquiring IHD (relative risk (RR) 1.29, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.15 to 1.43, two studies, 11,758 participants, I² 0%); dying from IHD (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93-1.14, four studies, 198,926 participants, I² 26%); having stroke (0 studies); acquiring stroke (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.82-1.65, two studies, 170,000 participants, I² 0%); dying from stroke (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93-1.12, three studies, 195,539 participants, I² 0%); having hypertension (0 studies); acquiring hypertension (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.90-1.28, three studies, four estimates, 147,820 participants, I² 52%); and dying from hypertension (0 studies). Data for subgroup analyses were missing. Sensitivity analyses supported the main analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

For acquiring IHD, we judged the existing body of evidence from human data to provide "limited evidence of harmfulness"; a positive relationship is observed between exposure and outcome where chance, bias, and confounding cannot be ruled out with reasonable confidence. For all other included outcomes, the bodies of evidence were judged as "inadequate evidence of harmfulness". Producing estimates for the burden of CVD attributable to occupational exposure to noise appears to not be evidence-based at this time.

PROTOCOL IDENTIFIER

10.1016/j.envint.2018.09.040.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018092272.