| 2. |
- Del Ferraro, Simona, et al.
(författare)
-
Mitigating heat effects in the workplace with a ventilation jacket : simulations of the whole-body and local human thermophysiological response with a sweating thermal manikin in a warm-dry environment
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Journal of Thermal Biology. - 0306-4565. ; 119
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Climate change is increasingly affecting human well-being and will inevitably impact on occupational sectors in terms of costs, productivity, workers' health and injuries. Among the cooling garment developed to reduce heat strain, the ventilation jacket could be considered for possible use in workplaces, as it is wearable without limiting the user's mobility and autonomy. In this study, simulations with a sweating manikin are carried out to investigate the effects of a short-sleeved ventilation jacket on human thermophysiological responses in a warm-dry scenario. Simulations were performed in a climatic chamber (air temperature = 30.1 °C; air velocity = 0.29 m/s; relative humidity = 30.0 %), considering two constant levels of metabolic rate M (M 1 = 2.4 MET; M 2 = 3.2 MET), a sequence of these two (Work), and three levels of fan velocities (l f = 0; l f=2; l f=4). The results revealed a more evident impact on the mean skin temperature (T sk) compared to the rectal temperature (T re), with significant decreases (compared to fan-off) at all M levels, for T sk from the beginning and for T re from the 61 st minute. Skin temperatures of the torso zones decreased significantly (compared to fan-off) at all M levels, and a greater drop was registered for the Back. The fans at the highest level (l f=4) were significantly effective in improving whole-body and local thermal sensations when compared to fan-off, at all M levels. At the intermediate level (l f=2), the statistical significance varied with thermal zone, M and time interval considered. The results of the simulations also showed that the Lower Torso needs to be monitored at M 2 level, as the drop in skin temperature could lead to local overcooling and thermal discomfort. Simulations showed the potential effectiveness of the ventilation jacket, but human trials are needed to verify its cooling power in real working conditions.
|
|
| 3. |
- Descatha, Alexis, et al.
(författare)
-
The effect of exposure to long working hours on stroke : A systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Environment International. - : Elsevier BV. - 0160-4120 .- 1873-6750. ; 142
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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 network of individual experts. Evidence from mechanistic data and prior studies suggests that exposure to long working hours may cause stroke. 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 stroke 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 stroke (three outcomes: prevalence, incidence, and mortality).Data sources: A protocol was developed and published, applying the Navigation Guide to systematic reviews as an organizing framework where feasible. We searched electronic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, CISDOC, PsycINFO, and WHO ICTRP. 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) individuals 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 stroke (prevalence, incidence or 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. Missing data were requested from principal study authors. We combined relative risks 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 and GRADE tools and approaches adapted to this project.Results: Twenty-two studies (20 cohort studies, 2 case-control studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 839,680 participants (364,616 females) in eight countries from three WHO regions (Americas, Europe, and Western Pacific). The exposure was measured using self-reports in all studies, and the outcome was assessed with administrative health records (13 studies), self-reported physician diagnosis (7 studies), direct diagnosis by a physician (1 study) or during a medical interview (1 study). The outcome was defined as an incident non-fatal stroke event in nine studies (7 cohort studies, 2 case-control studies), incident fatal stroke event in one cohort study and incident non-fatal or fatal (mixed) event in 12 studies (all cohort studies). Cohort studies were judged to have a relatively low risk of bias; therefore, we prioritized evidence from these studies, but synthesised evidence from case-control studies as supporting evidence. For the bodies of evidence for both outcomes with any eligible studies (i.e. stroke incidence and mortality), we did not have serious concerns for risk of bias (at least for the cohort studies). Eligible studies were found on the effects of long working hours on stroke incidence and mortality, but not prevalence. Compared with working 35-40 h/week, we were uncertain about the effect on incidence of stroke due to working 41-48 h/week (relative risk (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-1.14, 18 studies, 277,202 participants, I-2 0%, low quality of evidence). There may have been an increased risk for acquiring stroke when working 49-54 h/week compared with 35-40 h/week (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.00-1.28, 17 studies, 275,181participants, I-2 0%, p 0.04, moderate quality of evidence). Compared with working 35-40 h/week, working >= 55 h/week may have led to a moderate, clinically meaningful increase in the risk of acquiring stroke, when followed up between one year and 20 years (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.61, 7 studies, 162,644 participants, I-2 3%, moderate quality of evidence). Compared with working 35-40 h/week, we were very uncertain about the effect on dying (mortality) of stroke due to working 41-48 h/week (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91-1.12, 12 studies, 265,937 participants, I-2 0%, low quality of evidence), 49-54 h/week (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.99-1.29, 11 studies, 256,129 participants, I-2 0%, low quality of evidence) and 55 h/week (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.89-1.31, 10 studies, 664,647 participants, I-2 20%, low quality of evidence). Subgroup analyses found no evidence for differences by WHO region, age, sex, socioeconomic status and type of stroke. Sensitivity analyses found no differences by outcome definition (exclusively non-fatal or fatal versus mixed) except for the comparison working >= 55 h/week versus 35-40 h/week for stroke incidence (p for subgroup differences: 0.05), risk of bias (high/probably high ratings in any domain versus low/probably low in all domains), effect estimate measures (risk versus hazard versus odds ratios) and comparator (exact versus approximate definition).Conclusions: We judged the existing bodies of evidence for human evidence as inadequate evidence for harmfulness for all exposure categories for stroke prevalence and mortality and for exposure to 41-48 h/week for stroke incidence. Evidence on exposure to 48-54 h/week and >= 55 h/week was judged as limited evidence for harmfulness and sufficient evidence for harmfulness for stroke incidence, respectively. Producing estimates for the burden of stroke attributable to exposures to working 48-54 and >= 55 h/week appears evidencebased, and the pooled effect estimates presented in this systematic review could be used as input data for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates.
|
|
| 4. |
- Descatha, Alexis, et al.
(författare)
-
WHO/ILO work-related burden of disease and injury : Protocol for systematic reviews of exposure to long working hours and of the effect of exposure to long working hours on stroke
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Environment International. - : Elsevier BV. - 0160-4120 .- 1873-6750. ; 119, s. 366-378
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing a joint methodology for estimating the national and global work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO joint methodology), with contributions from a large network of experts. In this paper, we present the protocol for two systematic reviews of parameters for estimating the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from stroke attributable to exposure to long working hours, to inform the development of the WHO/ILO joint methodology. Objectives: We aim to systematically review studies on occupational exposure to long working hours (called Systematic Review 1 in the protocol) and systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of long working hours on stroke (called Systematic Review 2), applying the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology as an organizing framework, conducting both systematic reviews in tandem and in a harmonized way. Data sources: Separately for Systematic Reviews 1 and 2, we will search electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CISDOC and PsychINFO. We will also search electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-search reference list of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consult additional experts. Study eligibility and criteria: We will include working-age (>= 15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State, but exclude children (< 15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. For Systematic Review 1, we will include quantitative prevalence studies of relevant levels of occupational exposure to long working hours (i.e. 35-40, 41-48, 49-54 and >= 55 h/week) stratified by country, sex, age and industrial sector or occupation, in the years 2005-2018. For Systematic Review 2, we will include randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the relative effect of a relevant level of long working hours on the incidence of or mortality due to stroke, compared with the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (i.e. 35-40 h/week). Study appraisal and synthesis methods: At least two review authors will independently screen 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. At least two review authors will assess risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using the most suited tools currently available. For Systematic Review 2, if feasible, we will combine relative risks using meta-analysis. We will report results using the guidelines for accurate and transparent health estimates reporting (GATHER) for Systematic Review 1 and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines (PRISMA) for Systematic Review 2.
|
|
