Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Occupational stressors in police work increase the risk for officer mental health morbidities. Officers’ poor mental wellbeing is harmful to the individual, can affect professionalism, organisational effectiveness, and public safety. While the impact of operational stressors on officers’ mental wellbeing is well documented, no review has systematically investigated organisational stressor impacts. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review to assess the relationship between organisational stressors and police officer mental wellbeing. Methods Systematic review conducted following PRISMA and Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. Literature search was undertaken from 1990 to May 2017 on four databases (EBSCOHOST Medline/SocINDEX/PsycINFO/OVID Embase) and grey literature. Included articles were critically appraised and assessed for risk of bias. Narrative and evidence syntheses were performed by specific mental health outcomes. Results In total, 3571 results were returned, and 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. All included studies were published in English between 1995 and 2016, had cross-sectional study designs, spanned across four continents and covered 15,150 officers. Strong evidence of significant associations was identified for organisational stressors and the outcomes of: occupational stress, psychiatric symptoms/psychological distress, emotional exhaustion and personal accomplishment. The organisational stressors most often demonstrating consistently significant associations with mental health outcomes included lack of support, demand, job pressure, administrative/organisational pressure and long working-hours. Conclusions This review is the first to systematically examine organisational stressors and mental health in police officers. Organisational stressors that can be targeted by interventions and policy changes to secure officer wellbeing, a healthy work environment, and benefits to the organisation and the public are identified.

ObjectivesThis qualitative study aimed to explore the occupational experiences of medical students and junior doctors working during the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, the research sought to identify factors which mediated work stress, barriers to disclosing mental health problems and levels of support medical students and junior doctors received during the pandemic.DesignThis study was a form of thematic analysis and adopted an inductive, ‘bottom-up’ approach, in which coded categories were derived from rich, descriptive data.SettingSemistructured interviews were conducted online with UK-based medical students and junior doctors. Interviews were recorded, and analysis was done by coding salient quotes into themes.ParticipantsThe final sample consisted of seven junior doctors and eight medical students, during the summer of 2021.ResultsHigh levels of occupational stress were identified, which were exacerbated by COVID-19. A number of organisational difficulties associated with the pandemic compounded participants’ experiences of work stress. Participants recognised progress towards promoting and managing mental health within the profession but may still be reluctant to access support services. Barriers to disclosure included fear of stigmatisation, concerns about adding to colleagues’ workloads, lack of clarity about career implications and mistrust of occupational health services.ConclusionsWhile attitudes towards mental health have improved, medical students and junior doctors may avoid seeking help. Given the immense pressures faced by health services, it is imperative that extra measures are implemented to minimise work-stress, encourage help-seeking behaviours and promote supportive work cultures.

Background Female police officers are reported to encounter more bias, discriminatory practices, and inadequate support than their male counterparts and experience poorer health outcomes. This meta-ethnographic review looks beyond individual responsibilities to consider which aspects of policing impact the health and well-being of female police officers. Methods Primary qualitative and mixed method studies published between 2000 and 2024 were included. ProQuest (all databases) and Ovid (Medline and Embase) were searched using terms related to health, wellbeing, females, police, and qualitative research. This was a cross-jurisdictional review, with no limit on country of study. In total, twenty-one papers met the inclusion criteria. A seven-phase inductive and interpretative meta-ethnographic technique was employed to synthesise, analyse, and interpret the data. Results The data analysis revealed a distinct outcome that demonstrated a strong relationship and substantial impacts of organisational injustice on the health and well-being of female police officers. Our findings showed that organisational injustice, encompassing procedural, relational, distributive, and gendered injustice, significantly influences the health and well-being of female officers. Impacts on mental health were commonly discussed, followed by aspects influencing social health, workplace wellbeing, and physical health. Moreover, the effects of these four forms of organisational injustice and the associated cultural, systemic, and structural risk factors extend beyond the immediate health and wellbeing impacts on the individual female officer through impeding other aspects of their work life, such as career progression and work-life balance, that can further impact long-term health and well-being . Conclusion This review highlights the importance of addressing organisational injustice and the cultural, systemic, and structural risk factors within policing to promote healthier and more inclusive workforces for female officers. Policymakers and practitioners should critically examine policies and practices that may appear gender neutral but disproportionately impact women, affecting the health and well-being of female police officers. By addressing these issues, transformative action can be taken to create safer, more supportive, and healthier working environments for female police officers.

ObjectivesTo investigate severe COVID-19 risk by occupational group.MethodsBaseline UK Biobank data (2006–10) for England were linked to SARS-CoV-2 test results from Public Health England (16 March to 26 July 2020). Included participants were employed or self-employed at baseline, alive and aged <65 years in 2020. Poisson regression models were adjusted sequentially for baseline demographic, socioeconomic, work-related, health, and lifestyle-related risk factors to assess risk ratios (RRs) for testing positive in hospital or death due to COVID-19 by three occupational classification schemes (including Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) 2000).ResultsOf 120 075 participants, 271 had severe COVID-19. Relative to non-essential workers, healthcare workers (RR 7.43, 95% CI 5.52 to 10.00), social and education workers (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.82) and other essential workers (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.45) had a higher risk of severe COVID-19. Using more detailed groupings, medical support staff (RR 8.70, 95% CI 4.87 to 15.55), social care (RR 2.46, 95% CI 1.47 to 4.14) and transport workers (RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.21 to 4.00) had the highest risk within the broader groups. Compared with white non-essential workers, non-white non-essential workers had a higher risk (RR 3.27, 95% CI 1.90 to 5.62) and non-white essential workers had the highest risk (RR 8.34, 95% CI 5.17 to 13.47). Using SOC 2000 major groups, associate professional and technical occupations, personal service occupations and plant and machine operatives had a higher risk, compared with managers and senior officials.ConclusionsEssential workers have a higher risk of severe COVID-19. These findings underscore the need for national and organisational policies and practices that protect and support workers with an elevated risk of severe COVID-19.

Background Understanding of the role of ethnicity and socioeconomic position in the risk of developing SARS-CoV-2 infection is limited. We investigated this in the UK Biobank study. Methods The UK Biobank study recruited 40–70-year-olds in 2006–2010 from the general population, collecting information about self-defined ethnicity and socioeconomic variables (including area-level socioeconomic deprivation and educational attainment). SARS-CoV-2 test results from Public Health England were linked to baseline UK Biobank data. Poisson regression with robust standard errors was used to assess risk ratios (RRs) between the exposures and dichotomous variables for being tested, having a positive test and testing positive in hospital. We also investigated whether ethnicity and socioeconomic position were associated with having a positive test amongst those tested. We adjusted for covariates including age, sex, social variables (including healthcare work and household size), behavioural risk factors and baseline health. Results Amongst 392,116 participants in England, 2658 had been tested for SARS-CoV-2 and 948 tested positive (726 in hospital) between 16 March and 3 May 2020. Black and south Asian groups were more likely to test positive (RR 3.35 (95% CI 2.48–4.53) and RR 2.42 (95% CI 1.75–3.36) respectively), with Pakistani ethnicity at highest risk within the south Asian group (RR 3.24 (95% CI 1.73–6.07)). These ethnic groups were more likely to be hospital cases compared to the white British. Adjustment for baseline health and behavioural risk factors led to little change, with only modest attenuation when accounting for socioeconomic variables. Socioeconomic deprivation and having no qualifications were consistently associated with a higher risk of confirmed infection (RR 2.19 for most deprived quartile vs least (95% CI 1.80–2.66) and RR 2.00 for no qualifications vs degree (95% CI 1.66–2.42)). Conclusions Some minority ethnic groups have a higher risk of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in the UK Biobank study, which was not accounted for by differences in socioeconomic conditions, baseline self-reported health or behavioural risk factors. An urgent response to addressing these elevated risks is required.

Introduction Cancer cases are rising globally, with a noticeable rise in younger adults. Screening and early detection are effective in decreasing mortality. Workplaces can play a role in promoting cancer screening uptake. This systematic review investigated the effectiveness of workplace breast, lung, colorectal, and cervical cancer screening interventions, and the factors impacting their effectiveness. Methodology Six databases (Embase, Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Scopus) were searched, and cancer screening promotion and cancer screening uptake was analysed using effect direction plots. Magnitude of effectiveness (i.e., change in knowledge or screening rate) was also evaluated. Results In total, 13,426 articles were identified. After screening and applying the eligibility criteria, 21 articles were included in the analysis. A positive effect direction was seen for all workplace cancer screening promotion interventions. Magnitude of effectiveness for cancer screening promotion interventions resulted in a > 30% change in knowledge or screening uptake in 4/7 of breast cancer, in 3/4 of cervical cancer and 1/3 colorectal cancer screening promotion interventions. For workplace cancer screening uptake interventions, a positive effect direction was observed for the majority (18/22). Cancer screening uptake interventions showed a > 30% change in magnitude of screening rate in 4/7 breast cancer, 5/10 colorectal cancer and in 1/5 cervical cancer workplace interventions. No studies for lung cancer were eligible. Factors positively influencing effectiveness included an interest in health and previous healthcare use, while fear of cancer and embarrassment of screening negatively influenced effectiveness. Conclusion Workplace cancer screening promotion and uptake interventions can effectively improve cancer screening knowledge and increase uptake of screening tests.

Objective Shift work is a risk factor for many chronic diseases and has been associated with unhealthy lifestyle behaviors. Workplaces have great potential for promoting and supporting behavior change. We conducted a systematic review of group-based lifestyle workplace interventions for shift workers to (i) identify adaptations and intervention components that accommodate shift working and (ii) assess their impact on weight, physical activity, sedentary behavior and healthy eating. Methods A systematic search was conducted in Scopus, Web of Knowledge, EBSCO and Ovid databases. Using pre-established criteria, independent pairs of researchers conducted the study selection, quality appraisal and data extraction. Results In total, 22 studies on group-based workplace interventions for shift workers were included. Many demonstrated organizational level adaptations, such as flexible delivery times and paying employees' time for their involvement. Delivery locations near the workplace and management support were other key features. Common intervention components included competitive group activities, individualized goal setting, self-monitoring and feedback, staff involvement in intervention delivery, and incentives. There was moderate evidence for effectiveness on weight and physical activity outcomes, but insufficient evidence for healthy eating outcomes. No interventions focusing on sedentary behavior among shift workers were found. Conclusion Current evidence demonstrates that group-based workplace interventions can be effective for supporting shift workers to lose weight and increase physical activity, while further research is needed to change healthy eating and sedentary behaviors. Our findings offer decision support on organizational-level adaptations and intervention components that are important to make interventions that promote healthy lifestyles more accessible to shift workers.

ObjectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic has substantially affected workers’ mental health. We investigated changes in UK workers’ mental health by industry, socioeconomic class and occupation and differential effects by UK country of residence, gender and age.MethodsWe used representative Understanding Society data from 6474 adults (41 207 observations) in paid employment who participated in pre-pandemic (2017–2020) and at least one COVID-19 survey. The outcome was General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12) caseness (score: ≥4). Exposures were industry, socioeconomic class and occupation and are examined separately. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to estimate relative (OR) and absolute (%) increases in distress before and during pandemic. Differential effects were investigated for UK countries of residence (non-England/England), gender (male/female) and age (younger/older) using three-way interaction effects.ResultsGHQ-12 caseness increased in relative terms most for ‘professional, scientific and technical’ (OR: 3.15, 95% CI 2.17 to 4.59) industry in the pandemic versus pre-pandemic period. Absolute risk increased most in ‘hospitality’ (+11.4%). For socioeconomic class, ‘small employers/self-employed’ were most affected in relative and absolute terms (OR: 3.24, 95% CI 2.28 to 4.63; +10.3%). Across occupations, ‘sales and customer service’ (OR: 3.01, 95% CI 1.61 to 5.62; +10.7%) had the greatest increase. Analysis with three-way interactions showed considerable gender differences, while for UK country of residence and age results are mixed.ConclusionsGHQ-12 caseness increases during the pandemic were concentrated among ‘professional and technical’ and ‘hospitality’ industries and ‘small employers/self-employed’ and ‘sales and customers service’ workers. Female workers often exhibited greater differences in risk by industry and occupation. Policies supporting these industries and groups are needed.

Introduction Tobacco smoking prevalence remains high in disadvantaged populations such as people in prison. Smokefree prisons protect health, however around 90% of people who smoke pre-prison, relapse to smoking shortly after release. If people released from smokefree prisons maintain smoking abstinence this could benefit their health and finances. Knock-on effects of smoking relapse on families could also be avoided. Offering an intervention to reduce relapse to smoking on release has the potential to benefit released people and their families. This study assesses potential costs and outcomes for released people and their families, of introducing a smokefree prison policy and an intervention to reduce post-release smoking relapse. Methods Based on the smoking/vaping status of released people we modelled the impact, on costs and outcomes, of four scenarios. We modelled scenarios which varied across two dimensions: (1) whether people were/were not permitted to vape in smokefree prisons, and (2) whether a smoking cessation intervention was offered/was not offered in smokefree prisons. The scenarios reflect different combinations of these factors. We estimated costs and outcomes (benefits) for released people, their partners and children over a lifetime. We included personal costs (vaping and smoking), healthcare and intervention costs, and outcomes included quality of life. Results For released people, results indicated that not permitting vaping in prison was less costly and more beneficial than when vaping was permitted. Offering a smoking cessation intervention to released people was less costly than not offering a smoking cessation intervention, irrespective of whether vaping was permitted or not. However, whilst offering a smoking cessation intervention was beneficial when vaping was permitted in prison, results are uncertain for the benefits of offering a smoking cessation intervention when vaping is not permitted in prison. Sensitivity analyses indicate uncertainty and show that changing the values for vaping prevalence and smoking relapse rates would change these results. For both partner and child (ren), costs were higher and quality of life lower for those living with released people who relapse to smoking compared to those who vape or neither smoke nor vape. Interpretation Targeted support for smoking cessation interventions to improve health outcomes for people released from smokefree prison and their families can ultimately contribute to broader public health improvements and improve health in a priority group. There is a need for greater evidence in this area to inform future modelling, particularly on relapse to smoking on release and the long-term effects of vaping. Results indicate uncertainty about the overall value of permitting vaping in smokefree prisons; wider factors associated with not allowing vaping in prisons would need to be assessed in future work. Study findings enhance understanding of the potential cost-effectiveness of smokefree prison policy, highlight uncertainty in some model inputs, and can inform decisions about how value could be maximised.

BackgroundThe obesity epidemic may have substantial implications for the global workforce, including causal effects on employment, but clear evidence is lacking. Obesity may prevent people from being in paid work through poor health or through social discrimination. We studied genetic variants robustly associated with body mass index (BMI) to investigate its causal effects on employment.Dataset/methodsWhite UK ethnicity participants of working age (men 40–64 years, women 40–59 years), with suitable genetic data were selected in the UK Biobank study (N = 230,791). Employment status was categorised in two ways: first, contrasting being in paid employment with any other status; and second, contrasting being in paid employment with sickness/disability, unemployment, early retirement and caring for home/family. Socioeconomic indicators also investigated were hours worked, household income, educational attainment and Townsend deprivation index (TDI). We conducted observational and two-sample Mendelian randomisation (MR) analyses to investigate the effect of increased BMI on employment-related outcomes.ResultsRegressions showed BMI associated with all the employment-related outcomes investigated. MR analyses provided evidence for higher BMI causing increased risk of sickness/disability (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.04, 1.11, per 1 Kg/m2 BMI increase) and decreased caring for home/family (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93, 0.99), higher TDI (Beta 0.038, 95% CI 0.018, 0.059), and lower household income (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.96, 0.99). In contrast, MR provided evidence for no causal effect of BMI on unemployment, early retirement, non-employment, hours worked or educational attainment. There was little evidence for causal effects differing by sex or age. Robustness tests yielded consistent results.DiscussionBMI appears to exert a causal effect on employment status, largely by affecting an individual’s health rather than through increased unemployment arising from social discrimination. The obesity epidemic may be contributing to increased worklessness and therefore could impose a substantial societal burden.