Explore the vast range of titles available.

We have read with great interest the two editorials by Burdorf et al: \"The COVID-19 pandemic: one year later - an occupational perspective\" (1) and \"The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic: consequences for occupational health\" (2). The authors highlight the importance of the societal consequences of the outbreak and changes in the world of work to manage occupational health. The key points identified - such as individual socio-economic factors, psychological effects and occupations with highest risk of contamination - modify return-to-work approaches. It is estimated that around 800 million people of working age worldwide were living with disabilities before the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. In early January 2021, the cumulative COVID-19 hospitalisation rate reached 207.4/100 000 (18-49-year-olds) and 505.7/100 000 (50-64-year-olds), respectively, in the United States (3). In France, the hospitalisation rate was 411.5/100 000 across all ages (4). A recent cohort study of working-age men who were hospitalised for COVID-19 highlighted the long-term health consequences of such a disease (5). The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic creates new challenges for occupational health, shifting attention away from return-to-work after health problems to resuming work during an outbreak, dealing with lockdown, and taking special account of workers with vulnerabilities (6, 7). We recommend considering three different aspects of occupational medicine during a pandemic. Firstly, for most workers at high-risk of severe COVID-19, the issues of work disability and resuming work had never occurred before the epidemic. Recommendations such as physical and social distancing and wearing a facemask are highly advisable to protect against infection but may not be enough to enable some individuals to resume work. Therefore, decision-making requires individual comprehensive assessments of the underlying medical condition, the SARS-CoV-2 contamination risk associated with either regular work or teleworking, and vaccination opportunities. The second situation concerns workers who have suffered from COVID-19. Preliminary studies suggest that long recovery duration is related to high severity (7), but this is still a matter of debate for patients suffering from \"long COVID-19\" (5, 8, 9), a condition for which the long-term effects remain unknown. Any long-running recovery must be considered to be a potential sign of long COVID-19. These long-lasting syndromes occur among patients with severe symptoms but have also been reported independently of acute phase severity, hospitalisation and receiving medical oxygen (8, 9). Researchers worldwide are currently investigating such syndromes. Strategies promoting return to work for these workers will need to be implemented and could be similar to programmes developed for other chronic conditions. Moreover, numerous more serious sequelae following critical illness suggest the need for enhanced support by rehabilitation and occupational health specialists. Finally, the consequences of the epidemic must be evaluated over time for people who suffered from functional limitations before COVID-19 as their physical and mental condition may be modified by the epidemic and, specifically, the consequences of lockdown (10). In all of these situations, medical, social, financial and working contexts are key elements. In addition to a medical assessment, the use of scales such as the Work Ability Index (WAI) (11) or the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) (12) can help perform long-term follow-up and provide information about work capacity and workload. It also gives a \"back to basics\" perspective, urging politicians to move towards a `decent-work-for-all` policy, as advocated by the United Nation`s Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 8, which the WHO has endorsed (13). References 1. Burdorf A, Porru F, Rugulies R. The COVID-19 pandemic: one year later - an occupational perspective. Scand J Work Environ Health - online first. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3956 2. Burdorf A, Porru F, Rugulies R. The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic: consequences for occupational health. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2020;46(3):229-230. https://doi:org/10.5271/sjweh.3893. 3. COVID-19 Hospitalizations [Internet]. Available from: https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/COVIDNet/COVID19_3.html 4. COVID-19 in France, vaccine and allergy management in occupational setting. Descatha A et al. Arch Mal Prof Environ 2021. Accepted for publication. 5. Huang C, Huang L, Wang Y, Li X, Ren L, Gu X, et al. 6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study. Lancet 2021;397(10270):220-32 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32656-8 6. Shaw WS, Main CJ, Findley PA, Collie A, Kristman VL, Gross DP. Opening the Workplace After COVID-19: What Lessons Can be Learned from Return-to-Work Research? J Occup Rehabil. 2020;30(3):299-302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-020-09908-9 7. Taylor T, Das R, Mueller K, Pransky G, Christian J, Orford R, et al. Safely Returning America to Work: Part I: General Guidance for Employers. J Occup Environ Med. 2020;62(9):771-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000001984 8. Carfì A, Bernabei R, Landi F, Gemelli Against COVID-19 Post-Acute Care Study Group. Persistent Symptoms in Patients After Acute COVID-19. JAMA. 2020;324(6):603-5. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.12603 9. Tenforde MW, Kim SS, Lindsell CJ, Billig Rose E, Shapiro NI, Files DC, et al. Symptom Duration and Risk Factors for Delayed Return to Usual Health Among Outpatients with COVID-19 in a Multistate Health Care Systems Network - United States, March-June 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly. 2020;69(30):993-8. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6930e1 10. Chudasama YV, Gillies CL, Zaccardi F, Coles B, Davies MJ, Seidu S, et al. Impact of COVID-19 on routine care for chronic diseases: A global survey of views from healthcare professionals. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2020;14(5):965-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsx.2020.06.042 11. Tuomi K. Eleven-year follow-up of aging workers. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1997;23(1):1-71. 12. Reilly MC, Zbrozek AS, Dukes EM. The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument. PharmacoEconomics. 1993;4(5):353-65. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199304050-00006 13. Organization WH. Health in the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Sixty-Ninth World Health Assembly. Document A. 2016, p69.We have read with great interest the two editorials by Burdorf et al: \"The COVID-19 pandemic: one year later - an occupational perspective\" (1) and \"The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic: consequences for occupational health\" (2). The authors highlight the importance of the societal consequences of the outbreak and changes in the world of work to manage occupational health. The key points identified - such as individual socio-economic factors, psychological effects and occupations with highest risk of contamination - modify return-to-work approaches. It is estimated that around 800 million people of working age worldwide were living with disabilities before the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. In early January 2021, the cumulative COVID-19 hospitalisation rate reached 207.4/100 000 (18-49-year-olds) and 505.7/100 000 (50-64-year-olds), respectively, in the United States (3). In France, the hospitalisation rate was 411.5/100 000 across all ages (4). A recent cohort study of working-age men who were hospitalised for COVID-19 highlighted the long-term health consequences of such a disease (5). The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic creates new challenges for occupational health, shifting attention away from return-to-work after health problems to resuming work during an outbreak, dealing with lockdown, and taking special account of workers with vulnerabilities (6, 7). We recommend considering three different aspects of occupational medicine during a pandemic. Firstly, for most workers at high-risk of severe COVID-19, the issues of work disability and resuming work had never occurred before the epidemic. Recommendations such as physical and social distancing and wearing a facemask are highly advisable to protect against infection but may not be enough to enable some individuals to resume work. Therefore, decision-making requires individual comprehensive assessments of the underlying medical condition, the SARS-CoV-2 contamination risk associated with either regular work or teleworking, and vaccination opportunities. The second situation concerns workers who have suffered from COVID-19. Preliminary studies suggest that long recovery duration is related to high severity (7), but this is still a matter of debate for patients suffering from \"long COVID-19\" (5, 8, 9), a condition for which the long-term effects remain unknown. Any long-running recovery must be considered to be a potential sign of long COVID-19. These long-lasting syndromes occur among patients with severe symptoms but have also been reported independently of acute phase severity, hospitalisation and receiving medical oxygen (8, 9). Researchers worldwide are currently investigating such syndromes. Strategies promoting return to work for these workers will need to be implemented and could be similar to programmes developed for other chronic conditions. Moreover, numerous more serious sequelae following critical illness suggest the need for enhanced support by rehabilitation and occupational health specialists. Finally, the consequences of the epidemic must be evaluated over time for people who suffered from functional limitations before COVID-19 as their physical and mental condition may be modified by the epidemic and, specifically, the consequences of lockdown (10). In all of these situations, medical, social, financial and working contexts are key elements. In addition to a medical assessment, the use of scales such as the Work Ability Index (WAI) (11) or the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) (12) can help perform long-term follow-up and provide information about

Teleworking has spread drastically during the COVID-19 pandemic, but its effect on musculo-skeletal disorders (MSD) remains unclear. We aimed to make a qualitative systematic review on the effect of teleworking on MSD. Following the PRISMA guidelines, several databases were searched using strings based on MSD and teleworking keywords. A two-step selection process was used to select relevant studies and a risk of bias assessment was made. Relevant variables were extracted from the articles included, with a focus on study design, population, definition of MSD, confounding factors, and main results. Of 205 studies identified, 25 were included in the final selection. Most studies used validated questionnaires to assess MSD, six considered confounders extensively, and seven had a control group. The most reported MSD were lower back and neck pain. Some studies found increased prevalence or pain intensity, while others did not. Risk of bias was high, with only 5 studies with low/probably low risk of bias. Conflicting results on the effect of teleworking on MSD were found, though an increase in MSD related to organizational and ergonomic factors seems to emerge. Future studies should focus on longitudinal approaches and consider ergonomic and work organization factors as well as socio-economic status.

Substance use is more prevalent among unemployed subjects compared to employed ones. However, quantifying the risk subsequent of job loss at short-term according to substance use remains underexplored as well as examining if this association persist across various sociodemographic and occupational positions previously linked to job loss. We examined this issue prospectively for alcohol, tobacco, cannabis use and their combination, among a large population-based sample of men and women, while taking into account age, gender, overall health status and depressive symptoms. From the French population-based CONSTANCES cohort, 18,879 working participants were included between 2012 and 2016. At baseline, alcohol use disorder risk according to the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (mild, dangerous, problematic or dependence), tobacco (non-smoker, former smoker, 1-9, 10-19, >19 cigarettes/day) and cannabis use (never, not in past year, less than once a month, once a month or more) were assessed. Employment status at one-year (working versus not working) was the dependent variable. Logistic regressions provided Odds Ratios(OR(95%CI)) of job loss at one-year, adjusting for age, gender, self-reported health and depressive state (measured with the Center of Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale). Stratified analyses were performed for education, occupational grade, household income, job stress (measured with the Effort-Reward Imbalance), type of job contract, type of work time and history of unemployment. In sensitivity analyses, employment status over a three-year follow-up was used as dependent variable. Alcohol, tobacco and cannabis use were associated with job loss, from the second to the highest category: 1.46(95%CI:1.23-1.73) to 1.92(95%CI:1.34-2.75), 1.26(95%CI:1.09-1.46) to 1.78(95%CI:1.26-2.54) and 1.45(95%CI:1.27-1.66) to 2.68(95%CI:2.10-3.42), respectively, and with dose-dependent relationships (all p for trend <0.001). When introduced simultaneously, associations remained significant for the three substances without any between-substance interactions. Associations remained significant across almost all stratifications and over a three-year follow-up as well as after adjustment for all the sociodemographic and occupational factors. Alcohol, tobacco and cannabis use were independently associated with job loss at short-term, with dose-dependent relationships. This knowledge will help refining information and prevention strategies. Importantly, even moderate levels of alcohol, tobacco or cannabis use are associated with job loss at short-term and all sociodemographic and occupational positions are potentially concerned.

Background Data are lacking regarding the prevalence of benzodiazepine long-term use in the general population. Our aim was to examine the prevalence of prescribed benzodiazepine long-term use (BLTU) according to sociodemographic and clinical factors in the French general population. Methods Data came from 4686 men and 4849 women included in 2015 in the French population-based CONSTANCES cohort. BLTU was examined using drug reimbursement administrative registries from 2009 to 2015. Analyses were weighted to provide results representative of the French general population covered by the general health insurance scheme. Weighted prevalence of BTLU and weighted Odds Ratios (OR) of having BTLU were computed with their 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) according to age, education level, occupational status, occupational grade, household income, marital status, alcohol use disorder risk and depressive symptoms. All the analyses were stratified for gender. Results Weighted prevalence of BLTU were 2.8%(95% CI:2.3–3.4) and 3.8%(95% CI: 3.3–4.5) in men and women, respectively. Compared to men, women had an increased risk of having benzodiazepine long-term use with OR = 1.34(95% CI = 1.02–1.76). Aging, low education, not being at-work, low occupational grade, low income, being alone and depressive state were associated with increased risks of having BTLU. Conclusions BLTU is widespread in the French general population, however this issue may particularly concern vulnerable subgroups. These findings may help in raising attention on this public health burden as well as targeting specific at-risk subgroups in preventive intervention.

Background Breast cancer (BC) treatments and related symptoms may affect return to work (RTW). The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of BC care pathways (timing and sequence of treatments) and related symptoms on RTW. Methods The study population included working-age women with BC who were enrolled in the French CONSTANCES cohort from 2012 to 2018. BC treatments, antidepressant/anxiolytic and antalgic drug deliveries (used as proxies of depression and pain, respectively) and statutory sick pay (used to estimate RTW and time to RTW) were assessed monthly using data from the French national healthcare system database. BC care pathways were identified with the sequence analysis method. Cox models with time-dependent covariates were used to investigate the impact of BC care pathways and related symptoms on RTW and time to RTW, after adjusting for age and socioeconomic characteristics. Results 73.2% (231/303) of women returned to work within 2 years after BC diagnosis. Five BC care pathway patterns were identified: (i) BC surgery only, (ii) BC surgery and radiotherapy, (iii) BC surgery and chemotherapy, (iv) BC surgery and chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and (v) BC surgery and long-term alternative chemotherapy/radiotherapy. The hazards ratios of non-RTW were significantly higher for women who received BC surgery and long-term alternative chemotherapy/radiotherapy and for > 55-year-old women. Time to RTW was significantly longer in women who received chemotherapy (patterns iii to v) and in women with antidepressant/anxiolytic and antalgic drug deliveries. Conclusion This study highlights the value of considering the dynamic, cumulative and temporal features of BC care pathways and related symptoms to facilitate the RTW of women with BC.

OBJECTIVES: The aim was to develop an easy-to-use risk score based on occupational factors and to validate its performance to identify workers either having (diagnostic setting) or developing (prognostic setting) upper-extremity musculoskeletal disorders (UEMSD). METHODS: This study relied on data from the Cosali prospective cohort conducted in a French working population. Diagnostic status for six UEMSD at inclusion and at follow-up was assessed by a standardized clinical examination. Data on occupational factors were collected through a self-administered questionnaire completed before the clinical examination at inclusion. The risk score was derived from a prediction model developed on data of 2,468 workers included in 2002-2003, and the validation sample is composed of 1,051 workers included later in 2004-2005. The prognostic performance of the risk score was assessed in workers without UEMSD at baseline. RESULTS: A total of 13% and 12% of workers had a UEMSD at inclusion in the development and validation sample. The developed risk score includes physical, organizational and psychosocial factors at work. In the validation sample, this score had acceptable performance for identifying workers having or not UEMSD at baseline (AUC: 0.60 [95% CI 0.57 to 0.63]), in particular the negative predictive value was high (89%-90%). The baseline risk score showed similar performance for predicting incident UEMSD at follow-up examination. CONCLUSION: This score can be useful as a first-line risk assessment tool, especially for excluding the low-risk work situations from further intervention by an ergonomist. Further validation studies are needed to determine its performance among various working populations.

To study the association between occupational co-exposure to biomechanical risk factors, potentially neurotoxic chemicals and carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) in a large cohort of French workers, using two methods to estimate chemical exposure: job-exposure matrices (JEM) and self-reported exposure. A randomly selected sample of adults were included between 2012 and 2018 in the French cohort CONSTANCES. Self-reported CTS was assessed using the first self-administered follow-up questionnaire, sent out approximately one year after baseline. Occupational exposure to biomechanical risk factors was assessed using self-administered questionnaire completed at inclusion. Lifetime occupational exposure to chemicals was assessed using two different methods: with JEMs and with a self-administered questionnaire completed at inclusion. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to evaluate the association between co-exposure to biomechanical risk factors and chemicals and CTS, adjusted for personal and medical factors and stratified by gender. For the analysis using JEM assessment, 35,941 workers (16,920 men and 19,021 women) were included: 261 men (1.5%) and 469 women (2.5%) declared having CTS at follow-up. There was an association between CTS and the co-exposure group: OR=2.37 [1.60-3.44] in men and OR=2.09 [1.55-2.77] in women, compared to the non-exposed group. For the self-reported chemicals analysis, 42,168 workers (20,877 men and 21,291 women) were included: 338 men (1.6%) and 532 women (2.5%) declared having CTS at follow-up. There was an association between CTS and the co-exposure group: OR=3.07 [2.28-4.08] in men and OR=2.68 [1.91-3.66] in women, compared to the non-exposed group. The study showed an association between self- reported CTS and co-exposure to biomechanical risk factors and chemicals. This finding should be confirmed using more objective case definition of CTS, e.g. carpal tunnel release surgery.

Purpose The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of physical activity (PA) interventions on return to work (RTW) in cancer survivors, compared to usual care, and to determine the dose of PA needed to improve this outcome. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Six electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and Scopus were searched to identify studies, and completed by a search of grey literature and health organization websites. Two authors performed screening, selection, and data extraction independently. Study and intervention characteristics were extracted and summarized. Pooled risk ratio (RR) was estimated using a weight random-effects model with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results A total of 2655 records were identified, of which 8 intervention studies were included. The sample size of the included studies varied between 41 and 240, giving a total of 1087 participants aged between 18 and 75 years. Compared with usual care, PA interventions had a significant positive effect on RTW among cancer survivors with a pooled RR of 1.29 (95% CI 1.17, 1.42). We found that PA interventions (aerobic and resistance exercises) with an exercise dose between 7.6 METs.h/week and 15 METs.h/week, consisting in 50–60 min per session of moderate to vigorous physical exercise, twice a week seems relevant in improving RTW. Conclusions Our results showed, with moderate quality evidence that PA interventions are more effective than usual care in increasing the rate of RTW in cancer survivors.Systematic Review RegistrationPROSPERO Registration Number, CRD42020203614.

ObjectivesJob exposure matrices (JEMs) can be constructed from expert-rated assessments, direct measurement and self-reports. This paper describes the construction of a general population JEM based on self-reported physical exposures, its ability to create homogeneous exposure groups (HEG) and the use of different exposure metrics to express job-level estimates.MethodsThe JEM was constructed from physical exposure data obtained from the Cohorte des consultants des Centres d’examens de santé (CONSTANCES). Using data from 35 526 eligible participants, the JEM consisted of 27 physical risk factors from 407 job codes. We determined whether the JEM created HEG by performing non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance (NPMANOVA). We compared three exposure metrics (mean, bias-corrected mean, median) by calculating within-job and between-job variances, and by residual plots between each metric and individual reported exposure.ResultsNPMANOVA showed significantly higher between-job than within-job variance among the 27 risk factors (F(253,21964)=61.33, p<0.0001, r2=41.1%). The bias-corrected mean produced more favourable HEG as we observed higher between-job variance and more explained variance than either means or medians. When compared with individual reported exposures, the bias-corrected mean led to near-zero mean differences and lower variance than other exposure metrics.ConclusionsCONSTANCES JEM using self-reported data yielded HEGs, and can thus classify individual participants based on job title. The bias-corrected mean metric may better reflect the shape of the underlying exposure distribution. This JEM opens new possibilities for using unbiased exposure estimates to study the effects of workplace physical exposures on a variety of health conditions within a large general population study.

Background Sick leave is a significant social and economic concern, with substantial costs and potential adverse consequences for patients. Understanding the factors influencing sick leave prescriptions is essential to improve their relevance and impact. The principal objective of this study was to describe general medicine consultations that led to sick leave prescriptions. Methods The ECOGEN study, conducted from November 2011 to April 2012 in France, systematically analysed thousands of general medicine consultations. Data collected from 10,271 consultations, involving non-retired patients aged 18 to 65, provided insights into the determinants of sick leave prescriptions. Various patient and General Practitioners (GP) characteristics, consultation details, and health issues were considered. Results 16.5% of the consultations analysed, resulted in sick leave prescriptions. Several determinants were identified. Older patients received fewer sick leave prescriptions. Laborers had higher prescription rates, reflecting their poorer health and harsh working conditions. Longer consultations were associated with lower prescription rates. Sick leave prescriptions varied by health issue, with higher rates for musculoskeletal, digestive, respiratory, social, and psychiatric problems. Conclusion Understanding the determinants of sick leave prescriptions is essential for their appropriate use. This study reveals the intricate interplay of patient characteristics, health issues, and GP factors in these decisions. Despite the fact that the study was not specifically designed to study the prescription of sick leave and that the data relate to a relatively short period, the winter of 2011–2012, it provides important insights into the prescription of sick leave. Improved comprehension can enhance the relevance and effectiveness of sick leave prescriptions, benefiting both individuals and society. Further qualitative research is necessary to explore the underlying factors driving these decisions in greater detail. Trial registration Not applicable.