Explore the vast range of titles available.

During December 14, 2020-April 10, 2021, data from the HEROES-RECOVER Cohorts,* a network of prospective cohorts among frontline workers, showed that the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were approximately 90% effective in preventing symptomatic and asymptomatic infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, in real-world conditions (1,2). This report updates vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates including all COVID-19 vaccines available through August 14, 2021, and examines whether VE differs for adults with increasing time since completion of all recommended vaccine doses. VE before and during SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant predominance, which coincided with an increase in reported COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections, were compared (3,4).

The use of clinical-practice guidelines is a suggested method for improving health outcomes by the earlier provision of necessary and effective medical interventions. To quantify the influence of adherence to guideline-recommended interventions in the first week of treatment for an initial low back pain (LBP) injury on lost workdays. In a retrospective cohort of California's workers' compensation claims data from May 2009 to May 2018, 41 diagnostic and treatment interventions were abstracted from the medical claims for workers with acute LBP injuries and compared with guideline recommendations. Lost workdays within 1-year post-injury were compared by guideline adherence using quantile regressions. Of the 59,656 workers who met the study inclusion criteria, 66.1% were male and the average (SD) age was 41 (12) years. The median number (IQR) of lost workdays was 27 (6-146) days. In the first week of treatment, 14.2% of workers received only recommended interventions, 14.6% received only non-recommended interventions, and 51.1% received both recommended and non-recommended interventions. Opioid prescriptions fell 86% from 2009 to 2018. Workers who received only guideline-recommended interventions experienced significantly fewer lost workdays (11.5 days; 95% CI: -13.9, -9.1), a 29.3% reduction, than workers who received only non-recommended interventions. The percentage of workers receiving only recommended interventions increased from 10.3% to 18.2% over the 9 years. When workers received guideline-recommended interventions, they typically returned to work in fewer days. The majority of workers received at least one non-recommended intervention, demonstrating the need for adherence to guideline recommendations. Fewer lost workdays and improved quality care are outcomes that strongly benefit injured workers.

OBJECTIVES: The thesis of this paper is that health and safety challenges of working people can only be fully understood by examining them as wholes with interacting parts. This paper unravels this indispensable whole by introducing the working life exposome and elucidating how associated epistemologies and methodologies can enhance empirical research. METHODS: Network and population health scientists have initiated an ongoing discourse on the state of empirical work-health-safety-well-being research. RESULTS: Empirical research has not fully captured the totality and complexity of multiple and interacting work and nonwork factors defining the health of working people over their life course. We challenge the prevailing paradigm by proposing to expand it from narrow work-related exposures and associated monocausal frameworks to the holistic study of work and population health grounded in complexity and exposome sciences. Health challenges of working people are determined by, embedded in, and/or operate as complex systems comprised of multilayered and interdependent components. One can identify many potentially causal factors as sufficient and component causes where removal of one or more of these can impact disease progression. We, therefore, cannot effectively study them by an a priori determination of a set of components and/or properties to be examined separately and then recombine partial approaches, attempting to form a picture of the whole. Instead, we must examine these challenges as wholes from the start, with an emphasis on interactions among their multifactorial components and their emergent properties. Despite various challenges, working-life-exposome-grounded frameworks and associated innovations have the potential to accomplish that. CONCLUSIONS: This emerging paradigm shift can move empirical work-health-safety-well-being research to cutting-edge science and enable more impactful policies and actions.

Objectives Most studies of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) incidence and prevalence among workers have been limited by small sample sizes or restricted to a small subset of jobs. We established a common CTS case definition and then pooled CTS prevalence and incidence data across six prospective studies of musculoskeletal outcomes to measure CTS frequency and allow better studies of etiology. Methods Six research groups collected prospective data at >50 workplaces including symptoms characteristic of CTS and electrodiagnostic studies (EDS) of the median and ulnar nerves across the dominant wrist. While study designs and the timing of data collection varied across groups, we were able to create a common CTS case definition incorporating both symptoms and EDS results from data that were collected in all studies. Results At the time of enrollment, 7.8% of 4321 subjects met our case definition and were considered prevalent cases of CTS. During 8833 person-years of follow-up, an additional 204 subjects met the CTS case definition for an overall incidence rate of 2.3 CTS cases per 100 person-years. Conclusions Both prevalent and incident CTS were common in data pooled across multiple studies and sites. The large number of incident cases in this prospective study provides adequate power for future exposure— response analyses to identify work- and non-work-related risk factors for CTS. The prospective nature allows determination of the temporal relations necessary for causal inference.

Background Between 2001 and 2010, five research groups conducted coordinated prospective studies of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) incidence among US workers from various industries and collected detailed subject-level exposure information with follow-up of symptoms, electrophysiological measures and job changes. Objective This analysis examined the associations between workplace biomechanical factors and incidence of dominant-hand CTS, adjusting for personal risk factors. Methods 2474 participants, without CTS or possible polyneuropathy at enrolment, were followed up to 6.5 years (5102 person-years). Individual workplace exposure measures of the dominant hand were collected for each task and included force, repetition, duty cycle and posture. Task exposures were combined across the workweek using time-weighted averaging to estimate job-level exposures. CTS case-criteria were based on symptoms and results of electrophysiological testing. HRs were estimated using Cox proportional hazard models. Results After adjustment for covariates, analyst (HR=2.17; 95% CI 1.38 to 3.43) and worker (HR=2.08; 95% CI 1.31 to 3.39) estimated peak hand force, forceful repetition rate (HR=1.84; 95% CI 1.19 to 2.86) and per cent time spent (eg, duty cycle) in forceful hand exertions (HR=2.05; 95% CI 1.34 to 3.15) were associated with increased risk of incident CTS. Associations were not observed between total hand repetition rate, per cent duration of all hand exertions, or wrist posture and incident CTS. Conclusions In this prospective multicentre study of production and service workers, measures of exposure to forceful hand exertion were associated with incident CTS after controlling for important covariates. These findings may influence the design of workplace safety programmes for preventing work-related CTS.

Background Low back pain (LBP) is a common and costly problem throughout the United States. To achieve a greater understanding of the occupational risk factors, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) funded a low back health effects consortium, which performed several surveillance studies throughout the United States. This study combines data from the consortium research groups resulting in a data set with nearly 2000 workers in various regions of the country. The purpose of this paper is to examine prevalence and personal risk factors of low back health effects among these workers. Methods There were three common questions regarding history of low back health effects in the past 12 months including 1) have you had LBP lasting 7 days, 2) have you sought medical care for LBP, and 3) have you taken time off work due to LBP. The questionnaire included demographic questions. There were five data collections institutions or sites including NIOSH, Ohio State University, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Texas A&M University, and University of Utah. Results The 12-month period prevalence of low back pain lasting 7 days, seeking medical care, and lost time due to LBP were 25, 14 and 10%, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in gender, age or weight between cases and non-cases for any prevalence measure. The height of workers was significantly greater in the cases compared to non-cases for all three prevalence definitions. There were significant differences among the sites on the prevalence of seeking medical care for LBP and lost time due to LBP. The Ohio State University had significantly higher prevalence rates for seeking medical care and lost time due to LBP than University of Wisconsin, University of Utah, or Texas A&M University. Conclusion LBP, the least severe low back health effect studied, had the highest prevalence (25%) and lost time due to LBP, the most severe low back health effect studied, had the lowest prevalence (10%) among nearly 2000 US manual material handling workers. There was a significant site or regional influence in prevalence rates for seeking medical care and lost time due to LBP.

In a multi-center prospective cohort of essential workers, we assessed knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) by vaccine intention, prior SARS-CoV-2 positivity, and occupation, and their impact on vaccine uptake over time. Initiated in July 2020, the HEROES-RECOVER cohort provided socio-demographics and COVID-19 vaccination data. Using two follow-up surveys approximately three months apart, COVID-19 vaccine KAP, intention, and receipt was collected; the first survey categorized participants as reluctant, reachable, or endorser. A total of 4,803 participants were included in the analysis. Most (70%) were vaccine endorsers, 16% were reachable, and 14% were reluctant. By May 2021, 77% had received at least one vaccine dose. KAP responses strongly predicted vaccine uptake, particularly positive attitudes about safety (aOR = 5.46, 95% CI: 1.4–20.8) and effectiveness (aOR = 5.0, 95% CI: 1.3–19.1). Participants’ with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection were 22% less likely to believe the COVID-19 vaccine was effective compared with uninfected participants (aOR 0.78, 95% CI: 0.64–0.96). This was even more pronounced in first responders compared with other occupations, with first responders 42% less likely to believe in COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (aOR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.40–0.84). Between administrations of the two surveys, 25% of reluctant, 56% reachable, and 83% of endorser groups received the COVID-19 vaccine. The reachable group had large increases in positive responses for questions about vaccine safety (10% of vaccinated, 34% of unvaccinated), and vaccine effectiveness (12% of vaccinated, 27% of unvaccinated). Our study demonstrates attitudes associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake and a positive shift in attitudes over time. First responders, despite potential high exposure to SARS-CoV-2, and participants with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection were more vaccine reluctant. Perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccine can shift over time. Targeting messages about the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness in reducing SARS-CoV-2 virus infection and illness severity may increase vaccine uptake for reluctant and reachable participants.

Background Between 2001 and 2010, six research groups conducted coordinated multiyear, prospective studies of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) incidence in US workers from various industries and collected detailed subject-level exposure information with follow-up symptom, physical examination, electrophysiological measures and job changes. Objective This analysis of the pooled cohort examined the incidence of dominant-hand CTS in relation to demographic characteristics and estimated associations with occupational psychosocial factors and years worked, adjusting for confounding by personal risk factors. Methods 3515 participants, without baseline CTS, were followed-up to 7 years. Case criteria included symptoms and an electrodiagnostic study consistent with CTS. Adjusted HRs were estimated in Cox proportional hazard models. Workplace biomechanical factors were collected but not evaluated in this analysis. Results Women were at elevated risk for CTS (HR=1.30; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.72), and the incidence of CTS increased linearly with both age and body mass index (BMI) over most of the observed range. High job strain increased risk (HR=1.86; 95% CI 1.11 to 3.14), and social support was protective (HR=0.54; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.95). There was an inverse relationship with years worked among recent hires with the highest incidence in the first 3.5 years of work (HR=3.08; 95% CI 1.55 to 6.12). Conclusions Personal factors associated with an increased risk of developing CTS were BMI, age and being a woman. Workplace risk factors were high job strain, while social support was protective. The inverse relationship between CTS incidence and years worked among recent hires suggests the presence of a healthy worker survivor effect in the cohort.

Background Low Back Pain (LBP) is a common and costly problem, with variation in prevalence. Epidemiological reports of rating of pain intensity and location within the low back area are rare. The objective is to describe LBP in a large, multi-center, occupational cohort detailing both point and 1-month period prevalence of LBP by location and intensity measures at baseline. Methods In this cross-sectional report from a prospective cohort study, 828 participants were workers enrolled from 30 facilities performing a variety of manual material handling tasks. All participants underwent a structured interview detailing pain rating and location. Symptoms in the lower extremities, demographic and other data were collected. Body mass indices were measured. Outcomes are pain rating (0–10) in five defined lumbar back areas (i) LBP in the past month and (ii) LBP on the day of enrollment. Pain ratings were reported on a 0–10 scale and subsequently collapsed with ratings of 1–3, 4–6 and 7–10 classified as low, medium and high respectively. Results 172 (20.8%) and 364 (44.0%) of the 828 participants reported pain on the day of enrollment or within the past month, respectively. The most common area of LBP was in the immediate paraspinal area with 130 (75.6%) participants with point prevalence LBP and 278 (77.4%) with 1-month period prevalence reported having LBP in the immediate paraspinal area. Among those 364 reporting 1-month period prevalence pain, ratings varied widely with 116 (31.9%) reporting ratings classified as low, 170 (46.7%) medium and 78 (21.4%) providing high pain ratings in any location. Among the 278 reporting 1-month period prevalence pain in the immediate paraspinal area, 89 (32.0%) reported ratings classified as low, 129 (46.4%), medium and 60 (21.6%) high pain ratings. Conclusions Pain ratings varied widely, however less variability was seen in pain location, with immediate paraspinal region being the most common. Variations may suggest different etiological factors related to LBP. Aggregation of different locations of pain or different intensities of pain into one binary classification of LBP may result in loss of information which may potentially be useful in prevention or treatment of LBP.

Background Glenohumeral pain and rotator cuff tendinopathy (RCT) are common musculoskeletal complaints with high prevalence among working populations. The primary proposed pathophysiologic mechanisms are sub-acromial RC tendon impingement and reduced tendon blood flow. Some sleep postures may increase subacromial pressure, potentially contributing to these postulated mechanisms. This study uses a large population of workers to investigate whether there is an association between preferred sleeping position and prevalence of: (1) shoulder pain, and (2) rotator cuff tendinopathy. Methods A cross-sectional analysis was performed on baseline data from a multicenter prospective cohort study. Participants were 761 workers who were evaluated by questionnaire using a body diagram to determine the presence of glenohumeral pain within 30 days prior to enrollment. The questionnaire also assessed primary and secondary preferred sleep position(s) using 6 labeled diagrams. All workers underwent a structured physical examination to determine whether RCT was present. For this study, the case definition of RCT was glenohumeral pain plus at least one of a positive supraspinatus test, painful arc and/or Neer’s test. Prevalence of glenohumeral pain and RCT were individually calculated for the primary and secondary sleep postures and odds ratios were calculated. Results Age, sex, Framingham cardiovascular risk score and BMI had significant associations with glenohumeral pain. For rotator cuff tendinopathy, increasing age, Framingham risk score and Hand Activity Level (HAL) showed significant associations. The sleep position anticipated to have the highest risk of glenohumeral pain and RCT was paradoxically associated with a decreased prevalence of glenohumeral pain and also trended toward being protective for RCT. Multivariable logistic regression showed no further significant associations. Conclusion This cross-sectional study unexpectedly found a reduced association between one sleep posture and glenohumeral pain. This cross-sectional study may be potentially confounded, by participants who are prone to glenohumeral pain and RCT may have learned to avoid sleeping in the predisposing position. Longitudinal studies are needed to further evaluate a possible association between glenohumeral pain or RCT and sleep posture as a potential risk factor.