Explore the vast range of titles available.

Laboratory-acquired infections due to a variety of bacteria, viruses, parasites, and fungi have been described over the last century, and laboratory workers are at risk of exposure to these infectious agents. However, reporting laboratory-associated infections has been largely voluntary, and there is no way to determine the real number of people involved or to know the precise risks for workers. In this study, an international survey based on volunteering was conducted in biosafety level 3 and 4 laboratories to determine the number of laboratory-acquired infections and the possible underlying causes of these contaminations. The analysis of the survey reveals that laboratory-acquired infections have been infrequent and even rare in recent years, and human errors represent a very high percentage of the cases. Today, most risks from biological hazards can be reduced through the use of appropriate procedures and techniques, containment devices and facilities, and the training of personnel.

IntroductionIt has been reported that pregnant women used more cosmetics daily than non-pregnant women. Phenoxyacetic acid is the main metabolite of phenoxyethanol, the most frequent preservative in cosmetics used in Europe, previously associated with reproductive effects (longer time to conception, endocrine disruptors in newborns and poorer verbal comprehension in children). In France, specialised platforms (PREVention ENvIronment Reproduction (PREVENIR)) in university hospital maternity wards are dedicated to evaluating environmental and occupational exposures in patients with pregnancy-related pathologies and supporting targeted prevention efforts. These platforms are composed of occupational health physicians, obstetrician-gynaecologists, midwives, occupational health nurses, and occupational health and environmental engineers. To assess the efficacy of these platforms, we developed a randomised clinical trial, the protocol for which is presented in this paper. The primary objective of the PREVENIR-G Study is to compare the change in urinary phenoxyacetic acid concentrations from baseline to 3 months postintervention between an intervention group and a control group. To date, the intervention has been integrated into routine care in certain facilities; however, its efficacy remains unproven. It is therefore essential to assess the relevance of this intervention, considering both its potential benefits and any adverse effects, such as increased stress or anxiety.Methods and analysisThis study is an unblinded, randomised clinical superiority trial with two parallel groups (intervention vs no intervention) in four university maternity hospitals in France. We will include 300 pregnant women (aged 18 years or older) who are under 24 weeks of gestation (150 per group) referred to the participating PREVENIR platforms for management. The intervention will consist of clinical prevention management through the PREVENIR platforms, involving a consultation with an environmental health expert for an assessment of environmental and occupational exposures. During the consultation, targeted prevention messages will be provided based on identified exposures. The no intervention comparator will be a waiting-list control group. At the inclusion visit, patients will receive urine collection vials for samples to be collected at baseline and again at 3 months. Urine samples will be collected twice in a single day, on three separate days, during the collection week at home. In the week following the urine collection period, only participants in the intervention group will engage with the PREVENIR platforms. The primary outcome will be the difference in the urinary phenoxyacetic acid concentration between baseline and 3 months postintervention, compared between the intervention and control groups.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the hospital ethics committee (CCP Ouest 2, no. 2023-A00941-44). All participants will provide written informed consent. Results will be shared through presentations and publications.Trial registration numberNCT06642818

Monitoring for Health Hazards at Work has become an essential companion for students and professionals in occupational hygiene, offering a concise account of the dangers faced in a wide variety of work environments and giving practical, step-by-step guidance to gauge exposure. It includes: Coverage of most major health hazards: airborne dust, fibres, gases, vapours, noise, radiation, and biological agents Accounts of the latest equipment and techniques required to monitor such hazards Full guidance on how to undertake risk assessments Now thoroughly revised and restructured by an eminent new team of authors, the fourth edition brings this valuable handbook right up to date.

Thoroughly updated and expanded upon, the sixth edition of Occupational and Environmental Health provides comprehensive coverage and a clear understanding of occupational and environmental health and its relationships to public health, environmental science, and governmental policy. New chapters include Toxicology; The Roles of Government and International Organizations; and Risk Communication in Workplaces and Communities. The authors also expand on chapters included in previous chapters, and the book features practical case studies, numerous tables, graphs, and photos, and annotated bibliographies.

Lockdowns to control the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have had profound effects on everyday life worldwide, but their effect on mental health remains unclear because available meta-analyses and reviews rely mostly on cross-sectional studies. We conducted a rapid review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies and natural experiments investigating the relationship between COVID-19 lockdowns and mental health. A total of 25 studies involving 72 004 participants and 58 effect sizes were analyzed. Using a random effects model, we found that lockdowns had small effects on mental health symptoms, g = 0.17, s.e. = 0.05, 95% CI (0.06–0.24), p = 0.001, but the effects on positive psychological functioning, g = −0.12, s.e. = 0.11, 95% CI (−0.33 to 0.09), p = 0.27, were not significant. Multivariate analysis of effect sizes revealed significant and relatively small effect sizes for anxiety and depression, while those for social support, loneliness, general distress, negative affect, and suicide risk were not significant. The results indicated substantial heterogeneity among studies, but meta-regression analyses found no significant moderation effects for mean age, gender, continent, COVID-19 death rate, days of lockdown, publication status or study design. The psychological impact of COVID-19 lockdowns is small in magnitude and highly heterogeneous, suggesting that lockdowns do not have uniformly detrimental effects on mental health and that most people are psychologically resilient to their effects.

BNT162b2 mRNA and ChAdOx1 nCOV-19 adenoviral vector vaccines have been rapidly rolled out in the UK from December, 2020. We aimed to determine the factors associated with vaccine coverage for both vaccines and documented the vaccine effectiveness of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in a cohort of health-care workers undergoing regular asymptomatic testing. The SIREN study is a prospective cohort study among staff (aged ≥18 years) working in publicly-funded hospitals in the UK. Participants were assigned into either the positive cohort (antibody positive or history of infection [indicated by previous positivity of antibody or PCR tests]) or the negative cohort (antibody negative with no previous positive test) at the beginning of the follow-up period. Baseline risk factors were collected at enrolment, symptom status was collected every 2 weeks, and vaccination status was collected through linkage to the National Immunisations Management System and questionnaires. Participants had fortnightly asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing and monthly antibody testing, and all tests (including symptomatic testing) outside SIREN were captured. Data cutoff for this analysis was Feb 5, 2021. The follow-up period was Dec 7, 2020, to Feb 5, 2021. The primary outcomes were vaccinated participants (binary ever vacinated variable; indicated by at least one vaccine dose recorded by at least one of the two vaccination data sources) for the vaccine coverage analysis and SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by a PCR test for the vaccine effectiveness analysis. We did a mixed-effect logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with vaccine coverage. We used a piecewise exponential hazard mixed-effects model (shared frailty-type model) using a Poisson distribution to calculate hazard ratios to compare time-to-infection in unvaccinated and vaccinated participants and estimate the impact of the BNT162b2 vaccine on all PCR-positive infections (asymptomatic and symptomatic). This study is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN11041050, and is ongoing. 23 324 participants from 104 sites (all in England) met the inclusion criteria for this analysis and were enrolled. Included participants had a median age of 46·1 years (IQR 36·0–54·1) and 19 692 (84%) were female; 8203 (35%) were assigned to the positive cohort at the start of the analysis period, and 15 121 (65%) assigned to the negative cohort. Total follow-up time was 2 calendar months and 1 106 905 person-days (396 318 vaccinated and 710 587 unvaccinated). Vaccine coverage was 89% on Feb 5, 2021, 94% of whom had BNT162b2 vaccine. Significantly lower coverage was associated with previous infection, gender, age, ethnicity, job role, and Index of Multiple Deprivation score. During follow-up, there were 977 new infections in the unvaccinated cohort, an incidence density of 14 infections per 10 000 person-days; the vaccinated cohort had 71 new infections 21 days or more after their first dose (incidence density of eight infections per 10 000 person-days) and nine infections 7 days after the second dose (incidence density four infections per 10 000 person-days). In the unvaccinated cohort, 543 (56%) participants had typical COVID-19 symptoms and 140 (14%) were asymptomatic on or 14 days before their PCR positive test date, compared with 29 (36%) with typical COVID-19 symptoms and 15 (19%) asymptomatic in the vaccinated cohort. A single dose of BNT162b2 vaccine showed vaccine effectiveness of 70% (95% CI 55–85) 21 days after first dose and 85% (74–96) 7 days after two doses in the study population. Our findings show that the BNT162b2 vaccine can prevent both symptomatic and asymptomatic infection in working-age adults. This cohort was vaccinated when the dominant variant in circulation was B1.1.7 and shows effectiveness against this variant. Public Health England, UK Department of Health and Social Care, and the National Institute for Health Research.

Health-care workers are crucial to any health-care system. During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, health-care workers are at a substantially increased risk of becoming infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and could come to considerable harm as a result. Depending on the phase of the pandemic, patients with COVID-19 might not be the main source of SARS-CoV-2 infection and health-care workers could be exposed to atypical patients, infected family members, contacts, and colleagues, or live in communities of active transmission. Clear strategies to support and appropriately manage exposed and infected health-care workers are essential to ensure effective staff management and to engender trust in the workplace. These management strategies should focus on risk stratification, suitable clinical monitoring, low-threshold access to diagnostics, and decision making about removal from and return to work. Policy makers need to support health-care facilities in interpreting guidance during a pandemic that will probably be characterised by fluctuating local incidence of SARS-CoV-2 to mitigate the impact of this pandemic on their workforce.

This systematic review and meta-analysis quantified the protective effect of facemasks and respirators against respiratory infections among healthcare workers. Relevant articles were retrieved from Pubmed, EMBASE, and Web of Science. Meta-analyses were conducted to calculate pooled estimates. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indicated a protective effect of masks and respirators against clinical respiratory illness (CRI) (risk ratio [RR] = 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI]:0.46–0.77) and influenza-like illness (ILI) (RR = 0.34; 95% CI:0.14–0.82). Compared to masks, N95 respirators conferred superior protection against CRI (RR = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.36–0.62) and laboratory-confirmed bacterial (RR = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.34–0.62), but not viral infections or ILI. Meta-analysis of observational studies provided evidence of a protective effect of masks (OR = 0.13; 95% CI: 0.03–0.62) and respirators (OR = 0.12; 95% CI: 0.06–0.26) against severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). This systematic review and meta-analysis supports the use of respiratory protection. However, the existing evidence is sparse and findings are inconsistent within and across studies. Multicentre RCTs with standardized protocols conducted outside epidemic periods would help to clarify the circumstances under which the use of masks or respirators is most warranted.

Conflicting recommendations exist related to which facial protection should be used by health care workers to prevent transmission of acute respiratory infections, including pandemic influenza. We performed a systematic review of both clinical and surrogate exposure data comparing N95 respirators and surgical masks for the prevention of transmissible acute respiratory infections. We searched various electronic databases and the grey literature for relevant studies published from January 1990 to December 2014. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies and case–control studies that included data on health care workers wearing N95 respirators and surgical masks to prevent acute respiratory infections were included in the meta-analysis. Surrogate exposure studies comparing N95 respirators and surgical masks using manikins or adult volunteers under simulated conditions were summarized separately. Outcomes from clinical studies were laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, influenza-like illness and workplace absenteeism. Outcomes from surrogate exposure studies were filter penetration, face-seal leakage and total inward leakage. We identified 6 clinical studies (3 RCTs, 1 cohort study and 2 case–control studies) and 23 surrogate exposure studies. In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection (RCTs: odds ratio [OR] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64–1.24; cohort study: OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.03–6.41; case–control studies: OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.25–3.36); (b) influenza-like illness (RCTs: OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.19–1.41); or (c) reported workplace absenteeism (RCT: OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.57–1.50). In the surrogate exposure studies, N95 respirators were associated with less filter penetration, less face-seal leakage and less total inward leakage under laboratory experimental conditions, compared with surgical masks. Although N95 respirators appeared to have a protective advantage over surgical masks in laboratory settings, our meta-analysis showed that there were insufficient data to determine definitively whether N95 respirators are superior to surgical masks in protecting health care workers against transmissible acute respiratory infections in clinical settings.