Explore the vast range of titles available.

The passage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 brought unprecedented changes in US workplaces, and the activities of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) have contributed to a significant reduction in work-related deaths, injuries, and illnesses. Despite this, millions of workers are injured annually, and thousands killed. To reduce the toll, OSHA needs greater resources, a new standard-setting process, increased civil and criminal penalties, full coverage for all workers, and stronger whistleblower protections. Workers should not be injured or made sick by their jobs. To eliminate work injuries and illnesses, we must remake and modernize OSHA and restructure the relationship of employers and workers with the agency and each other. This includes changing the expectation of what employers must do to protect workers and implementing a requirement that firms have a “duty of care” to protect all people who may be harmed by their activities. Only by making major changes can we ensure that every worker leaves work as healthy as they were when their work shift began.

Objectives The aim of this review was to assess the evidence that occupational safety and health (OSH) legislative and regulatory policy could improve the working environment in terms of reduced levels of industrial injuries and fatalities, musculoskeletal disorders, worker complaints, sick leave and adverse occupational exposures. Methods A systematic literature review covering the years 1966‒2017 (February) was undertaken to capture both published and gray literature studies of OSH work environment interventions with quantitative measures of intervention effects. Studies that met specified in- and exclusion criteria went through an assessment of methodological quality. Included studies were grouped into five thematic domains: (i) introduction of OHS legislation, (ii) inspection/enforcement activity, (iii) training, such as improving knowledge, (iv), campaigns, and (v) introduction of technical device, such as mechanical lifting aids. The evidence synthesis was based on meta-analysis and a modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results The search for peer-reviewed literature identified 14 743 journal articles of which 45 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were eligible for meta-analysis. We identified 5181 articles and reports in the gray literature, of which 16 were evaluated qualitatively. There was moderately strong evidence for improvement by OHS legislation and inspections with respect to injuries and compliance. Conclusions This review indicates that legislative and regulatory policy may reduce injuries and fatalities and improve compliance with OHS regulation. A major research gap was identified with respect to the effects of OSH regulation targeting psychological and musculoskeletal disorders.

Background Occupational exposure to extreme heat without sufficient protection may not only increase the risk of heat-related illnesses and injuries but also compromise economic productivity. With predictions of more frequent and intense bouts of hot weather, workplace heat exposure is presenting a growing challenge to workers’ health and safety. This study aims to investigate workers’ perceptions and behavioural responses towards extreme heat exposure in a warming climate. Methods A cross-sectional questionnaire survey was conducted in 2012 in South Australia among selected outdoor industries. Workers’ heat risk perceptions were measured in the following five aspects: concerns about heat exposure, attitudes towards more training, policy and guideline support, the adjustment of work habits, and degree of satisfaction of current preventive measures. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify factors significantly associated with workers’ heat perceptions. Results A total of 749 respondents participated in this survey, with a response rate of 50.9 %. A little more than half (51.2 %) of respondents were moderately or very much concerned about workplace heat exposure. Factors associated with workers’ heat concerns included age, undertaking very physically demanding work, and the use of personal protective equipment, heat illness history, and injury experience during hot weather. Less than half (43.4 %) of the respondents had received heat-related training. Workers aged 25–54 years and those with previous heat-related illness/injury history showed more supportive attitudes towards heat-related training. The provision of cool drinking water was the most common heat prevention measure. A little more than half (51.4 %) of respondents were satisfied with the current heat prevention measures. About two-thirds (63.8 %) of respondents agreed that there should be more heat-related regulations and guidelines for working during very hot weather. More than two-thirds (68.8 %) of the respondents were willing to adjust their current work habits to adapt to the likely increasing extreme heat, especially those with previous heat illness experience. Conclusions The findings suggest a need to strengthen workers’ heat risk awareness and refine current heat prevention strategies in a warming climate. Further heat educational programmes and training should focus on those undertaking physically demanding work outdoors, in particular young workers and those over 55 years with low education levels.

The Affordable Care Act encourages workplace wellness programs, chiefly by promoting programs that reward employees for changing health-related behavior or improving measurable health outcomes. Recognizing the risk that unhealthy employees might be punished rather than helped by such programs, the act also forbids health-based discrimination. We reviewed results of randomized controlled trials and identified challenges for workplace wellness programs to function as the act intends. For example, research results raise doubts that employees with health risk factors, such as obesity and tobacco use, spend more on medical care than others. Such groups may not be especially promising targets for financial incentives meant to save costs through health improvement. Although there may be other valid reasons, beyond lowering costs, to institute workplace wellness programs, we found little evidence that such programs can easily save costs through health improvement without being discriminatory. Our evidence suggests that savings to employers may come from cost shifting, with the most vulnerable employees-those from lower socioeconomic strata with the most health risks-probably bearing greater costs that in effect subsidize their healthier colleagues. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Background This study examined changes in adult daily smoking in 1981–2005 in Finland, in order to evaluate the impact of the 1995 Tobacco Control Act Amendment (TCAA) and accompanying measures on the proportion of daily smokers. The main focus of the TCAA was to prohibit smoking at workplaces (designated rooms excluded) in order to protect workers from environmental tobacco smoke. Methods The study was based on data from annual postal surveys among 15- to 64-year-olds in 1981–2005 (average response rate 73%). The data set for this study comprised men and women aged 25–64 years (n = 73 471). Logistic models were used to test the effect of the 1995 TCAA across employment status while controlling for the effect of changes in the real price of tobacco and in gross domestic product per capita, and adjusting for age, education, secular trend and prevalence of ever-smokers in each birth cohort. Results Controlling for confounding factors, the odds ratio (OR) for daily smoking after 1995 among employed men was 0.83 (95% CI 0.73–0.94) compared with the OR (1.0) for the period ending 1994. The corresponding figure for employed women was 0.78 (95% CI 0.68–0.91). The results can be interpreted as a positive effect of the 1995 TCAA on employees’ daily smoking. Moreover, a similar decrease in daily smoking was not seen among those not targeted by the TCAA (including farmers, students, housewives, pensioners and the unemployed). Conclusion Smoking behaviour was and can be influenced by national tobacco policy measures.

This study examined the effect of legislation that banned smoking in public places in Scotland on the incidence of severe episodes of asthma among children. The rate of hospitalization for asthma decreased among both preschool and school-age children after the institution of the ban. The prevalence of asthma has increased over the past few decades. 1 Active smoking is much less common among children than among adults. In Scotland, 25% of adults smoke, 2 as compared with only 4% of 13-year-olds and 15% of 15-year-olds. 3 However, children are commonly exposed to environmental tobacco smoke, particularly in the home. Studies in Scotland and in the United States have shown that 40% of 11-year-old children 4 and 5-year-old children 5 live with a smoker. Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke increases the incidence and severity of asthma, 6 and children are particularly susceptible to the deleterious effects of such exposure. 7 In the . . .