M. Valenty

Trends in incidence of occupational asthma, contact dermatitis, noise-induced hearing loss, carpal tunnel syndrome and upper limb musculoskeletal disorders in European countries from 2000 to 2012

Objectives The European Union (EU) strategy for health and safety at work underlines the need to reduce the incidence of occupational diseases (OD), but European statistics to evaluate this common goal are scarce. We aim to estimate and compare changes in incidence over time for occupational asthma, contact dermatitis, noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL), carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) and upper limb musculoskeletal disorders across 10 European countries. Methods OD surveillance systems that potentially reflected nationally representative trends in incidence within Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Switzerland and the UK provided data. Case counts were analysed using a negative binomial regression model with year as the main covariate. Many systems collected data from networks of ‘centres’, requiring the use of a multilevel negative binomial model. Some models made allowance for changes in compensation or reporting rules. Results Reports of contact dermatitis and asthma, conditions with shorter time between exposure to causal substances and OD, were consistently declining with only a few exceptions. For OD with physical causal exposures there was more variation between countries. Reported NIHL was increasing in Belgium, Spain, Switzerland and the Netherlands and decreasing elsewhere. Trends in CTS and upper limb musculoskeletal disorders varied widely within and between countries. Conclusions This is the first direct comparison of trends in OD within Europe and is consistent with a positive impact of European initiatives addressing exposures relevant to asthma and contact dermatitis. Taking a more flexible approach allowed comparisons of surveillance data between and within countries without harmonisation of data collection methods.

A review of occupational disease surveillance systems in Modernet countries.

BACKGROUND To improve occupational health public policies and to facilitate coordinated research within the European Union to reduce the incidence of occupational diseases (ODs), it is important to know what OD surveillance systems exist and how they compare. Monitoring trends in occupational diseases and tracing new and emerging risks in a network (Modernet) participants are well placed to provide this information as most either contribute data to and/or are involved in the management of OD systems. AIMS To identify and describe OD surveillance systems in Modernet countries with the longer-term objective of identifying a core template to be used on a large scale. METHODS A questionnaire sent to Modernet participants, seeking structured information about the OD surveillance system(s) in their country. RESULTS Overall 14 countries (70%) provided information for 33 OD systems, among them 11 compensation-based (CB) systems. Six countries provided information for non-CB systems reporting for any type of OD. The other systems reported either only ODs from a prescribed list, or specific diagnoses or diagnostic groups, with reports to most schemes being physician-based. Data collected varied but all systems collected diagnosis, age, gender, date reported and occupation (and/or industry) and most collected information on exposure. CONCLUSIONS This review provides information beneficial to both policy makers and researchers by identifying data sources useable to measure OD trends in European countries and opening the way to future work, both on trend comparisons within Europe and on the definition of a core template to extend OD surveillance on a larger scale.

Surveillance Programme of Work-related Diseases (WRD) in France

The surveillance programme of work-related diseases (WRD) is based on a network of occupational physicians who notify all WRD diagnosed during a two-week observation period. The aims are mainly to estimate the prevalence of non-compensated WRD in the working population according to socio economic factors; to determine new indicators of occupational health; to update the lists of compensable occupational diseases; to understand and assess under-compensation and under-notification. The participation rate for occupational physicians is around 33% in 2008. The main WRD are the musculoskeletal disorders, followed by the mental disorders. This 2-week protocol, repeated regularly, provides useful data on frequency of pathologies linked to employment as well as an estimate of unreported WRD subject to compensation or non-compensated WRDs, and the trends of WRDs over the time.

Interventions to increase the reporting of occupational diseases by physicians: a Cochrane systematic review

Under-reporting of occupational diseases is an important issue in many countries. Timely and complete reporting is fundamental to a successful physician-based public health surveillance system and to plan intervention programmes and allocation of resources. For physicians, the main reasons for under-reporting consist of lack of awareness regarding reporting requirements, time and effort involved in reporting and lack of benefit from reporting. There are no systematic reviews of the effects of interventions for increasing the reporting (or reducing the under-reporting) of occupational diseases. Therefore, we conducted a Cochrane systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at increasing the reporting of occupational diseases by physicians.1 We searched the Cochrane Occupational Safety and Health Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, OSH UPDATE, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Open-SIGLE and Health Evidence, up to January 2015. We intended to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, controlled before-after (CBA) studies and interrupted time series (ITS), on the effects of increasing the reporting of occupational diseases by physicians, but we only identified RCTs and CBA studies. Outcome measures were the reporting of occupational diseases measured either as the number of physicians reporting or as the rate of reporting occupational diseases. Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. The results of similar studies were combined in a meta-analysis. …

Occupational exposure factors for mental and behavioral disorders at work: The FOREC thesaurus

Background Mental disorders in the workplace are a major public health problem. Knowledge of the impact of the psychosocial work environment on mental and behavioral disorders can assist occupational physicians in the identification and description of occupational risk situations, and help to define priority actions. However, no classification for occupational exposure factors is currently available. We aimed to build a thesaurus of “Organizational, Relational, Ethical and other Contributing Factors” (FOREC) linked with the onset of mental and behavioral disorders. Methods The French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (ANSES) initiated and supervised a multidisciplinary working group consisting of the representatives of the main French occupational and public health actors. All decisions were accepted on a consensus basis. This collaborative work led to the classification of occupational exposure factors for mental and behavioral disorders in the workplace. To test this thesaurus in clinical practice, a French multicenter study was implemented. Patients were workers referred to the Occupational Disease Centers for mental health issues at work. Factors contributing to mental and behavioral disorders among workers were identified and coded retrospectively from the worker’s point of view using the FOREC thesaurus. Results We recruited 323 workers, aged 44.9±9.2 years, of which 31.3% were men. The most commonly encountered disorders were generalized anxiety disorders (106 workers, 32.8%) and moderate depressive episodes (86 workers, 26.7%). We identified 1357 factors, i.e. an average of 4.2 factors per worker. Among them, 575 (42.4%) were relational and 515 (37.9%) were organizational. All factors identified during consultations were described in the thesaurus. Conclusions We built the first thesaurus of “Organizational, Relational, Ethical and other Contributing Factors” (FOREC) that may help to generate profiles of mental and behavioral disorders at work. Encoding and describing these exposure factors, as well as using a worldwide standardized and shared terminology, will help to identify specific workplace prevention programs.

1710e Interventions to increase the reporting of occupational diseases by physicians

Introduction Under-reporting of occupational diseases is an important issue worldwide. The collection of reliable data is essential for prevention programmes. Little is known about the effects of interventions for increasing the reporting of occupational diseases. Methods We searched the Cochrane Occupational Safety and Health Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, OSH UPDATE, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Open-SIGLE, and Health Evidence until January 2015. We also checked reference lists of relevant articles and contacted study authors. Results We included 12 studies. Six studies evaluated the effectiveness of educational materials alone; one study evaluated the effectiveness of educational meetings; and four studies evaluated a combination of the two in increasing the reporting of occupational diseases by physicians. A further study evaluated the effectiveness of a complex educational campaign acting at society level. We found that the use of educational materials did not considerably increase the number of physicians reporting occupational diseases, but a legal obligation reminder message did. Furthermore, we found that the use of educational materials did not considerably increase the rate of reporting occupational diseases. Similarly, we found that the use of both educational materials and meetings did not considerably increase the number of physicians reporting occupational diseases or the rate of reporting. The same holds for the use of educational meetings alone. The use of an educational campaign appeared to increase the number of physicians reporting occupational diseases, although this was based on very low-quality evidence. Discussion The studies provide evidence that educational materials, educational meetings, or a combination of the two do not considerably increase the reporting of occupational diseases. The use of a reminder message on the legal obligation to report might provide some positive results. We need high-quality RCTs to corroborate these findings.