Holistic sustainability: advancing interdisciplinary building design through tools and data in Denmark

Sustainable housing and buildings constitute a fundamental part of the future urban fabric. This study aims at clarifying how different actors employ parameters of sustainability in building design and what enables the holistic perspective of the interrelating social, economic and environmental parameters. Interviews with building developers and designers show that decision support tools are used late in the design process and commonly focused on single parameters of sustainability. The analysis shows how practitioners of the planning and early design phases operate at general levels of geometrical clusters and volumes but must continuously evaluate each project from the perspective of the specifications of end-users and the public, to ensure holistic sustainability. This opposing relationship between need and availability of general and specific data, however, challenges the implementation of holistic sustainability. Advancing the interdisciplinary, holistic building design requires systematic aggregation of data from executed projects of this data into applicable rules-of-thumb. In parallel, future tools for simulation and dialogue must employ a broader scope of sustainability parameters. The conceptual frameworks of data and tools presented in this study can be used as a backdrop for developing sectora

WHO/ILO work-related burden of disease and injury: Protocol for systematic reviews of exposure to long working hours and of the effect of exposure to long working hours on depression

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing a joint methodology for estimating the national and global work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO joint methodology), with contributions from a large network of experts. In this paper, we present the protocol for two systematic reviews of parameters for estimating the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from depression attributable to exposure to long working hours, to inform the development of the WHO/ILO joint methodology. Objectives: We aim to systematically review studies on occupational exposure to long working hours (Systematic Review 1) and systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of long working hours on depression (Systematic Review 2), applying the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology as an organizing framework, conducting both systematic reviews in tandem and in a harmonized way. Data sources: Separately for Systematic Reviews 1 and 2, we will search electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CISDOC and PsycINFO. We will also search electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand search reference list of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consult additional experts. Study eligibility and criteria: We will include working-age (≥15 years) participants in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State, but exclude child workers (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. For Systematic Review 1, we will include quantitative prevalence studies of relevant levels of occupational exposure to long working hours (i.e. 35–40, 41–48, 49–54 and ≥55 h/week) stratified by country, sex, age and industrial sector or occupation, in the years 2005–2018. For Systematic Review 2, we will include randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the relative effect of relevant level(s) of long working hours on the incidence of or mortality due to depression, compared with the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (i.e. 35–40 h/week). Study appraisal and synthesis methods: At least two review authors will independently screen titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. At least two review authors will assess risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using the most suited tools currently available. For Systematic Review 2, if feasible, we will combine relative risks using meta-analysis. We will report results using the guidelines for accurate and transparent health estimates reporting (GATHER) for Systematic Review 1 and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines (PRISMA) for Systematic Review 2. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018085729The publication was prepared with financial support from the World Health Organization cooperative agreement with the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the United States of America on implementing Resolution WHA 60.26 “Workers' Health: Global Plan of Action” (Grant 1 E11 OH0010676-02)