Paternal exposure to pesticides and congenital malformations

OBJECTIVES: A case-referent study with 261 matched pairs was carried out in 8 hospitals of Comunidad Valenciana, Spain, to assess the relation between occupational exposure to pesticides and selected congenital malformations. In this paper, the results concerning paternal exposure are presented. METHODS: The parents of the case patients and the referents were interviewed to collect information about exposure to pesticides and potential confounding variables. Detailed information on direct involvement in the handling of pesticides was collected for the interviewees involved in agricultural activities during a previously defined period in relation to conception and pregnancy. Exposure data were reviewed by 2 experts who assigned ordinal scores for the probability and intensity of exposure to pesticide classes and active ingredients. RESULTS: The dichotomous analysis of exposure (absent, present) yielded some increased risks, although not statistically significant, for aliphatic hydrocarbons [adjusted odds ratio (adjusted OR) 2.05, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.62-6.80], inorganic compounds (adjusted OR 2.02, 95% CI 0.53-7.72), and glufosinate (adjusted OR 2.45, 95% CI 0.78-7.70), and a significant association for pyridil derivatives (adjusted OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.19-6.44). The analysis based on the experts' scores (2 levels of exposure) showed some consistent associations for these compounds. CONCLUSIONS: This research indicates a possible risk of congenital malformations for paternal exposure to some pesticides, notably, pyridils, aliphatic hydrocarbons, inorganic compounds, and glufosinate. It did not find an increased risk for paternal exposure to pesticides in the classes of organophosphates, carbamates, organochlorines, chloroalkylthio fungicides and organosulfurs. These findings warrant further investigation

A qualitative study about immigrant workers’ perceptions of their working conditions in Spain

Background: Spain has recently become an inward migration country. Little is known about the occupational health of immigrant workers. This study aimed to explore the perceptions that immigrant workers in Spain had of their working conditions. Methods: Qualitative, exploratory, descriptive study. Criterion sampling. Data collected between September 2006 and May 2007 through semi-structured focus groups and individual interviews, with a topic guide. One hundred and fifty-eight immigrant workers (90 men/68 women) from Colombia (n = 21), Morocco (n = 39), sub-Saharan Africa (n = 29), Romania (n = 44) and Ecuador (n = 25), who were authorised (documented) or unauthorised (undocumented) residents in five medium to large cities in Spain. Results: Participants described poor working conditions, low pay and health hazards. Perception of hazards appeared to be related to gender and job sector. Informants were highly segregated into jobs by sex, however, so this issue will need further exploration. Undocumented workers described poorer conditions than documented workers, which they attributed to their documentation status. Documented participants also felt vulnerable because of their immigrant status. Informants believed that deficient language skills, non-transferability of their education and training and, most of all, their immigrant status and economic need left them with little choice but to work under poor conditions. Conclusions: The occupational health needs of immigrant workers must be addressed at the job level, while improving the enforcement of existing health and safety regulations. The roles that documentation status and economic need played in these informants’ work experiences should be considered and how these may influence health outcomes.Garcia Garcia, Ana Maria, [email protected]

Pharmacological Opportunities for Prevention of Preeclampsia

Preeclampsia (PE) is a disorder that occurs during pregnancy, it has an estimated worldwide prevalence of 5–8%, being one of the leading causes of maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality. Currently, different diagnostic criteria exist, however, due to its complexity; the clinical presentation that makes up this syndrome could make its presence unclear. The pathophysiology of PE has been recently postulated and divided into three processes: inadequate uterine remodeling, placental dysfunction and maternal endothelial dysfunction. Despite the advances in the treatment of PE, the outcome of the medical interventions has failed to decrease the morbidity and mortality of this disease. The main reason might be the multifactorial origin of pathogenic processes that lead to the development of PE. That is why treatment is focused on the prevention of PE in patients that might present the risk before developing it late in pregnancy. The knowledge of the pathophysiological factors that trigger the processes that culminate in the presentation of PE, is key for prevention of this disease. However, the origin of these processes is poorly understood. It may be attributed to the ethical considerations that come with the study of these population of patients compared with the study of non-pregnant women

Clinical Trials in Pregnant Women with Preeclampsia

Preeclampsia (PE) is the leading cause of preterm birth by medical indication when associated with premature detachment of placenta normoinserta, and Intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) is associated with high perinatal morbidity and mortality and long-term sequelae. The main problem of PE is threefold: the diagnostic difficulty, the complicated interrelationship of the pathophysiological processes, and the vulnerability of the maternal-fetal binomial to the therapeutic interventions. The approach for management with PE is preventing its late occurrence in pregnancy. The key to preventing PE is knowledge of the factors that trigger the pathophysiological processes that culminate in the presentation of PE. Understanding the developmental characteristics of the placenta in pregnancy at high risk for PE is essential for understanding the pathophysiology and developing strategies for prevention. When deciding that the population of study is a group of pregnant women, the first ethical criteria that need to be reviewed are those aimed at the protection of the fetus. There are no specific guidelines on how to assess fetal well-being during pregnancy routinely in the clinic, and this deficiency is shifted to clinical research with pregnant women

Immigration, work and health in Spain: the influence of legal status and employment contract on reported health indicators

Objective To analyze the relationship of legal status and employment conditions with health indicators in foreign-born and Spanish-born workers in Spain. Methods Cross-sectional study of 1,849 foreign-born and 509 Spanish-born workers (2008–2009, ITSAL Project). Considered employment conditions: permanent, temporary and no contract (foreign-born and Spanish-born); considered legal statuses: documented and undocumented (foreign-born). Joint relationships with self-rated health (SRH) and mental health (MH) were analyzed via logistical regression. Results When compared with male permanently contracted Spanish-born workers, worse health is seen in undocumented foreign-born, time in Spain ≤3 years (SRH aOR 2.68, 95% CI 1.09–6.56; MH aOR 2.26, 95% CI 1.15–4.42); in Spanish-born, temporary contracts (SRH aOR 2.40, 95% CI 1.04–5.53); and in foreign-born, temporary contracts, time in Spain >3 years (MH: aOR 1.96, 95% CI 1.13–3.38). In females, highest self-rated health risks are in foreign-born, temporary contracts (aOR 2.36, 95% CI 1.13–4.91) and without contracts, time in Spain >3 years (aOR 4.63, 95% CI 1.95–10.97). Conclusions Contract type is a health determinant in both foreign-born and Spanish-born workers. This study offers an uncommon exploration of undocumented migration and raises methodological issues to consider in future research.The study was funded partially by Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias [Spanish Fund for Health Research] grant numbers FIS PI050497, PI052334, PI061701

A GBD 2019 study of health and Sustainable Development Goal gains and forecasts to 2030 in Spain

This study aimed to report mortality, risk factors, and burden of diseases in Spain. The Global Burden of Disease, Injuries, and Risk Factors 2019 estimates the burden due to 369 diseases, injuries, and impairments and 87 risk factors and risk factor combinations. Here, we detail the updated Spain 1990-2019 burden of disease estimates and project certain metrics up to 2030. In 2019, leading causes of death were ischaemic heart disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Alzheimer's disease, and lung cancer. Main causes of disability adjusted life years (DALYs) were ischaemic heart disease, diabetes, lung cancer, low back pain, and stroke. Leading DALYs risk factors included smoking, high body mass index, and high fasting plasma glucose. Spain scored 74/100 among all health-related Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) indicators, ranking 20 of 195 countries and territories. We forecasted that by 2030, Spain would outpace Japan, the United States, and the European Union. Behavioural risk factors, such as smoking and poor diet, and environmental factors added a significant burden to the Spanish population's health in 2019. Monitoring these trends, particularly in light of COVID-19, is essential to prioritise interventions that will reduce the future burden of disease to meet population health and SDG commitments

Sickness presenteeism in Spanish-born and immigrant workers in Spain

<p>Abstract</p> <p><b>Background</b></p> <p>Previous studies have shown that immigrant workers face relatively worse working and employment conditions, as well as lower rates of sickness absence than native-born workers. This study aims to assess rates of sickness presenteeism in a sample of Spanish-born and foreign-born workers according to different characteristics.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A cross-sectional survey was conducted amongst a convenience sample of workers (Spanish-born and foreign-born), living in four Spanish cities: Barcelona, Huelva, Madrid and Valencia (2008-2009). Sickness presenteeism information was collected through two items in the questionnaire ("Have you had health problems in the last year?" and "Have you ever had to miss work for any health problem?") and was defined as worker who had a health problem (answered yes, first item) and had not missed work (answered no, second item). For the analysis, the sample of 2,059 workers (1,617 foreign-born) who answered yes to health problems was included. After descriptives, logistic regressions were used to establish the association between origin country and sickness presenteeism (adjusted odds ratios aOR; 95% confidence interval 95%CI). Analyses were stratified per time spent in Spain among foreign-born workers.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>All of the results refer to the comparison between foreign-born and Spanish-born workers as a whole, and in some categories relating to personal and occupational conditions. Foreign-born workers were more likely to report sickness presenteeism compared with their Spanish-born counterparts, especially those living in Spain for under 2 years [Prevalence: 42% in Spanish-born and 56.3% in Foreign-born; aOR 1.77 95%CI 1.24-2.53]. In case of foreign-born workers (with time in Spain < 2 years), men [aOR 2.31 95%CI 1.40-3.80], those with university studies [aOR 3.01 95%CI 1.04-8.69], temporary contracts [aOR 2.26 95%CI 1.29-3.98] and salaries between 751-1,200€ per month [aOR 1.74 95% CI 1.04-2.92] were more likely to report sickness presenteeism. Also, recent immigrants with good self-perceived health and good mental health were more likely to report presenteeism than Spanish-born workers with the same good health indicators.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Immigrant workers report more sickness presenteeism than their Spanish-born counterparts. These results could be related to precarious work and employment conditions of immigrants. Immigrant workers should benefit from the same standards of social security, and of health and safety in the workplace that are enjoyed by Spanish workers.</p

The effect of perceived discrimination on the health of immigrant workers in Spain

Background: Discrimination is an important determinant of health inequalities, and immigrants may be more vulnerable to certain types of discrimination than the native-born. This study analyses the relationship between immigrants' perceived discrimination and various self-reported health indicators. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted (2008) amongst a non-random sample of 2434 immigrants from Ecuador, Morocco, Romania and Colombia in four Spanish cities: Barcelona, Huelva, Madrid and Valencia. A factorial analysis of variables revealed three dimensions of perceived discrimination (due to immigrant status, due to physical appearance, and workplace-related). The association of these dimensions with self-rated health, mental health (GHQ-12), change in self-rated health between origin and host country, and other self-reported health outcomes was analysed. Logistic regression was used adjusting for potential confounders (aOR-95%CI). Subjects with worsening self-reported health status potentially attributable to perceived discrimination was estimated (population attributable proportion, PAP %). Results: 73.3% of men and 69.3% of women immigrants reported discrimination due to immigrant status. Moroccans showed the highest prevalence of perceived discrimination. Immigrants reporting discrimination were at significantly higher risk of reporting health problems than those not reporting discrimination. Workplace-related discrimination was associated with poor mental health (aOR 2.97 95%CI 2.45-3.60), and the worsening of self-rated health (aOR 2.20 95%CI 1.73- 2.80). 40% (95% CI 24-53) PAP of those reporting worse self-rated health could be attributable to discrimination due to immigrant status. Conclusions: Discrimination may constitute a risk factor for health in immigrant workers in Spain and could explain some health inequalities among immigrant populations in Spanish society.This work was supported by the following sources: Carolina Foundation (Spain), Healthcare Research Fund of the Spanish Ministry of Health and Consumption (references PI050497, PI052202, PI052334, PI061701, and PI0790470

Marine Biodiversity in the Caribbean: Regional Estimates and Distribution Patterns

This paper provides an analysis of the distribution patterns of marine biodiversity and summarizes the major activities of the Census of Marine Life program in the Caribbean region. The coastal Caribbean region is a large marine ecosystem (LME) characterized by coral reefs, mangroves, and seagrasses, but including other environments, such as sandy beaches and rocky shores. These tropical ecosystems incorporate a high diversity of associated flora and fauna, and the nations that border the Caribbean collectively encompass a major global marine biodiversity hot spot. We analyze the state of knowledge of marine biodiversity based on the geographic distribution of georeferenced species records and regional taxonomic lists. A total of 12,046 marine species are reported in this paper for the Caribbean region. These include representatives from 31 animal phyla, two plant phyla, one group of Chromista, and three groups of Protoctista. Sampling effort has been greatest in shallow, nearshore waters, where there is relatively good coverage of species records; offshore and deep environments have been less studied. Additionally, we found that the currently accepted classification of marine ecoregions of the Caribbean did not apply for the benthic distributions of five relatively well known taxonomic groups. Coastal species richness tends to concentrate along the Antillean arc (Cuba to the southernmost Antilles) and the northern coast of South America (Venezuela – Colombia), while no pattern can be observed in the deep sea with the available data. Several factors make it impossible to determine the extent to which these distribution patterns accurately reflect the true situation for marine biodiversity in general: (1) highly localized concentrations of collecting effort and a lack of collecting in many areas and ecosystems, (2) high variability among collecting methods, (3) limited taxonomic expertise for many groups, and (4) differing levels of activity in the study of different taxa