Workers' health and productivity under occupational heat strain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Occupational heat strain (ie, the effect of environmental heat stress on the body) directly threatens workers’ ability to live healthy and productive lives. We estimated the effects of occupational heat strain on workers’ health and productivity outcomes. Methods Following PRISMA guidelines for this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed and Embase from database inception to Feb 5, 2018, for relevant studies in any labour environment and at any level of occupational heat strain. No restrictions on language, workers’ health status, or study design were applied. Occupational heat strain was defined using international health and safety guidelines and standards. We excluded studies that calculated effects using simulations or statistical models instead of actual measurements, and any grey literature. Risk of bias, data extraction, and sensitivity analysis were performed by two independent investigators. Six random-effects meta-analyses estimated the prevalence of occupational heat strain, kidney disease or acute kidney injury, productivity loss, core temperature, change in urine specific gravity, and odds of occupational heat strain occurring during or at the end of a work shift in heat stress conditions. The review protocol is available on PROSPERO, registration number CRD42017083271. Findings Of 958 reports identified through our systematic search, 111 studies done in 30 countries, including 447 million workers from more than 40 different occupations, were eligible for analysis. Our meta-analyses showed that individuals working a single work shift under heat stress (defined as wet-bulb globe temperature beyond 22·0 or 24·8°C depending on work intensity) were 4·01 times (95% CI 2·45–6·58; nine studies with 11 582 workers) more likely to experience occupational heat strain than an individual working in thermoneutral conditions, while their core temperature was increased by 0·7°C (0·4–1·0; 17 studies with 1090 workers) and their urine specific gravity was increased by 14·5% (0·0031, 0·0014–0·0048; 14 studies with 691 workers). During or at the end of a work shift under heat stress, 35% (31–39; 33 studies with 13088 workers) of workers experienced occupational heat strain, while 30% (21–39; 11 studies with 8076 workers) reported productivity losses. Finally, 15% (11–19; ten studies with 21721 workers) of individuals who typically or frequently worked under heat stress (minimum of 6 h per day, 5 days per week, for 2 months of the year) experienced kidney disease or acute kidney injury. Overall, this analysis include a variety of populations, exposures, and occupations to comply with a wider adoption of evidence synthesis, but resulted in large heterogeneity in our meta-analyses. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation analysis revealed moderate confidence for most results and very low confidence in two cases (average core temperature and change in urine specific gravity) due to studies being funded by industry. Interpretation Occupational heat strain has important health and productivity outcomes and should be recognised as a public health problem. Concerted international action is needed to mitigate its effects in light of climate change and the anticipated rise in heat stress

Thermographic imaging in sports and exercise medicine: a Delphi study and consensus statement on the measurement of human skin temperature

The importance of using infrared thermography (IRT) to assess skin temperature (tsk) is increasing in clinical settings. Recently, its use has been increasing in sports and exercise medicine; however, no consensus guideline exists to address the methods for collecting data in such situations. The aim of this study was to develop a checklist for the collection of tsk using IRT in sports and exercise medicine. We carried out a Delphi study to set a checklist based on consensus agreement from leading experts in the field. Panelists (n = 24) representing the areas of sport science (n = 8; 33%), physiology (n = 7; 29%), physiotherapy (n = 3; 13%) and medicine (n = 6; 25%), from 13 different countries completed the Delphi process. An initial list of 16 points was proposed which was rated and commented on by panelists in three rounds of anonymous surveys following a standard Delphi procedure. The panel reached consensus on 15 items which encompassed the participants’ demographic information, camera/room or environment setup and recording/analysis of tsk using IRT. The results of the Delphi produced the checklist entitled “Thermographic Imaging in Sports and Exercise Medicine (TISEM)” which is a proposal to standardize the collection and analysis of tsk data using IRT. It is intended that the TISEM can also be applied to evaluate bias in thermographic studies and to guide practitioners in the use of this technique