Recognition of COVID-19 with occupational origin: a comparison between European countries

Objectives This study aims to present an overview of the formal recognition of COVID-19 as occupational disease (OD) or injury (OI) across Europe. Methods A COVID-19 questionnaire was designed by a task group within COST-funded OMEGA-NET and sent to occupational health experts of 37 countries in WHO European region, with a last update in April 2022. Results The questionnaire was filled out by experts from 35 countries. There are large differences between national systems regarding the recognition of OD and OI: 40% of countries have a list system, 57% a mixed system and one country an open system. In most countries, COVID-19 can be recognised as an OD (57%). In four countries, COVID-19 can be recognised as OI (11%) and in seven countries as either OD or OI (20%). In two countries, there is no recognition possible to date. Thirty-two countries (91%) recognise COVID-19 as OD/OI among healthcare workers. Working in certain jobs is considered proof of occupational exposure in 25 countries, contact with a colleague with confirmed infection in 19 countries, and contact with clients with confirmed infection in 21 countries. In most countries (57%), a positive PCR test is considered proof of disease. The three most common compensation benefits for COVID-19 as OI/OD are disability pension, treatment and rehabilitation. Long COVID is included in 26 countries. Conclusions COVID-19 can be recognised as OD or OI in 94% of the European countries completing this survey, across different social security and embedded occupational health systems.This publication is based on work from COST Action CA16216 (OMEGA-NET), supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology)

How to identify the most suitable questionnaires and rating scales for your clinical practice or research?

Selection of the most suitable instrument for a health outcome or exposure assessment is challenging, as there are many different instruments and their versions, most with unknown validity. To develop guidelines facilitating the search for the most suitable instrument. Based on our experience, we formalised a five-step process. The first step is the search for systematic reviews of available instruments validity in COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN), International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO), or conventional (eg, Medline and Web of Science) databases. If there is no systematic review, the clinician should look for original validation studies and assess them critically. We presented two alternatives of this assessment: qualitative using COSMIN and quantitative using our methodological framework. The latter helps to decide upon the instrument validity completeness and interpret the statistical results from original studies objectively. This process was then transformed into guidelines, which were tested by three external clinicians to select the most appropriate instrument to measure depression, occupational stress and daily fatigue. The guidelines were proved to facilitate the instrument search and selection, practical and time-saving. The guidelines assessment highlighted that clinicians should check whether the instrument that they are looking for was developed for screening or diagnosing purposes, whether it can be self-administered or not, and for which setting it was validated (academic vs clinical). These guidelines facilitate the objective choice of the most suitable instrument in clinical practice by making the search simple, systematic and time-effective

Work ability assessment in a worker population : comparison and determinants of Work Ability index and Work Ability score

Background Public authorities in European countries are paying increasing attention to the promotion of work ability throughout working life and the best method to monitor work ability in populations of workers is becoming a significant question. The present study aims to compare the assessment of work ability based on the use of the Work Ability Index (WAI), a 7-item questionnaire, with another one based on the use of WAI’s first item, which consists in the worker’s self-assessment of his/her current work ability level as opposed to his/her lifetime best, this single question being termed “Work Ability score” (WAS). Methods Using a database created by an occupational health service, the study intends to answer the following questions: could the assessment of work ability be based on a single-item measure and which are the variables significantly associated with self-reported work ability among those systematically recorded by the occupational physician during health examinations? A logistic regression model was used in order to estimate the probability of observing “poor” or “moderate” WAI levels depending on age, gender, body mass index, smoking status, position held, firm size and diseases reported by the worker in a population of workers aged 40 to 65 and examined between January 2006 and June 2010 (n=12389). Results The convergent validity between WAS and WAI was statistically significant (rs=0.63). In the multivariable model, age (p<0.001), reported diseases (OR=1.13, 95%CI [1.11-1.15]) and holding a position mostly characterized by physical activity (OR=1.67, 95%CI [1.49-1.87]) increased the probability of reporting moderate or poor work ability. A work position characterized by the predominance of mental activity (OR=0.71, 95%CI [0.61-0.84]) had a favourable impact on work ability. These relations were observed regardless of the work ability measurement tool used. Conclusion The convergent validity and the similarity in results between WAI and WAS observed in a large population of employed workers should thus foster the use of WAS for systematic screening of work ability. Ageing, overweight, decline in health status, holding a mostly physical job and working in a large-sized firm increase the risk of presenting moderate or poor work ability

HBM4EU chromates study: determinants of exposure to hexavalent chromium in plating, welding and other occupational settings

Work-related exposures in industrial processing of chromate (chrome plating, surface treatment and welding) raise concern regarding the health risk of hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)). In this study, performed under the HBM4EU project, we focused on better understanding the determinants of exposure and recognising how risk management measures (RMMs) contribute to a reduction in exposure. HBM and occupational hygiene data were collected from 399 workers and 203 controls recruited in nine European countries. Urinary total chromium (U-Cr), personal inhalable and respirable dust of Cr and Cr(VI) and Cr from hand wipes were collected. Data on the RMMs were collected by questionnaires. We studied the association between different exposure parameters and the use of RMMs. The relationship between exposure by inhalation and U-Cr in different worker groups was analysed using regression analysis and found a strong association. Automatisation of Cr electroplating dipping explained lower exposure levels in platers. The use of personal protective equipment resulted in lower U-Cr levels in welding, bath plating and painting. An effect of wearing gloves was observed in machining. An effect of local exhaust ventilation and training was observed in welding. Regression analyses showed that in platers, exposure to air level of 5 mu g/m(3) corresponds to U-Cr level of 7 mu g/g creatinine. In welders, the same inhalation exposure resulted in lower U-Cr levels reflecting toxicokinetic differences of different chromium species

HBM4EU chromates study - Overall results and recommendations for the biomonitoring of occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium

Exposure to hexavalent chromium [Cr(VI)] may occur in several occupational activities, e.g., welding, Cr(VI) electroplating and other surface treatment processes. The aim of this study was to provide EU relevant data on occupational Cr(VI) exposure to support the regulatory risk assessment and decision-making. In addition, the capability and validity of different biomarkers for the assessment of Cr(VI) exposure were evaluated. The study involved nine European countries and involved 399 workers in different industry sectors with exposures to Cr(VI) such as welding, bath plating, applying or removing paint and other tasks. We also studied 203 controls to establish a background in workers with no direct exposure to Cr(VI). We applied a cross-sectional study design and used chromium in urine as the primary biomonitoring method for Cr(VI) exposure. Additionally, we studied the use of red blood cells (RBC) and exhaled breath condensate (EBC) for biomonitoring of exposure to Cr(VI). Personal measurements were used to study exposure to inhalable and respirable Cr(VI) by personal air sampling. Dermal exposure was studied by taking hand wipe samples. The highest internal exposures were observed in the use of Cr(VI) in electrolytic bath plating. In stainless steel welding the internal Cr exposure was clearly lower when compared to plating activities. We observed a high correlation between chromium urinary levels and air Cr(VI) or dermal total Cr exposure. Urinary chromium showed its value as a first approach for the assessment of total, internal exposure. Correlations between urinary chromium and Cr(VI) in EBC and Cr in RBC were low, probably due to differences in kinetics and indicating that these biomonitoring approaches may not be interchangeable but rather complementary. This study showed that occupational biomonitoring studies can be conducted successfully by multi-national collaboration and provide relevant information to support policy actions aiming to reduce occupational exposure to chemicals