Working with cancer: Health and disability disparities among employed cancer survivors in the U.S

Approximately 40% of Americans annually diagnosed with cancer are working-age adults. Using a nationally representative database, we characterized differences in health status and occupation of working cancer survivors and persons without cancer. Cross-sectional data pooled from the 1997–2009 US National Health Interview Survey for adults with self-reported physician-diagnosed cancer (n=22,952) and those without (n=358,495), were analyzed. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare the health and disability status of employed cancer survivors across occupational sectors relative to workers without a cancer history and unemployed cancer survivors. Relative to workers with no cancer history, cancer survivors were more likely (OR; 95%CI) to be white-collar workers and less likely to be service workers. Working cancer survivors were significantly less likely than unemployed survivors, but more likely than workers with no cancer history, to report poor–fair health (0.25; 0.24–0.26) and (2.06; 1.96–2.17) respectively, and ≥2 functional limitations (0.37; 0.35–0.38) and (1.72; 1.64–1.80) respectively. Among employed cancer survivors, blue-collar workers reported worse health outcomes, yet they reported fewer workdays missed than white-collar workers. Blue-collar cancer survivors are working with high levels of poor health and disability. These findings support the need for workplace accommodations for cancer survivors in all occupational sectors, especially blue-collar workers. ► We examine differences in reported health and disability by cancer history. ► We compare health and disability status by occupation sector. ► Working survivors have poorer health than workers with no cancer history. ► Blue-collar workers report poorer health compared to other occupations. ► Blue-collar workers may work post diagnosis out of necessity rather than desire

Worker Populations at Risk for Work-Related Injuries Across the Life Course

BACKGROUND: Workplace injuries can have a substantial economic impact. Rates of workplace injuries differ across age groups, yet occupations/industry sectors at highest risk within age groups have not been identified. We examined workplace injury risk across industry sectors for three age groups using nationally-representative U.S. data. METHODS: Data from 1997–2009 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) were pooled for employed adults by age groups: 1) 18–25 (n=22,261); 2) 26–54 (n=121,559); and 3) 55+ (n=24,851). Workplace injury risk comparisons were made using logistic regression, with the Services sector as the referent and adjustment for sample design, gender, education, race/ethnicity, age, and income-to-poverty ratio. RESULTS: Overall 3-month injury prevalence was 0.88%. Highest risk sectors for workers aged 18–25 included: Agriculture/forestry/fisheries (Odds Ratio=4.80; 95% Confidence Interval 2.23–10.32), Healthcare/social assistance (2.71; 1.50–4.91), Construction (2.66; 1.56–4.53), Manufacturing (2.66; 1.54–4.61); for workers 26–54: Construction (2.30; 1.76–3.0), Agriculture/forestry/fisheries (1.91; 1.16–3.15), and Manufacturing (1.58; 1.28–1.96); for workers 55+: Agriculture/forestry/fisheries (3.01; 1.16–7.81), Transportation/communication/other public utilities (2.55; 1.44–4.49), and Construction (2.25; 1.09–4.67). CONCLUSIONS: Agriculture/forestry/fisheries and Construction were among the sectors with highest workplace injury risk for workers across all age groups. Differences in highest risk industries were identified between the youngest and oldest industry groups. Our results indicate a need for age specific interventions in some industries, and a need for more comprehensive measures in others

Cardiovascular Fitness Levels Among American Workers

OBJECTIVE: To explore cardiovascular fitness in 40 occupations using a nationally-representative 3 sample of the U.S. population. METHODS: Respondents aged 18–49 (n=3,354) from the 1999–2004 NHANES were evaluated for 5 cardiovascular fitness and classified into low, moderate, and high levels. Comparisons were 6 made among occupations. RESULTS: Of all U.S. workers, 16% had low, 36% moderate, and 48% high cardiovascular 8 fitness. Administrators, Health occupations, Wait staff, Personal services, and Agricultural 9 occupations had a lesser percentage of workers with low cardiovascular fitness compared to all 10 others. Sales workers, Administrative support, and Food preparers had a higher percentage of 11 workers with low cardiovascular fitness compared to all others. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiovascular fitness varies significantly across occupations, and those with limited physical activity have higher percentages of low cardiovascular fitness. Workplace strategies are needed to promote cardiovascular fitness among high-risk occupations

Working with cancer: Health and disability disparities among employed cancer survivors in the U.S.

INTRODUCTION: Approximately 40% of Americans annually diagnosed with cancer are working-age adults. Using a nationally representative database, we characterized differences in health status and occupation of working cancer survivors and persons without cancer. METHODS: Cross-sectional data pooled from the 1997–2009 US National Health Interview Survey for adults with self-reported physician-diagnosed cancer (n=22,952) and those without (n=358,495), were analyzed. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare the health and disability status of employed cancer survivors across occupational sectors relative to workers without a cancer history and unemployed cancer survivors. RESULTS: Relative to workers with no cancer history, cancer survivors were more likely to be white-collar workers and less likely to be service workers. Working cancer survivors were significantly less likely than unemployed survivors, but more likely than workers with no cancer history, to report poor-fair health (0.25; 0.24–0.26) and (2.06;1.96–2.17) respectively, and ≥2 functional limitations (0.37;0.35–0.38) and (1.72;1.64–1.80) respectively. Among employed cancer survivors, blue-collar workers reported worse health outcomes, yet they reported fewer workdays missed than white-collar workers. CONCLUSION: Blue-collar cancer survivors are working with high levels of poor health and disability. These findings support the need for workplace accommodations for cancer survivors in all occupational sectors, especially blue-collar workers