Effort-reward imbalance and sedentary lifestyle: an observational study in a large occupational cohort

Objectives: To investigate the association between effort-reward imbalance (ERI) at work and sedentary lifestyle. Methods: Cross-sectional data from the ongoing Finnish Public Sector Study related to 30 433 women and 7718 men aged 17-64 were used (n = 35 918 after exclusion of participants with missing values in covariates). From the responses to a questionnaire, an aggregated mean score for ERI in a work unit was assigned to each participant. The outcome was sedentary lifestyle defined as <2.00 metabolic equivalent task (MET) hours/day. Logistic regression with generalized estimating equations was used as an analysis method to include both individual and work unit level predictors in the models. Adjustments were made for age, marital status, occupational status, job contract, smoking, and heavy drinking. Results: Twenty five percent of women and 27% of men had a sedentary lifestyle. High individual level ERI was associated with a higher likelihood of sedentary lifestyle both among women (odds ratio (OR) = 1.08, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.16) and men (OR = 1.17, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.33). These associations were not explained by relevant confounders and they were also independent of work unit level job strain measured as a ratio of job demands and control. Conclusions: A mismatch between high occupational effort spent and low reward received in turn seems to be associated with an elevated risk of sedentary lifestyle, although this association is relatively weak.

Should eye protection be worn during dermatological surgery: prospective observational study

Background There is a potential risk of infection with blood-borne viruses if a doctor receives a blood splash to a mucous membrane. The quantification of facial contamination with blood has never been documented in the context of dermatological surgery. Objectives (i) To identify the number of facial blood splashes that occur during skin surgery and to identify the procedures that present higher risks for the operator and assistant. (ii) To assess the provision of eye protection and attitudes to its use in dermatological surgery in the U.K. Methods (i) Prospective, observational study in the skin surgery suite of a U.K. teaching hospital assessing 100 consecutive dermatological surgery procedures, plus 100 consecutive operations in which an assistant was present. Primary outcome: number of face-mask visors with at least one blood splash. Secondary outcomes: to identify if any of the following variables influenced the occurrence of a blood splash: grade of operator, site and type of procedure, and the use of electrocautery. (ii) A postal survey of all U.K.-based members of the British Society of Dermatological Surgery (BSDS) was conducted assessing facilities available and the attitudes of U.K.-based clinicians to the use of face masks during surgery. Results (i) In 33% of all surgical procedures there was at least one facial splash to the operator (range 1–75) and in 15% of procedures the assistant received at least one splash (range 1–11). Use of monopolar electrocautery was significantly less likely to result in splashes to the mask compared with bipolar electrocautery [odds ratio (OR) 0Æ04; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0Æ01–0Æ19]. Compared with the head/neck, operations on the body were significantly more likely to result in splashes to the mask (OR 6Æ52) (95% CI 1Æ7–25Æ07). The type of procedure and the status of the operator did not have a bearing on the likelihood of receiving a splash to the mask. (ii) From the survey, 33 of 159 (20Æ8%) of BSDS members had no face masks available and 54 of 159 (34Æ0%) did not wear any facial protection while operating. The majority (53Æ5%) thought they received a splash in £ 1% of procedures. Conclusions There is a substantial risk of a splash of blood coming into contact with the face during dermatological surgery for both the operator and assistant, regardless of the procedure. The risk of receiving a blood splash to the face may be substantially underestimated by U.K.-based dermatologists. The use of protective eyewear is advisable at all times, but particularly when using bipolar electrocautery, or when operating on high-risk individuals.