Assessing homogeneity in workplace exposure under stationary and non-stationary scenarios

In most epidemiological studies, historical monitoring data are scant and must be pooled to identify occupational groups with homogeneous exposures. Homogeneity of exposure is generally assessed in a group of workers who share a common job title or work in a common area. While published results suggest that the degree of homogeneity varies widely across job groups, less is known whether such variation differs across industrial sectors, classes of contaminants, or in the methods used to group workers. Relying upon a compilation of results presented in the literature, patterns of homogeneity among nearly 500 occupational groups of workers were evaluated on the basis of type of industry and agent. Additionally, effects of the characteristics of the sampling strategy on estimated indicators of homogeneity of exposure were assessed. ^ Exposure profiles for occupational groups of workers have typically been assessed under the assumption of stationarity, i.e., the mean exposure level and variance of the distribution that describes the underlying population of exposures are constant over time. Yet, the literature has shown that occupational exposures have declined in the last decades. This renders traditional methods for the description of exposure profiles inadequate. Thus, work was needed to develop appropriate methods to assess homogeneity for groups of workers whose exposures have changed over time. A study was carried out applying mixed effects models with a term for temporal trend to appropriately describe exposure profiles of groups of workers in the nickel-producing industry over a 20-year period. Using a sub-set of groups of nickel-exposed workers, another study was conducted to develop and apply a framework to evaluate the assumption of stationarity of the variances in the presence of systematic changes in exposure levels over time. ^

Psychosocial job characteristics as predictors of overall health: Results from a community-based cross-sectional study conducted in southeast Texas in 2001 and 2002

Stress at the workplace exposes people to increased risk for poor physical and/or mental health. Recently psychological and social disadvantages have been proven to place the worker at risk for mental or physical health outcomes. The overall purpose of this study was to study full time employed study subjects and (1) describe the various psychosocial job characteristics in a population of low income individuals stratified by race/ethnicity residing in Houston and Brownsville, Texas and (2) examine the associations between psychosocial job characteristics and physical, mental, and self rated health. It was observed that having a low level of education is associated with having very little or no control, security, and social support at the workplace. Being Mexican American was associated with having good job control, job security, job social support and having a less demanding job. Furthermore, the psychosocial job characteristics were associated with mental health outcomes but not with physical and self rated health. ^

Disparities in asthma prevalence: The influence of sociodemographic and workplace factors

Asthma is a serious and continuing health problem that affects millions of Americans. Our study was conducted in response to this serious health problem and for purposes of addressing the issue of potential health disparities as outlined in Healthy People 2010. Data from sub-populations of subjects who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 1999-2004 were used to complete the following specific aims: (1) to update nationally-based estimates of the prevalence of current and lifetime (ever) asthma among adults in the United States (U.S.) and describe by gender the relationships between potential risk factors (e.g., sociodemographics and lifestyle) and asthma; (2) to describe demographic characteristics among working adults in the U.S. and update estimates of the prevalence of asthma in this sub-population, stratified by occupation and industry; and 3) to determine the utility of adapting a population-based Job Exposure Matrix (JEM) for classifying workplace exposures to asthmagens. ^ Our findings suggest the prevalence of asthma among U.S. adults is continuing to rise, with women having a higher prevalence of asthma than men. Living below the poverty threshold, obesity, and prior history of smoking remain important determinants of asthma. Our study also adds to the increasing evidence that health care workers (HCWs) and those employed in education remain at high risk and that appropriate evaluation and control measures need to be implemented. Over 78% of HCWs and 71% of teachers in our study were females suggesting that further exploration of gender-specific risk factors of asthma in working populations is needed. ^ Our study also addressed the feasibility of adapting a population-based asthma-specific JEM to NHANES (1999-2004). We were not able to apply the asthma-specific JEM due to the broad occupational categories within NHANES. This represents a missed opportunity to examine the association between workplace exposures and asthma in U.S. working adults. However, we have identified steps that may be implemented in future population-based studies that would allow the asthma-specific JEM (and other population-based job exposure matrices) to be used in future studies of the U.S. working population.^

Use of universal precautions in the workplace: A comparison of two fire /EMS services

The Health Belief Model (HBM) provided the theoretical framework for examining Universal Precautions (UP) compliance factors by Firefighter, EMTs and Paramedics (prehospital care providers). A convenient sample of prehospital care providers (n = 4000) from two cities (Houston and Washington DC), were surveyed to explore the factors related to their decision to comply with Universal Precautions. Eight hundred and sixty-five useable questionnaires were analyzed. The responders were primarily male (95.7%) eight hundred and twenty-eight and thirty-seven were female, prehospital based (100%), EMTs (60.0%) and paramedics (12.8%) who had a mean 13 years of prehospital care experience. ^ Linear regression was used to evaluate the four hypotheses. The first hypothesis evaluating perceived susceptibility and seriousness with reported UP use was statistically significant (p = < .05). Perceived susceptibility, when considered independently, did not make a significant contribution (t = −4.2852; p = 0.0000) to the stated use of Universal precautions. The hypothesis is not supported as stated. The data indicates the opposite effect. Supported is the premise that as perceived susceptibility and perceived seriousness increase the use of Universal Precautions decreases. Hypothesis two tested perceived benefits with internal and external barriers. Both perceived benefits and internal and external barriers as well as the overall regression were significant (F = 112.6, p = 0.0000). The contribution of internal and external barriers was statistically significant (t = 0.0175; p = 0.0000) and (t = 0.0128; p = 0.0000). Hypothesis three which tested modifying factors, cues to action, select demographic variables, and the main effects of the HBM with self reported UP compliance overall was significant. The variables gender, birth, education, job type, EMS certification, years of service, years of experience providing patient care, Universal Precautions training hours, type of apparatus assigned to and the number of EMS related incidents responded to in a month were found to have a significant contribution to the stated use of Universal Precautions. ^ The additive effects were tested by use of a stepwise regression that assessed the contribution of each of the significant variables. Three variables in the equation were statistically significant. Internal barriers (t = −8.5507; p = 0.0000), external barriers (t = −6.2862; p = 0.000) and job type 2 & 3. Job type two (t = −2.8464; p = 0.0045 is titled Engineer/Operator. Job type three (t = −2.5730; p = 0.0103) is titled captain. The overall regression was significant (F = 24.06; p = 0.000). The Hypothesis is supported in the certain demographic variables do influence the stated use of Universal precautions and that as internal and external barriers are decreased, there is an increase in the stated use of Universal Precautions. ^ In summary, this study demonstrated that internal and external barriers have a significant impact on the stated use of Universal Precautions. Internal barriers are those factors within the individual that require an internal change (i.e., forgetfulness, freedom, perception of the urgency of the patient's needs etc.) and external barriers are things in the environment that can be altered (i.e., equipment design, availability of equipment, ease of use). These two model variables explained 23%–30% of the variance. ^