4.5 Article

Breath-taking jobs: a case-control study of respiratory work disability by occupation in Norway

期刊

OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE
卷 73, 期 9, 页码 600-606

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/oemed-2015-103488

关键词

respiratory work disability; occupation; respiratory symptoms; exposures; job-exposure matrix

资金

  1. Telemark Hospital, Norway

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The current knowledge on respiratory work disability is based on studies that used crude categories of exposure. This may lead to a loss of power, and does not provide sufficient information to allow targeted workplace interventions and follow-up of patients with respiratory symptoms. Objectives The aim of this study was to identify occupations and specific exposures associated with respiratory work disability. Methods In 2013, a self-administered questionnaire was mailed to a random sample of the general population, aged 16-50, in Telemark County, Norway. We defined respiratory work disability as a positive response to the survey question: Have you ever had to change or leave your job because it affected your breathing?' Occupational exposures were assessed using an asthma-specific job-exposure matrix, and comparison of risks was made for cases and a median of 50 controls per case. Results 247 workers had changed their work because of respiratory symptoms, accounting for 1.7% of the respondents ever employed. The breath-taking jobs' were cooks/chefs: adjusted OR 3.6 (95% CI 1.6 to 8.0); welders: 5.2 (2.0 to 14); gardeners: 4.5 (1.3 to 15); sheet metal workers: 5.4 (2.0 to 14); cleaners: 5.0 (2.2 to 11); hairdressers: 6.4 (2.5 to 17); and agricultural labourers: 7.4 (2.5 to 22). Job changes were also associated with a variety of occupational exposures, with some differences between men and women. Conclusions Self-report and job-exposure matrix data showed similar findings. For the occupations and exposures associated with job change, preventive measures should be implemented.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据