A considerably high number of outdoor workers worldwide are constantly exposed for the majority of their working life to solar radiation (SR); this exposure is known to induce various adverse health effects, mainly related to its ultraviolet (UV) component. The skin and the eye are the principal target organs for both acute and long-term exposure. Actinic keratosis, non-melanoma skin cancers, and malignant melanoma are the main long-term adverse skin effects, whereas in the eye pterygium, cataracts, and according to an increasing body of evidence, macular degeneration may be induced. Despite this, SR exposure risk is currently undervalued, if not neglected, as an occupational risk factor for outdoor workers. SR exposure is influenced by various environmental and individual factors, and occupation is one of the most relevant. For a better understanding of this risk and for the development of more effective prevention strategies, one of the main problems is the lack of available and adequate methods to estimate SR worker exposure, especially long-term exposure. The main aims of this review were to provide a comprehensive overview of SR exposure risk of outdoor workers, including the UV exposure levels and the main methods recently proposed for short-term and cumulative exposure, and to provide an update of knowledge on the main adverse eye and skin effects. Finally, we also outline here preventive interventions to reduce occupational risk.

Background Skin cancer is the most common malignancy in Caucasian populations worldwide and ultraviolet radia-

We formulated a harmonized definition of occupational burnout concept and experts from 29 countries consensually approved it. Official medical vocabulary should integrate this concept and its definition. This will reduce the semantic confusion associated with this concept, improve the quality of evidence on this outcome, and stimulate the research on diagnostic standards, paramount for treatment and prevention of occupational burnout.

No abstract

No abstract

The province of Modena is one of the most industrialized areas of Northern Italy. The medical records of the Ophthalmological Emergency Department (OED) of Modena University Hospital were studied: there were 13,470 OED accesses in 2014 and in 754 cases that an occupational eye injury occurred. The frequency of work-related eye injuries (3‰) was lower compared to other published studies, but the absolute number is still relevant, showing the need for more adequate prevention, especially in metal work, construction work, and agriculture, where the worst prognoses were observed. Intervention programs must be implemented as early as possible in the working life, considering that the frequency in younger workers is about double that of the oldest age class (3.5‰ vs. 1.8‰), and special attention should also be given to foreigners, who have a 50% higher injury risk. Furthermore, the planning of specific interventions for eye-injured workers may be useful, considering that a previous injury does not appear to encourage the adoption of preventive interventions, and a subgroup of eye-injured workers have a potential risk for new injuries. Finally, the data presented here indicates how OED records, integrated with specific occupational information, can be applied for studies on work-related eye injuries.

Background: The immunization of healthcare workers (HCWs) plays a recognized key role in prevention in the COVID-19 pandemic: in Italy, the vaccination campaign began at the end of December 2020. A better knowledge of the on-field immune response in HCWs, of adverse effects and of the main factors involved is fundamental. Methods: We performed a study on workers at a nursing home in Northern Italy, vaccinated in January–February 2021 with two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine four weeks apart, instead of the three weeks provided for in the original manufacturer protocol. One month after the second dose, the serological titer of IgG-neutralizing anti-RBD antibodies of the subunit S1 of the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 was determined. The socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of the subjects and adverse effects of vaccination were collected by questionnaire. Results: In all of the workers, high antibody titer, ranging between 20 and 760 times the minimum protective level were observed. Titers were significantly higher in subjects with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis. Adverse effects after the vaccine were more frequent after the second dose, but no severe adverse effects were observed. Conclusions: The two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine, even if administered four weeks apart, induced high titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing IgG in all the operators included in the study.

Background The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates). For this, systematic reviews of studies estimating the prevalence of exposure to selected occupational risk factors will be conducted to provide input data for estimations of the number of exposed workers. A critical part of systematic review methods is to assess risk of bias (RoB) of individual studies. In this article, we present and describe the development of such a tool, called the R isk o f B ias in S tudies estimating P revalence of E xposure to O ccupational risk factors (RoB-SPEO) tool; report results from RoB-SPEO's pilot testing; note RoB-SPEO's limitations; and suggest how the tool might be tested and developed further. Methods Selected existing RoB tools used in environmental and occupational health systematic reviews were reviewed and analysed. From existing tools, we identified domains for the new tool and, if necessary, added new domains. For each domain, we then identified and integrated components from the existing tools (i.e. instructions, domains, guiding questions, considerations, ratings and rating criteria), and, if necessary, we developed new components. Finally, we elicited feedback from other systematic review methodologists and exposure scientists and agreed upon RoB-SPEO. Nine experts pilot tested RoB-SPEO, and we calculated a raw measure of inter-rater agreement ( P i ) for each of its domain, rating P i < 0.4 as poor, 0.4 ≤ P i ≥ 0.8 as substantial and P i > 0.80 as almost perfect agreement. Results Our review found no standard tool for assessing RoB in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors. We identified six existing tools for environmental and occupational health systematic reviews and found that their components for assessing RoB differ considerably. With the new RoB-SPEO tool, assessors judge RoB for each of eight domains: (1) bias in selection of participants into the study; (2) bias due to a lack of blinding of study personnel; (3) bias due to exposure misclassification; (4) bias due to incomplete exposure data; (5) bias due to conflict of interest; (6) bias due to selective reporting of exposures; (7) bias due to difference in numerator and denominator; and (8) other bias. The RoB-SPEO's ratings are low, probably low, probably high, high or no information. Pilot testing of the RoB-SPEO tool found substantial inter-rater agreement for six domains (range of P i for these d...