Stigmatization from work-related COVID-19 exposure has not been investigated in detail yet. Therefore, we systematically searched three databases: Medline, Embase, and PsychInfo (until October 2020), and performed a grey literature search (until February 2021). We identified 46 suitable articles from 24 quantitative and 11 qualitative studies, 6 systematic reviews, 3 study protocols and 1 intervention. The assessment of stigmatization varied widely, ranging from a single-item question to a 22-item questionnaire. Studies mostly considered perceived self-stigma (27 of 35 original studies) in healthcare workers (HCWs) or hospital-related jobs (29 of 35). All articles reported on stigmatization as a result of work-related COVID-19 exposure. However, most quantitative studies were characterized by convenience sampling (17 of 24), and all studies—also those with an adequate sampling design—were considered of low methodological quality. Therefore, it is not possible to determine prevalence of stigmatization in defined occupational groups. Nevertheless, the work-related stigmatization of occupational groups with or without suspected contact to COVID-19 is a relevant problem and increases the risk for depression (odds ratio (OR) = 1.74; 95% confidence interval CI 1.29–2.36) and anxiety (OR = 1.64; 95% CI 1.18–2.28). For promoting workers’ health, anti-stigma strategies and support should be implemented in the workplace.

The physical load ensuing from the repositioning and moving of patients puts health care workers at risk of musculoskeletal complaints. Technical equipment developed to aid with patient handling should reduce physical strain and workload; however, the efficacy of these aids in preventing musculoskeletal disorders and complaints is still unclear. A systematic review of controlled intervention studies was conducted to examine if the risk of musculoskeletal complaints and disorders is reduced by technical patient handling equipment. MEDLINE®/PubMed®, EMBASE®, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL®) were searched using terms for nursing, caregiving, technical aids, musculoskeletal injuries, and complaints. Randomized controlled trials and controlled before-after studies of interventions including technical patient handling equipment were included. The titles and abstracts of 9554 publications and 97 full-texts were screened by two reviewers. The qualitative synthesis included one randomized controlled trial (RCT) and ten controlled before-after studies. A meta-analysis of four studies resulted in a pooled risk ratio for musculoskeletal injury claims (post-intervention) of 0.78 (95% confidence interval 0.68–0.90). Overall, the methodological quality of the studies was poor and the results often based on administrative injury claim data, introducing potential selection bias. Interventions with technical patient handling aids appear to prevent musculoskeletal complaints, but the certainty of the evidence according to GRADE approach ranged from low to very low.

BackgroundThe use of multiple licit and illicit substances plays an important role in many university students’ lives. Previous research on multiple substance use patterns of university students, however, often fails to examine use of different illicit substances and/or hookah. Our objective was to complement and advance the current knowledge about common consumption patterns regarding illicit substances and hookah use in this group.MethodsStudents from eight German universities completed an online survey as part of the INSIST study (‘INternet-based Social norms Intervention for the prevention of substance use among STudents’) regarding their consumption of alcohol, tobacco, hookah, cannabis and other illicit substances. Cluster analysis identified distinct consumption patterns of concurrent and non-concurrent substance use and multinomial logistic regressions described key sociodemographic factors associated with these clusters.ResultsSix homogeneous groups were identified: ‘Alcohol Abstainers’ (10.8%), ‘Drinkers Only’ (48.2%), ‘Drinkers and Cigarette Smokers’ (14.6%), ‘Cannabis and Licit Substance Users’ (11.2%), ‘Hookah Users with Co-Use’ (9.8%) and ‘Illicit Substance Users with Co-Use’ (5.4%). Illicit substance use clustered with the consumption of alcohol, tobacco and cannabis. Hookah use was regularly associated with alcohol consumption, less commonly associated with tobacco or cannabis use and very rarely associated with use of other illicit substances. Individuals consuming licit and illicit substances or hookah were mostly male and lived together with other students. Characteristics such as the number of years an individual had spent studying at a university, subject of study, immigrant background and religious affiliation were less commonly associated with cluster membership.ConclusionsAlthough we found substance use patterns in our sample largely similar to previous reports, we identified an important subgroup of individuals using both illicit and licit substances. These individuals may benefit especially from targeted interventions that focus on modifying addictive behavior patterns.Trial registration DRKS00007635. Registered 17 December 2014 (retrospectively registered).

BackgroundAccording to international study results, physical therapists are afflicted with work-related musculoskeletal, psychosocial and dermal disorders as well as infections. The few existing studies in German-speaking regions focus mainly on dermal and psychosocial exposures and resulting complaints. An overview of all relevant work-related exposures and complaints of physical therapists is currently lacking.We sought to identify work-related exposures based on the subjective experiences and beliefs of physiotherapeutic representatives, in order to identify relevant work-related complaints and diseases. Likewise we aimed to compare the international evidence with the actual situation of physical therapists in Germany.MethodsTwo complementary qualitative approaches were used: 1) a focus group discussion with representatives of professional physiotherapy associations as well as health and safety stakeholders and 2) qualitative semi-structured telephone interviews incorporating currently employed physical therapists. The group discussion was conducted applying a moderation technique, and interviews were analyzed using the content analysis approach by Mayring.ResultsThe focus group discussion with five participants and the 40 semi-structured interviews with physical therapists identified comparable results. The main exposures of physiotherapeutic work were considered to be musculoskeletal (e.g., awkward body postures during treatment, patient transfers, passive mobilization), psychosocial (e.g., statutory audit of prescriptions and the associated conflicts with doctors and health insurance providers) and partly dermal and infectious (e.g., wet work and risk of infection) factors. Diseases of the spine, wrist or finger joints, burnout syndrome and infections were mentioned as possible consequences.ConclusionsThe subjective data generated by both groups (focus group discussion and interviews) were comparable and consistent with the current state of research. The results provide new insight regarding work-related exposures and diseases of physical therapists working in Germany. These findings aided the design of a German-wide representative survey of practicing physical therapists.