No abstract

Despite following recommended safe-handling practices, workplace contamination with antineoplastic drugs in pharmacy and nursing areas continues at these locations.

No abstract

No abstract

Objectives Antineoplastic drugs are known reproductive and developmental toxicants. Our objective was to review the existing literature of reproductive health risks to workers who handle antineoplastic drugs. Methods A structured literature review of 18 peer-reviewed, English language publications of occupational exposure and reproductive outcomes was performed. Results While effect sizes varied with study size and population, occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs appears to raise the risk of both congenital malformations and miscarriage. Studies of infertility and time-to-pregnancy also suggested an increased risk for sub-fertility. Conclusions Antineoplastic drugs are highly toxic in patients receiving treatment and adverse reproductive effects have been well documented in these patients. Healthcare workers with chronic, low level occupational exposure to these drugs also appear to have an increased risk of adverse reproductive outcomes. Additional precautions to prevent exposure should be considered.

BackgroundChronic diseases are increasing among children in Latin America.Objective and MethodsTo examine environmental risk factors for chronic disease in Latin American children and to develop a strategic initiative for control of these exposures, the World Health Organization (WHO) including the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), the Collegium Ramazzini, and Latin American scientists reviewed regional and relevant global data.ResultsIndustrial development and urbanization are proceeding rapidly in Latin America, and environmental pollution has become widespread. Environmental threats to children’s health include traditional hazards such as indoor air pollution and drinking-water contamination; the newer hazards of urban air pollution; toxic chemicals such as lead, asbestos, mercury, arsenic, and pesticides; hazardous and electronic waste; and climate change. The mix of traditional and modern hazards varies greatly across and within countries reflecting industrialization, urbanization, and socioeconomic forces.ConclusionsTo control environmental threats to children’s health in Latin America, WHO, including PAHO, will focus on the most highly prevalent and serious hazards—indoor and outdoor air pollution, water pollution, and toxic chemicals. Strategies for controlling these hazards include developing tracking data on regional trends in children’s environmental health (CEH), building a network of Collaborating Centres, promoting biomedical research in CEH, building regional capacity, supporting development of evidence-based prevention policies, studying the economic costs of chronic diseases in children, and developing platforms for dialogue with relevant stakeholders.CitationLaborde A, Tomasina F, Bianchi F, Bruné MN, Buka I, Comba P, Corra L, Cori L, Duffert CM, Harari R, Iavarone I, McDiarmid MA, Gray KA, Sly PD, Soares A, Suk WA, Landrigan PJ. 2015. Children’s health in Latin America: the influence of environmental exposures. Environ Health Perspect 123:201–209; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1408292

The COVID-19 pandemic has introduced a number of added obstacles to safe employment for already-challenged essential workers. Essential workers not employed in the health sector generally include racially diverse, low-wage workers whose jobs require close interaction with the public and/or close proximity to their coworkers, placing them at increased risk of infection. A narrative review facilitated the analyses of health outcome data in these workers and contributing factors to illness related to limited workplace protections and a lack of organizational support. Findings suggest that this already marginalized population may also be at increased risk of “moral injury” due to specific work-related factors, such as limited personal protective equipment (PPE) and the failure of the employer, as the safety and health “duty holder,” to protect workers. Evidence suggests that ethical and, in some cases, legally required safety protections benefit not only the individual worker, but an employer’s enterprise and the larger community which can retain access to resilient, essential services.

Background: Inclusion of reusable respirators, such as elastomeric half-face respirators (EHFRs) and powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs), in hospital respiratory protection inventories may represent 1 solution to the problem of N95 respirator shortages experienced during pandemics. User acceptance of these devices is 1 potential barrier to implementing such a strategy in respiratory protection programs. Methods: To assess user attitudes toward various respirators, health care workers enrolled in respiratory protection programs in a medical system using EHFRs, N95s, and PAPRs and completed an online questionnaire that addressed attitudes, beliefs, and respirator preferences under different risk scenarios. Responses were compared between user groups. Results: Of 1,152 participants, 53% currently used N95s, 24% used EHFRs, and 23% used PAPRs. N95 users rated their respirators more favorably compared with EHFR and PAPR users (P < .001) regarding comfort and communication, however, EHFR users rated their respirators much more highly regarding sense of protection (P < .001). For all user groups, reusable respirators were significantly more likely (odds ratios 2.3-7.7) to be preferred over N95 filtering facepiece respirators in higher risk scenarios compared to "usual circumstance" scenarios. Conclusions: Despite somewhat less favorable ratings on comfort and communication, experienced EHFR and PAPR users still prefer reusable respirators over N95s in certain higher risk scenarios. This suggests that reusable respirators are an acceptable alternative to N95 respirators in health care and offer 1 viable solution to prevent pandemic-generated respirator shortages.