Background Owing to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, work environments and systems, as well as occupational health measures or activities that fall within our research field, are constantly changing. It is necessary to assess the impact of these changes on the physical and mental health of workers. Objective To assess how occupational health measures affect the health of workers, we conducted a baseline, longitudinal internet-based survey among Japanese workers in October 2021 and additionally scheduled 2 follow-up surveys for 2022 and 2023. We describe the details of the protocol of the work systems and health internet research (WSHIR) study, provide an overview of the results of the baseline survey, and discuss the study procedures and data used in the study. Methods This prospective cohort study was conducted online among internet monitors. The baseline survey was conducted from October 1 to 7, 2021. This study targeted those who were working and between the ages of 20 and 69 years. A total of 5111 respondents who passed the screening survey and proceeded to the main survey were enrolled according to collection units organized by sex and age. For the screening and main surveys, the questionnaire consisted of 9 and 33 items with 9 and 55 questions, respectively. Consistency and completeness checks were performed after the questionnaires were submitted. We compared basic characteristics, such as sex, age group, educational background, and marital status, among all participants, including those who withdrew from the analysis. Results Of the 5111 initial survey respondents, 571 (11.2%) were considered fraudulent. The data of the remaining 4540 (88.8%) participants (2273, 50.1%, males; 2267, 49.9%, females) included in the analysis were well balanced across participant sex and age groups according to the sampling plan because there was no significant difference by sex and age group using the chi-square test for checking the distribution bias of the participants (P=.84). Compared to female participants, male participants tended to be more likely to be managers and supervisors (323, 14.2%, males; 86, 3.8%, females), to work in a secondary industry (742, 32.6%, males; 357, 15.7%, females), and to have an annual income of ≥5 million yen (976, 42.9%, males; 429, 18.9%, females). For the evaluation of a psychological indicator, Kessler 6 (K6) score, by sex and age group, the characteristics of the score distribution of the included participants were similar to those reported in previous studies. Conclusions This study presents a protocol and overview of the results of an internet-based occupational health survey of workers. Using the results of this survey, we hope to evaluate the changes in occupational health activities and their impact on workers' health while controlling for the COVID-19 pandemic.
This study evaluated the performance of two respirators, a replaceable particulate respirator (RPR) and a powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR), worn according to non-recommended methods. Ten subjects wore either an RPR or PAPR according to the recommended method, or according to a non-recommended method, with a knit cover placed between the facepiece cushion and face, with a towel placed between the facepiece cushion and face, or with the headband on a helmet. The leakage rate of each wearing variation was then measured, according to the procedure for determining the protection factor of respiratory protective equipment, using atmospheric dust as required by JIS T8150. The average leakage rate for the RPR was 1.82–10.92%, whereas that of the PAPR was 0.18–0.42%. The performance of the RPR decreased when worn in methods outside of recommendations; however, there was no significant decrease in the performance of PAPR under any method of wear. Therefore, a PAPR is recommended for work in which a replaceable or disposable particulate respirator fails to provide sufficient protection against hazardous dust substances, or for workers who are unable to use a particulate respirator according to the recommended method owing to the work environment or health conditions.
This study evaluated the differences in respiratory protection between replaceable particulate respirators (RPRs) and powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) based on different wearing methods during exercise tasks. Ten participants wore RPRs and PAPRs alternately in ways comparable to those adopted by workers in actual workplaces. We measured the fit factor of the respiratory protective equipment (RPE) during exercise tasks for each wearing variation. The exercise load was set to 80W using an ergometer. The exercise tasks comprised five actions described in the Japan Industrial Standard T8150 in 2018. We compared the results with experimental data obtained at rest in our previous studies. The fit factor of RPRs during exercise was significantly lower than (p<0.001) and about half that measured at rest, indicating inadequate respiratory protection. On the other hand, the fit factor of PAPRs during exercise tasks was also significantly lower than (p<0.001) and about half that at rest, but respiratory protection was maintained. This suggests that the protection provided by PAPRs is independent of wearing method during exercise. PAPRs may thus be better than RPRs for workers who have to wear RPE inappropriately due to health problems.
BACKGROUND Due to the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, work environments and systems, as well as occupational health measures or activities that fall within our research field, are constantly changing. We consider it necessary to assess the impact of these changes on the physical and mental health of workers. OBJECTIVE To assess how occupational health measures affect the health of workers, we conducted a baseline longitudinal Internet-based survey among Japanese workers in October 2021, and additionally scheduled two follow-up surveys for 2022 and 2023. METHODS This survey is a prospective cohort study conducted online among Internet monitors. The baseline survey was conducted from October 1 to 7, 2021. The study targeted those who were working and between the ages of 20 and 69 years. Regarding sampling plan, 5111 respondents who passed the screening survey and proceeded to the main survey were enrolled according to collection units organized by both sex and age group. For the screening and main surveys, the questionnaire consisted of 9 and 33 items, with 9 and 55 total number of questions, respectively. We performed consistency and completeness checks after the questionnaires were submitted. We compared the basic characteristics such as sex, age group, educational background, and marital status among all participants including withdrawal participants in the analysis. RESULTS Of the 5,111 initial survey respondents, 571 were regarded as fraudulent. The data of the remaining 4,540 participants (Male: 2273, Female:2267) included for analysis were well-balanced across participant gender and age group according to the sampling plan, because there was no significant difference by sex and age group using the chi-square test for checking the distribution bias of the participants (p=0.838). With compared to Female participants, male participants tended to be more likely to be managers and supervisors (Male:323, Female: 86), to work in a secondary industry (Male:742, Female: 357), and to have annual income ≥5 million yen (Male:976, Female:429). For the evaluation of a psychological indicator, Kessler 6 (K6), according to gender and age group, the characteristics of the score distribution of the included participants were similar to those reported in previous studies. CONCLUSIONS This study presents a protocol and an overview of the results of an Internet-based occupational health survey of workers. Using the results of this survey, we hope to evaluate the changes in occupational health activities and their impact on workers' health while controlling for the COVID-19 pandemic period.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.