ObjectivesTo investigate incidence and distribution of major adverse reproductive health problems related to various kinds of industries in Korea and to compare risks for major reproductive outcomes to assess maternal health in working and non-working women. MethodsWe requested claim data from the Korean National Health Insurance. We defined reference groups as (1) non-working women and (2) workers in the education field. Women working in each industry were compared with reference groups regarding rates of miscarriage, threatened abortion, preterm labor, and intrauterine growth restriction. Logistic regression was used for multivariate analysis, and age and income adjustment was performed. ResultsThe percentages of all adverse obstetric outcomes were higher in working women than in non-working women. Working women had higher and statistically significant adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for miscarriage in 18 of the 21 industries. The age and income-adjusted OR for miscarriage for all working women was 1.26 (95% confidence interval, 1.23-1.28). Business facilities management and business support services, manufacturing, human health and social work activities, wholesale and retail trade, and professional, scientific, and technical activities were major industries with higher adjusted ORs for adverse obstetric outcomes. ConclusionsWe confirmed that compared to non-working women, working women have a higher risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes. Thus, adverse pregnancy outcomes such as threatened abortion, preterm labor, and intrauterine growth restriction may be associated with working PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has exposed healthcare workers to extreme physical workloads and psychological challenges. Thus, we aimed to assess the immediate correlates of emotional stress and to identify which specific jobs, departments, and exposure types are risk factors for emotional stress in healthcare workers. Methods In this cross-sectional study conducted from April 2 to 10, 2020, university hospital workers were administered self-reported questionnaires that covered general characteristics and included the Patient Health Questionnaire, Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale, and a visual analog scale. At-risk groups for depression and anxiety were identified, and the odds ratios for depression and anxiety were analyzed after adjusting for age, gender, education, marital status, and duration of employment. Results The data of 1,003 participants were analyzed. Of these, 14.2% worked in wards for confirmed COVID-19 cases and 15.2% had had direct contact with these patients. Treating patients with COVID-19 was associated with depression and anxiety, while dealing with COVID-19 test samples was associated with depression. Exposure to random or unspecified patients was also associated with depression. Lastly, social rejection and other negative experiences were associated with depression and anxiety. Conclusion The COVID-19 outbreak is correlated with healthcare workers' emotional stress, and specific types of jobs and duties involving close contact with these patients can be risk factors. Interestingly, even low-exposure groups reported significant depression and anxiety as a result of social stigma and uncertainty. Adequate and timely management measures for emotional stress are required for vulnerable and at-risk groups.

In this study, we assessed the adverse effects and the work and daily life interference associated with each dose of the ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccines. Questionnaires were distributed to workers after they received both doses; only those who worked the day after receiving the vaccine were included in the analysis. Overall, 368 ChAdOx1-vaccinated and 27 BNT162b2-vaccinated participants were included. Among the ChAdOx1-vaccinated participants, the incidence of adverse effects was significantly lower after the second dose than after the first dose. Among the BNT162b2-vaccinated participants, however, no differences in adverse effects or work and daily life interference were found between the doses. After the first and second dose, the numeric scale score (0–10) for interference with work was 3.9 ± 2.9 and 1.6 ± 1.9 for the ChAdOx1 and 3.2 ± 2.5 and 3.6 ± 3.0 for the BNT162b2 vaccine, respectively. A similar trend was observed for interference with daily life. Factors associated with work and daily life interference in the multivariate model were age, vaccine dose (first or second), and the interaction term of vaccine type and dose. These results could be used to inform the general population of the adverse effects associated with these vaccinations.