No abstract

BackgroundAging of the workforce is a growing problem. As workers age, their physical, physiological and psychosocial capabilities change. Keeping older workers healthy and productive is a key goal of European labor policy and health promotion is a key to achieve this result. Previous studies about workplace health promotion (WHP) programs are usually focused on the entire workforce or to a specific topic. Within the framework of the EU-CHAFEA ProHealth65+ project, this paper aims to systematically review the literature on WHP interventions specifically targeted to older workers (OWs).MethodsThis systematic review was conducted by making a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science, SCOPUS, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL and PsychINFO databases. Search terms included ageing (and synonyms), worker (and synonyms), intervention (and synonyms), and health (and synonyms). The search was limited to papers in English or Italian published between January, 1st 2000 and May, 31st 2015. Relevant references in the selected articles were also analyzed.ResultsOf the 299 articles initially identified as relating to the topic, 18 articles met the inclusion criteria. The type, methods and outcome of interventions in the WHP programs retrieved were heterogenous, as was the definition of the age at which a worker is considered to be ‘older’. Most of the available studies had been conducted on small samples for a limited period of time.ConclusionOur review shows that, although this issue is of great importance, studies addressing WHP actions for OWs are few and generally of poor quality. Current evidence fails to show that WHP programs improve the work ability, productivity or job retention of older workers. In addition, there is limited evidence that WHP programs are effective in improving lifestyles and concur to maintain the health and well-being of older workers. There is a need for future WHP programs to be well-designed so that the effectiveness and cost-benefit of workplace interventions can be properly investigated.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1518-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory disease, whose etiology is still unclear. Its pathogenesis involves an interaction between genetic factors, immune response and the "forgotten organ", Gut Microbiota. Several studies have been conducted to assess the role of antibiotics and probiotics as additional or alternative therapies for Ulcerative Colitis. Escherichia coli Nissle (EcN) is a nonpathogenic Gram-negative strain isolated in 1917 by Alfred Nissle and it is the active component of microbial drug Mutaflor(®) (Ardeypharm GmbH, Herdecke, Germany and EcN, Cadigroup, In Italy) used in many gastrointestinal disorder including diarrhea, uncomplicated diverticular disease and UC. It is the only probiotic recommended in ECCO guidelines as effective alternative to mesalazine in maintenance of remission in UC patients. In this review we propose an update on the role of EcN 1917 in maintenance of remission in UC patients, including data about efficacy and safety. Further studies may be helpful for this subject to further the full use of potential of EcN.

The success of large-scale COVID-19 vaccination campaigns is contingent upon people being willing to receive the vaccine. Our study explored COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and its correlates in eight different countries around the globe. We analyzed convenience sample data collected between March 2020 and January 2021 as part of the iCARE cross-sectional study. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were conducted to explore the correlates of vaccine hesitancy. We included 32,028 participants from eight countries, and observed that 27% of the participants exhibited vaccine hesitancy, with increases over time. France reported the highest level of hesitancy (47.3%) and Brazil reported the lowest (9.6%). Women, younger individuals (≤29 years), people living in rural areas, and those with a lower perceived income were more likely to be hesitant. People who previously received an influenza vaccine were 70% less likely to report COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. We observed that people reporting greater COVID-19 health concerns were less likely to be hesitant, whereas people with higher personal financial concerns were more likely to be hesitant. Our findings indicate that there is substantial vaccine hesitancy in several countries, with cross-national differences in the magnitude and direction of the trend. Vaccination communication initiatives should target hesitant individuals (women, younger adults, people with lower incomes and those living in rural areas), and should highlight the immediate health, social and economic benefits of vaccination across these settings. Country-level analyses are warranted to understand the complex psychological, socio-environmental, and cultural factors associated with vaccine hesitancy.