All female graduates of a major U.S. veterinary school were surveyed by mailed questionnaire to obtain details of work practice and hazard exposure during the most recent year worked and during all pregnancies. Exposure questions were based on previously implicated occupational hazards which included anesthetic gases, radiation, zoonoses, prostaglandins, vaccines, physical trauma, and pesticides. The response rate was 86% (462/537). We found that practice type and pregnancy status were major determinants of hazard exposure within the veterinary profession. Small-animal practitioners reported the highest rates of exposure to anesthetic gas (94%), X-ray (90%), and pesticides (57%). Large-animal practitioners reported greater rates of trauma (64%) and potential exposure to prostaglandins (92%), Brucella abortus vaccine (23%), and carbon monoxide (18%). Potentially hazardous workplace practices or equipment were common. Forty-one percent of respondents who reported taking X-rays did not wear film badges, and 76% reported physically restraining animals for X-ray procedures. Twenty-seven percent of the respondents exposed to anesthetic gases worked at facilities which did not have waste anesthetic gas scavenging systems. Women who worked as veterinarians during a pregnancy attempted to reduce exposures to X-rays, insecticides, and other potentially hazardous exposures. Some potentially hazardous workplace exposures are common in veterinary practice, and measures to educate workers and to reduce these exposures should not await demonstration of adverse health effects.

No abstract

Because female veterinarians are exposed to several known reproductive hazards, the authors conducted a reproductive survey of all female graduates of a US veterinary school (n = 537) and law school (comparison group, n = 794). Analysis was confined to pregnancies completed after the second year of professional school and from 1966 to 1986. Based on one randomly chosen eligible pregnancy per woman (veterinarians, n = 176; lawyers, n = 229), spontaneous abortion rates, adjusted for elective abortions, were 13.3% for the veterinarians and 15.1% for the lawyers; these did not differ significantly. A Cox life table regression model controlling for age, smoking, alcohol use, and prior spontaneous abortion also showed no significant difference in spontaneous abortion rates between the two populations. Using all pregnancies, veterinarians who reported performing five or more radiographic examinations per week had a marginally elevated risk of spontaneous abortion, but the statistical significance disappeared when analysis was limited to one random pregnancy per woman. For one random eligible birth per woman, the mean birth weight did not differ significantly between the veterinarians and lawyers, even after controlling for possible confounders in regression analyses. A higher rate of reportable birth defects was observed among the veterinarians than among the lawyers (relative risk = 4.2, 95% confidence interval 1.2-15.1), but this unexpected result must be considered hypothesis-generating. The authors did not find an overall increased risk for spontaneous abortion or low birth weight infants among veterinarians compared with lawyers, but veterinarians who reported performing five or more radiographic examinations per week may have been at increased risk for spontaneous abortion.

We conducted a cross-sectional investigation to determine whether table grape harvesters, who have significant cutaneous contact with crop-associated materials that may cause skin disease, are more likely to develop dermatitis than are a control group of tomato workers performing mechanical harvesting with minimal cutaneous contact with crop-associated substances. A secondary aim was to develop methods for studying skin disease in farm workers, including a standard questionnaire and physical examination. California table grape workers (n = 183) and tomato workers (n = 43) completed an interviewer-administered questionnaire and waist-up physical examination at their work site during harvest operations. On physical examination, pustular eruptions such as acne and folliculitis were present in 30% of subjects, and eczematous rashes were noted in 10% of subjects. Irritant or allergic contact dermatitis was diagnosed in 2% of subjects. No significant differences in prevalence for these skin conditions were observed between the two groups of workers. In contrast to the physical examination results, grape workers were more likely than tomato workers to report a rash occurring in the previous 3 months (52% vs. 19%, p less than 0.001). Explanations for this discrepancy are discussed. The sensitivity of the questionnaire for current skin conditions was 31%, and the specificity was 94%. Improved sensitivity was seen for eczematous skin conditions (55%). We conclude that questionnaires provide an efficient means of assessing subject characteristics, but may have limited sensitivity for some dermatologic outcomes.