Global and regional burden of disease and injury in 2016 arising from occupational exposures: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016

Abstract

ObjectivesThis study provides an overview of the influence of occupational risk factors on the global burden of disease as estimated by the occupational component of the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2016 study.MethodsThe GBD 2016 study estimated the burden in terms of deaths and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) arising from the effects of occupational risk factors (carcinogens; asthmagens; particulate matter, gases and fumes (PMGF); secondhand smoke (SHS); noise; ergonomic risk factors for low back pain; risk factors for injury). A population attributable fraction (PAF) approach was used for most risk factors.ResultsIn 2016, globally, an estimated 1.53 (95% uncertainty interval 1.39–1.68) million deaths and 76.1 (66.3–86.3) million DALYs were attributable to the included occupational risk factors, accounting for 2.8% of deaths and 3.2% of DALYs from all causes. Most deaths were attributable to PMGF, carcinogens (particularly asbestos), injury risk factors and SHS. Most DALYs were attributable to injury risk factors and ergonomic exposures. Men and persons 55 years or older were most affected. PAFs ranged from 26.8% for low back pain from ergonomic risk factors and 19.6% for hearing loss from noise to 3.4% for carcinogens. DALYs per capita were highest in Oceania, Southeast Asia and Central sub-Saharan Africa. On a per capita basis, between 1990 and 2016 there was an overall decrease of about 31% in deaths and 25% in DALYs.ConclusionsOccupational exposures continue to cause an important health burden worldwide, justifying the need for ongoing prevention and control initiatives.

Noise Exposure Level of Coal-Fired Thermal Power Stations in Different Scales — China, 2017−2019

“…A high level of exposure to occupational noise remains in many workplaces, which results in a major burden that has been consequential worldwide ( 8 ). As described above, both the environmental and individual noise-exposure levels exceeded the national standard of acceptability in many areas among stations in all stations due to the large number of pumps, fans, compressors, and other equipment.…”

“…With the development of science and technology, thermal power plants have gradually transformed from 300 megawatt (MW) units to 600 MW and 1,000 MW units, and the noise hazards have become more prominent and complicated. A total number of 588,041 workers were engaged in electrical, gas, and sanitation services in the United States, of which 15.3% of workers are exposed to noise above 85 dB(A) (7), while the number of workers exposed to high noise-levels is likely higher in China. In recent years, the total number of cases of occupational noiseinduced deafness was around 1,400 per year in China, and 20−30 cases were from thermal power stations.…”

Commentary

“…Hans Kromhout , 1 Martie van Tongeren , 2 Cheryl E Peters , 3,4 Amy L Hall 5 We are writing with respect to three recently published papers [1][2][3] that address the global burden of disease due to occupational exposures. This work by the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2016 Occupational Risk Factors Collaborators presents what appear to be precise estimates of the global burden of death and disease due to occupational exposure, for example, 2.8% of deaths and 3.2% of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) from all causes.…”

“…This work by the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2016 Occupational Risk Factors Collaborators presents what appear to be precise estimates of the global burden of death and disease due to occupational exposure, for example, 2.8% of deaths and 3.2% of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) from all causes. 1 For cancer, the estimates are 3.9% of all cancer deaths and 3.4% of all cancer DALYs. 3 For chronic respiratory disease, the authors report only population attributable fractions (based on DALYs) of 17% for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and 10% for asthma.…”

“…The GBD 2016 authors acknowledge that published information has suggested that exposure have decreased over time, but did not explicitly consider such temporal changes in exposure intensity in their estimates. 1 This was justified with the suggestion that many instances of high exposure remain even in high-income countries and that transition of heavy industries would indicate opposite trends of increasing exposure in low-income and middle-income countries.…”