Global, regional and national burden of disease attributable to 19 selected occupational risk factors for 183 countries, 2000–2016: A systematic analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury

Abstract

Objectives We provide a brief introduction to the objectives, data, methods and results of the World Health Organization (WHO)/International Labor Organization (ILO) Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), which estimated the burden attributable to 19 selected occupational risk factors. Methods The WHO/ILO Joint Estimates were produced within the global Comparative Risk Assessment framework, which attributes the burden of one specific health outcome (ie, disease/injury) to a specific occupational risk factor. For 39 established occupational risk factor-health outcome pairs, estimates are produced using population attributable fractions (PAF) from recent burden of disease estimates. For two additional pairs, PAF are calculated from new databases of exposure and risk ratios produced in WHO/ILO systematic reviews. Attributable disease burdens were estimated by applying the PAF to total disease burdens. Results Globally in 2016, it is estimated that 1.88 [95% uncertainty range (UR) 1.84–1.92] million deaths and 89.72 (95% UR 88.61–90.83) million disability-adjusted life years were attributable to the 19 selected occupational risk factors and their health outcomes. A disproportionately large work-related burden of disease is observed in the WHO African Region (for disability-adjusted life years), South-East Asia Region, and Western Pacific Region (for deaths), males and older age groups. Conclusions The WHO/ILO Joint Estimates can be used for global monitoring of exposure to occupational risk factors and work-related burden of disease and to identify, plan, cost, implement and evaluate policies, programs and actions to prevent exposure to occupational risk factors and their associated burden.

Long Working Hours and the Risk of Glucose Intolerance: A Cohort Study

“…Long working hours have a harmful effect on the health of workers and also lead to economic inefficiency. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) reported that 488 million people were exposed to long working hours in 2016, which was the occupational risk factor that caused the highest number of deaths (745,194 attributable deaths in 2016) [ 2 , 3 ]. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) data, the average annual working hours in South Korea were 1915 h in 2021, meaning that it is one of the countries with the longest working hours among the OECD countries (the average in all OECD countries, 1716 h; the lowest in Germany, 1349 h) [ 4 ].…”

Utilizing a Nordic Crosswalk for Occupational Coding in an Analysis on Occupation-Specific Prolonged Sickness Absence among 7 Million Employees in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden

“…According to a Dutch study, 21.5% of the SA in the working population can be considered possibly avoidable, though only 13.6% of SA are attributable to work-related factors [ 15 ]. Globally, about 90 million disability-adjusted life years were attributable to occupational exposures in 2016 [ 16 ], justifying the need for prevention.…”

Estimating population burdens of occupational disease

“…This is the approach underpinning the WHO/ILO analysis that is reported in Pega et al’s paper ( 2 ). Estimates of relative risk for paired combinations of occupational risk factor and disease were collated with data on the population prevalence of exposure to calculate population attributable fractions (PAF) ( 3 ), which then were multiplied by estimates of the total population impact of the disease (in terms of deaths and disability-adjusted life-years) to derive burdens attributable to occupation ( 2 ).…”

“…A second problem lies in the ambiguous specification of some risk factors. The analysis attributes large numbers of deaths from COPD to occupational exposure to “particulate matter, gases and fumes” ( 2 ). It is unclear, however, what exactly is implied by that term.…”

“…Another challenge when extrapolating risk estimates from samples to populations is the potential for effect modification. The burden of back and neck pain was assessed in relation to “occupational exposure to ergonomic factors” ( 2 ), defined as “proportion of the population who are exposed to ergonomic risk factors for low back pain at work or through their occupation” ( 3 ). However, it is unclear how well the calculation allowed for major variation between countries in the individual risk of musculoskeletal pain and disability from specified occupational activities ( 8 , 9 ).…”