Occupational noise and myocardial infarction: Considerations on the interrelation of noise with job demands

Kersten, Norbert; Backé, Eva

doi:10.4103/1463-1741.153403

Cited by 16 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the study of Stokholm et al the risk was RR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.09-1.26 among women and RR = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.98-1.14 among men [31]. In that of Kersten and Backé men were, in fact, not found to be at risk [32]. Gan et al, on the contrary, reported statistically significantly elevated odds of coronary heart disease only among male workers [8].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Heart disease attributed to occupational noise, vibration and other co-exposure: Self-reported population-based survey among Bulgarian workers

Dzhambov¹,

Dimitrova²

2016

Med Pr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the main mortality cause worldwide. Noise and vibration are considered to be occupational risk factors, but little is known about their cardiovascular effects in Bulgaria in terms of gender and various professional groups. The aim of this study has been to investigate the risk of prevalent CVD, associated with occupational noise and vibration exposure. Material and Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of the data from 3 waves of the European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS) 2001-2010 -a nationally-representative cross-sectional questionnaire survey covering 3149 workers aged ≥ 15 years in Bulgaria. Data on self-reported heart disease were linked to self-reported occupational noise and vibration, adjusting for other factors. Results from the 3 waves were pooled together using the inverse variance heterogeneity (IVhet) meta-analysis. Results: For noise, the risk was elevated among women (relative risk (RR) = 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.53-3.01), but not men (RR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.14-1.65). Long-term workers had RR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.60-1.69. For vibration, the risk was increased in all participants. It was higher among men (RR = 2.56, 95% CI: 1.60-4.09) than it was among women (RR = 1.32, 95% CI: 0.77-2.27). Among long-term, industrial, and service workers it was RR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.02-2.40; RR = 1.10, 95% CI: 0.61-1.98, and RR = 1.18, 95% CI: 0.57-2.46, respectively. Conclusions: Occupational vibration was a risk factor for prevalent heart disease in Bulgaria. Noise was an alleged risk factor only among long-term workers and women. Med Pr 2016;67(4): [435][436][437][438][439][440][441][442][443][444][445]

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Heart disease attributed to occupational noise, vibration and other co-exposure: Self-reported population-based survey among Bulgarian workers

Dzhambov¹,

Dimitrova²

2016

Med Pr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[42] specifically surveyed blue-collar workers, and Dimitrova and Karaslavova[39] included hospitalized patients and controls who underwent prophylactic examinations. Five articles reported summary risks for both the genders and four analyzed male-only samples; for Kersten and Backé[19] and Dimitrova and Karaslavova,[39] we extracted the effect sizes for males.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[42] collected detailed occupational histories and classified participants’ exposure based on “measurements made by hygienists in the 1970–1975 period (when available), or by extrapolation from measurements made for jobs with similar conditions”. Kersten and Backé[19] estimated daily exposure levels for 10 years, retrospectively, “from information about workplaces and machines with the help of catalog specifications”. The method for objective noise assessment was not reported in the article by Jovanovic et al .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The method for objective noise assessment was not reported in the article by Jovanovic et al . [41] Kersten and Backé[19] carried out validation measurements on 146 workplaces; Ising et al . [27] also validated their perceived noisiness measure in a subsample of 80 men.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If several studies were based on the same population or dataset, we used the one with highest quality and most thorough reporting − for example, facing the choice between Willich et al . [18] and Kersten and Backé,[19] we included the latter because the authors used objective noise assessment for the effect sizes of interest; another issue to consider was that Babisch et al . [20] scrutinized Willich et al .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Occupational noise and ischemic heart disease: A systematic review

Dzhambov

Dimitrova

2016

Noise Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Noise exposure might be a risk factor for ischemic heart disease (IHD). Unlike residential exposure, however, evidence for occupational noise is limited. Given that high-quality quantitative synthesis of existing data is highly warranted for occupational safety and policy, we aimed at conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of the risks of IHD morbidity and mortality because of occupational noise exposure. We carried out a systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and on the Internet since April 2, 2015, in English, Spanish, Russian, and Bulgarian. A quality-scoring checklist was developed a priori to assess different sources of methodological bias. A qualitative data synthesis was performed. Conservative assumptions were applied when appropriate. A meta-analysis was not feasible because of unresolvable methodological discrepancies between the studies. On the basis of five studies, there was some evidence to suggest higher risk of IHD among workers exposed to objectively assessed noise >75–80 dB for <20 years (supported by one high, one moderate, and one low quality study, opposed by one high and one moderate quality study). Three moderate and two low quality studies out of six found self-rated exposure to be associated with higher risk of IHD, and only one moderate quality study found no effect. Out of four studies, a higher mortality risk was suggested by one moderate quality study relying on self-rated exposure and one of high-quality study using objective exposure. Sensitivity analyses showed that at higher exposures and in some vulnerable subgroups, such as women, the adverse effects were considerably stronger. Despite methodological discrepancies and limitations of the included studies, occupational noise appeared to be a risk factor for IHD morbidity. Results suggested higher risk for IHD mortality only among vulnerable subgroups. Workers exposed to high occupational noise should be considered at higher overall risk of IHD.

show abstract

Physical hazard safety awareness among healthcare workers in Tanta university hospitals, Egypt

El-Sallamy

Kabbash

El-Fatah

et al. 2017

Environ Sci Pollut Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hospital workers are exposed to many occupational hazards that may threaten their health and safety. Physical hazards encountered in hospital working environment include temperature, illumination, noise, electrical injuries, and radiation. To assess the awareness of healthcare workers (HCWs) about physical hazards in Tanta university hospitals, this cross-sectional study included 401 HCWs (physicians, nurses, technicians, and workers) from seven departments (general surgery, orthopedics, radiology, ophthalmology, kitchen, incinerator, and laundry). Data were collected through interview questionnaire to assess six types of physical hazards (noise, electric hazards, temperature, radiation, fire, and lighting,). Most of the physicians (63.7%) were aware of the level of noise. All physicians, nurses, technicians, and majority of workers reported that hearing protective devices were not available, and all HCWs reported that periodic hearing examination was not performed. Most of the nurses (75.2%) and workers (68.5%) did not attended emergency training, and more than two thirds of all HCWs were not briefed about emergency evacuation. Most HCWs were not given appropriate radiation safety training before starting work (88% of workers, 73.7% of nurses, 65.7% of physicians, and 68.3% of technicians). The majority of physicians, nurses, and technicians (70.5, 65.4, and 53.7%) denied regular environmental monitoring for radiation level inside work place. Health education programs on health and safety issues regarding physical hazards should be mandatory to all healthcare workers to improve their awareness and protect them from undue exposures they may face due to lack of adequate awareness and knowledge. There is urgent need of expanding the occupational healthcare services in Egypt to cover all the employees as indicated by the international recommendations and the Egyptian Constitution, legislation, and community necessity.

show abstract

Occupational noise and myocardial infarction: Considerations on the interrelation of noise with job demands

Cited by 16 publications

References 38 publications

Heart disease attributed to occupational noise, vibration and other co-exposure: Self-reported population-based survey among Bulgarian workers

Heart disease attributed to occupational noise, vibration and other co-exposure: Self-reported population-based survey among Bulgarian workers

Occupational noise and ischemic heart disease: A systematic review

Physical hazard safety awareness among healthcare workers in Tanta university hospitals, Egypt

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About