This review aimed at examining the prevalence of musculoskeletal diseases and pain among dental professionals in Western countries. Furthermore, possible occupational risk factors were analyzed. The literature search was conducted from June to July 2016, with an update in December 2017 using the databases MEDLINE, CINAHL, LIVIVO, Science Direct, PubMed, and Web of Science. The quality assessment was performed with a standardized instrument consisting of 10 items. A meta-analysis was carried out to compute pooled prevalence rates for musculoskeletal diseases and pain. A total of 41 studies were included in this review; 30 studies met the criteria for the meta-analysis. Prevalence rates of musculoskeletal diseases and pain among dental professionals ranged from 10.8% to 97.9%. The neck was the body region affected most often (58.5%, 95% CI = 46.0–71.0) followed by the lower back (56.4%, 95% CI = 46.1–66.8), the shoulder (43.1%, 95% CI = 30.7–55.5) and the upper back (41.1%, 95% CI = 32.3–49.9). Potential occupational risk factors included an awkward working posture, high number of treated patients, administrative work, vibration, and repetition. Musculoskeletal diseases and pain are a significant health burden for dental professionals. This study showed high prevalence rates for several body regions. Therefore, suitable interventions for preventing musculoskeletal diseases and pain among dental professionals are needed.

Musculoskeletal diseases and pain (MSDs) are prevalent among dental professionals. They cause a growing inability to work and premature leaving of the occupation. Thus, the objective of this review was to summarize the evidence of ergonomic interventions for the prevention of MSDs among dental professionals. This review was conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The literature search was carried out in May 2018, with an update in April 2019. Scientific databases such as MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed and Web of Science as well as reference lists of the included studies were used. Relevant data were extracted from the studies and summarized. The quality assessment was performed using a validated standardized instrument. Eleven studies were included in this review, of which four are of high quality. Eight studies focused on setting prevention strategies. Of those, in five studies, magnification loupes or prismatic spectacles were the subject of ergonomic interventions. Further subjects were the dental chair (n = 2) and dental instruments (n = 1). Three studies evaluated ergonomic training. In all studies, the ergonomic interventions had positive effects on the study outcome. Several ergonomic interventions to prevent MSDs among dental professionals were found to exert a positive effect on the prevalence of MSDs or working posture. This systematic review adds current evidence for the use of prismatic spectacles in order to prevent MSDs among dental professionals. Further intervention studies about the role of ergonomics for the prevention of MSDs among dental professionals are warranted.

The aim of this review was to record systematically and assess the published literature relating to the occupational risk of influenza A (H1N1) infection among healthcare personnel during the 2009 pandemic. The literature search was performed in June 2015. An update was carried out in May 2016. It was applied to the electronic databases EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, CINAHL and Google Scholar. The quality assessment was conducted with a tool using eight criteria. A meta-analysis was carried out to compute pooled effect estimates for influenza A (H1N1) infection. A total of 26 studies were included in the review, 15 studies met the criteria for the meta-analysis. After a sensitivity analysis the pooled analysis showed a significantly increased odds for influenza A (H1N1) infection for healthcare personnel compared to controls/comparisons (OR = 2.08, 95% CI = 1.73 to 2.51). The pooled prevalence rate for healthcare personnel alone was 6.3%. This review corroborates the assumption that healthcare personnel were particularly at risk of influenza A (H1N1) infection during the 2009 pandemic. Healthcare facilities should intensify their focus on strategies to prevent infections among healthcare personnel, especially during the first period of pandemics.

(1) Background: The start of vocational education is a challenge for many people whose careers are just beginning. The working conditions exact new physical and mental tolls that can have an impact on their state of health and health behavior. Well-developed health literacy helps to encourage greater self-responsibility with respect to health and safety in the workplace. This study aimed to contribute to the evolution of health-related interventions in vocational training and instruction. (2) Methodology: This cross-sectional study examined health literacy, health behavior, and states of health among trainees engaged in work-and-study vocational training in 11 professions at the start of their education courses in northern Germany. The data were collected using a paper and pencil format. (3) Results: The survey was approved by 47 vocational schools (response rate 14%), with 1797 trainees returning their questionnaires (response rate 36%). The average age of the overall cohort was 21, and 70% of the trainees were female. A total of 47% of the participants began their careers with sufficient health literacy; health literacy was problematic in 40% of cases, and inadequate in 13% of cases. Around 50% of trainees exhibited poor dietary regime and risky alcohol intake, while 58% reported having a medical condition that had been previously formally diagnosed. (4) Conclusion: There is a need to provide support for developing a healthier approach to work at the start of vocational training.

Hintergrund: Die Besiedlung mit Methicillin-resistentem Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) stellt für Mitarbeiter und die medizinischen Einrichtungen eine besondere Herausforderung dar. In diesem Zusammenhang spielen Mitarbeiter der Krankenhaushygiene neben Betriebsärzten eine wesentliche Rolle. Methoden: 2014 wurden Krankenhaushygiene-Mitarbeiter schriftlich zum Umgang mit MRSA-besiedeltem Personal befragt. Der Erhebungsbogen enthielt Fragen zum MRSA-Management in Krankenhäusern sowie der Zusammenarbeit zwischen Hygienefachpersonal und Betriebsarzt. Als Vergleich wurde eine Untersuchung von Betriebsärzten zu ihren Erfahrungen bei der Betreuung von Mitarbeitern mit MRSA-Besiedlung hinzugezogen. Ergebnisse: An der Befragung nahmen 124 Krankenhaushygiene-Mitarbeiter teil. Ein allgemeines Personalscreening findet vor allem in Ausbruchssituationen statt. Unterschieden wird zwischen vorübergehender und dauerhafter Besiedlung (47%). Als häufigstes Kriterium für eine MRSA-Dauerbesiedlung gelten 2 erfolglose Dekolonisierungsrunden. Eine Kooperation zwischen Hygienemitarbeiter und Betriebsarzt bei MRSA-Trägerschaft des Personals findet überwiegend statt. Die Verantwortung für Betreuung, Screening sowie Dekolonisierung der Mitarbeiter liegt bei beiden Berufsgruppen mit unterschiedlichen Schwerpunkten. Über den Umgang mit MRSA-positivem Personal wird unterschiedlich berichtet. Die Empfehlungen zur Weiterarbeit trotz Besiedlung reichen von der Einhaltung der Standardhygiene bis zum patientenfernen Einsatz oder einer Freistellung. Schlussfolgerung: Der Umgang mit MRSA bei Beschäftigten im Gesundheitsdienst ist in Deutschland unterschiedlich. Krankenhaushygiene-Mitarbeiter und Betriebsärzte sind gleichermaßen in die Betreuung involviert. Klare Regelungen würden im Umgang mit multiresistenten Erregern beim Personal helfen. Background: Colonisation with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a particular challenge for medical staff and their facilities, with a key role being played by physicians alongside infection control and hospital hygiene professionals. Methods: In 2014, infection control and hygiene staff were surveyed on the handling of hospital staff with MRSA colonisation. The questionnaire queried on MRSA management in hospitals and on the cooperation between hygiene staff and hospital physicians and was compared to a survey of physicians’ experience with the care of MRSA-positive hospital staff. Results: 124 hospital hygiene professionals participated in the survey. General screenings of staff members were reported mainly for cases of MRSA outbreak. Temporary colonisation is differentiated from permanent colonisation (47%). 2 unsuccessful attempts at decolonisation are normally regarded as an indicator for a permanent colonisation. Generally there was cooperation between hospital physicians and hygiene staff. The responsibility for screening and decolonisation of staff members is shared by both groups with the groups placing emphasis on different focal points. Different approaches for the handling of MRSA-positive staff were reported and recommendations for the work ability vary from merely observing the standard hygiene regulation to refraining from close patient contact or even complete absence from work. Conclusion: MRSA colonisation in hospital staff is being dealt with in different manners. Infection control and hospital hygiene professionals are equally involved in the treatment. Clear regulations would benefit the handling of MRSA in staff members.

Einleitung: Kinderfrüherkennungsuntersuchungen ermöglichen in Deutschland seit 1971 das frühzeitige und routinemäßige Identifizieren von Krankheiten bei Kindern und Jugendlichen. Die Kinder- und Jugendärzte nehmen eine zen­trale Rolle bei der gesundheitlichen Prävention im Kindes- und Jugendalter ein und werden aufgrund ihrer Akzeptanz und Zugangsvoraussetzungen zudem als wichtige Akteure im Kinderschutz angesehen. Niedergelassene Kinderärzte wurden daher in dem zur Steigerung von Teilnahmeraten und Kinderschutz eingeführten Einladungs- und Meldewesen für die Früherkennungsuntersuchungen U6 und U7 in Hamburg eingebunden. Methode: In einer Vollbefragung der niedergelassenen Pädiater in Hamburg wurden Erfahrungen in der Praxis, Bewertungen und Kritikpunkte ein Jahr nach Einführung des Verfahrens mittels Fragebögen ermittelt (Rücklaufquote 73%). Ergebnis: Von den 110 teilnehmenden Kinder- und Jugendärzten (MW=19,5 Jahre Berufserfahrung) empfanden 81% das Verfahren als sehr sinnvoll, sinnvoll oder eher sinnvoll; 83% befürworteten die Ausweitung des Verfahrens auf weitere Früherkennungsuntersuchungen und etwa 18% beobachteten eine erhöhte Inanspruchnahme der Kinderfrüherkennungsuntersuchungen insbesondere durch Familien mit Migrationshintergrund und sozial benachteilige Familien. Kritisiert wurden ineffektiv geregelte Verfahrensabläufe. Schlussfolgerung: Die Befragung der Kinderärzte zu Kinderfrüherkennungsuntersuchungen in Hamburg zeigt, wie Kinderärzte in das Netzwerk von Gesundheitsprävention und Kinderschutz eingebunden sind und dies mehrheitlich befürworten. Systematisches Hinschauen und interdisziplinäre Vernetzung von Kinderärzten können auf diese Weise zu einer umfassenderen Prävention und zum Kinderschutz beitragen. Introduction: Since 1971 routine child health check-ups allow the routine identification of dis­eases in children and adolescents. Paediatricians play a central role in health prevention in childhood and adolescence and are – on account of their acceptance and admission requirements – important actors in child protection. Thus, paediatric practitioners were actively involved in the invitation and reporting system for the routine child health check-ups (U6 and U7), which was introduced to increase participation rates and improve child protection in Hamburg. Method: By means of a questionnaire survey, all paediatric practitioners practicing in Hamburg were asked a year after introduction of the invitation and reporting system to report on their practical experience, and to share their assessment and criticism of the system (response rate 73%). Results: Out of 110 participating pediatricians (M=19.5 years practical experience), 81% evaluated the invitation and reporting system as very useful, useful or rather useful; 83% supported an expansion of the system for routine child health check-ups, and about 18% observed an increased utilisation of routine child health check-ups especially from families with a migrant background and by socially-disadvantaged families. Criticism was made concerning ineffective procedures. Conclusion: The invitation and reporting system for routine child health check-ups in Hamburg shows how pediatricians can be integrated into the network of prevention and child welfare. It also shows their support of this system. Paying more systematic attention and an interdisciplinary network connecting paediatricians may contribute to a more comprehensive prevention and child protection.