Thomas Tenkate

Dr. Thomas Tenkate

Institute for Work & Health; School of Occupational and Public Health, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

19Years (2008-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 May 2019 in Environment International
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
Marília Silva PauloMarília Silva Paulo
Marília Silva Paulo
Balázs ÁdámBalázs Ádám
Balázs Ádám
CACyril Akagwu
Cyril Akagwu
IAIssaka Akparibo
Issaka Akparibo
RARami H. Al-Rifai
Rami H. Al-Rifai
SMSwen Malte
Swen Malte
The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing a joint methodology for estimating the national and global work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO joint methodology), with contributions from a large network of experts. In this paper, we present the protocol for two systematic reviews of parameters for estimating the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer (or keratinocyte carcinoma) from occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation, to inform the development of the WHO/ILO joint methodology. We aim to systematically review studies on occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation (Systematic Review 1) and systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation on melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer (Systematic Review 2), applying the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology as an organizing framework and conducting both systematic reviews in tandem and in a harmonized way. Separately for Systematic Reviews 1 and 2, we will search electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Ovid Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science. We will also search electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-search reference list of previous systematic reviews and included study records and consult additional experts. We will include working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State, but exclude children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. For Systematic Review 1, we will include quantitative studies on the prevalence of relevant levels of occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation (i.e. <0.33 SED/d and ≥0.33 SED/d) and of the total working time spent outdoors, stratified by country, sex, age and industrial sector or occupation, in the years 1960 to 2018. For Systematic Review 2, we will include randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the effect of any occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation (i.e., ≥0.33 SED/d) on the prevalence of, incidence of or mortality due to melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer, compared with the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (i.e. <0.33 SED/d). At least two review authors will independently screen titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. At least two review authors will assess the risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using the most suited tools currently available. For Systematic Review 2, if feasible, we will combine relative risks using meta-analysis. We will report results using the guidelines for accurate and transparent health estimates reporting (GATHER) for Systematic Review 1 and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines (PRISMA) for Systematic Review 2. CRD42018094817.

22 April 2020 in British Journal of Dermatology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
TLTom Loney
Tom Loney
Marília Silva PauloMarília Silva Paulo
Marília Silva Paulo
Alberto ModeneseAlberto Modenese
Alberto Modenese
FGF. Gobba
F. Gobba
TTThomas Tenkate
Thomas Tenkate
SMSwen Malte
Swen Malte
Individual studies have suggested that the association between occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation (UVR) and the development of keratinocyte cancers (KC) may only be valid in populations of European ancestry living in certain geographic regions. Comparative global data are scarce and so this review aimed to summarize current evidence on the association between occupational exposure to solar UVR and the development of KC, with a specific focus on geographic location and skin colour. Ovid Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched for potentially relevant records. Extracted data was summarised by study, country, and region. We included one prospective cohort study and 18 case‐control studies (N=15,233) from 12 countries in regions where the majority of the population is white‐skinned (Americas, Europe, and Oceania). Eighteen of the 19 studies reported effect estimates suggesting an increased risk of basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and/or squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) among outdoor workers. Only 11 studies found a significantly increased risk and many had imprecise estimates. There was a significantly increased risk of BCC and SCC in individual studies in North America, Latin America and the Caribbean, Western Europe, and Southern Europe but not across regions or countries. Overall, 95% of studies reported higher risks among outdoor workers, although the increases in risk were statistically significant in just over half of studies. Well‐designed and sufficiently powered occupational case‐control and cohort studies with adequate adjustment for confounding factors and other risk factors are required to provide more accurate risk estimates for occupational KC.

7 January 2014 in BMC Research Notes
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
CHCaitlin Horsham
Caitlin Horsham
JAJosephine Auster
Josephine Auster
MSMarguerite C. Sendall
Marguerite C. Sendall
MSMelissa Stoneham
Melissa Stoneham
PYPhilippa Youl
Philippa Youl
Michael KimlinMichael Kimlin
Michael Kimlin
Background: Outdoor workers are at high risk of harmful ultraviolet radiation exposure and are identified as an at risk group for the development of skin cancer. This systematic evidence based review provides an update to a previous review published in 2007 about interventions for the prevention of skin cancer in outdoor workers. Results: This review includes interventions published between 2007-2012 and presents findings about sun protection behaviours and/or objective measures of skin cancer risk. Six papers met inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Large studies with extended follow-up times demonstrated the efficacy of educational and multi-component interventions to increase sun protection, with some higher use of personal protective equipment such as sunscreen. However, there is less evidence for the effectiveness of policy or specific intervention components. Conclusions: Further research aimed at improving overall attitudes towards sun protection in outdoor workers is needed to provide an overarching framework.

1 April 2019 in Environment International
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
TTThomas Tenkate
Thomas Tenkate
Balázs ÁdámBalázs Ádám
Balázs Ádám
RARami H. Al-Rifai
Rami H. Al-Rifai
BCB. Ralph Chou
B. Ralph Chou
Fabriziomaria GobbaFabriziomaria Gobba
Fabriziomaria Gobba
Alberto ModeneseAlberto Modenese
Alberto Modenese
The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing a joint methodology for estimating the national and global work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO joint methodology), with contributions from a large network of experts. Here, we present the protocol for two systematic reviews of parameters for estimating the number of disability-adjusted life years of cataracts from occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation, to inform the development of the WHO/ILO joint methodology. We aim to systematically review studies on occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation (Systematic Review 1) and systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation on the development of cataract (Systematic Review 2), applying the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology as an organizing framework and conducting both systematic reviews in tandem and in a harmonized way. Separately for Systematic Reviews 1 and 2, we will search electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Ovid Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Sciences. We will also search electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand search reference list of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consult additional experts. We will include working-age (≥15 years) workers in WHO and/or ILO Member States, but exclude children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. For Systematic Review 1, we will include quantitative studies on the prevalence of relevant levels of occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation and of the total working time spent outdoors from 1960 to 2018, stratified by sex, age, country and industrial sector or occupation. For Systematic Review 2, we will include randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the effect of any occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation (i.e. ≥30 Jm-2/day of occupational solar UV exposure at the surface of the eye) on the prevalence or incidence of cataract, compared with the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (i.e. <30 Jm-2/day of occupational solar UV exposure at the surface of the eye). At least two review authors will independently screen titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. At least two review authors will assess risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using the most suited tools currently available. For Systematic Review 2, if feasible, we will combine relative risks using meta-analysis. We will report results using the guidelines for accurate and transparent health estimates reporting (GATHER) for Systematic Review 1 and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines (PRISMA) for Systematic Review 2. PROSPERO registration: CRD42018098897.

1 July 2015 in International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
HTHanh Tran
Hanh Tran
NMNguyen Hung Minh
Nguyen Hung Minh
LVLe Vu-Anh
Le Vu-Anh
MDMichael Dunne
Michael Dunne
LTLeisa-Maree Toms
Leisa-Maree Toms
FHFiona Harden
Fiona Harden

1 February 2018 in Safety Science
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
EHEmily Haynes
Emily Haynes
DKDesre M. Kramer
Desre M. Kramer
PSPeter Strahlendorf
Peter Strahlendorf
DHD Linn Holness
D Linn Holness
RKRivka Kushner
Rivka Kushner
TTThomas Tenkate
Thomas Tenkate