Studies about work ability have grown in importance owing to the worldwide aging of active populations. Research has shown that measuring work ability has a predictive value in cases of long-term sickness absence and early retirement. Our goal was to analyze the work ability and associated factors of civil servants from a higher education institution in Brazil. The participants in this cross-sectional study were 600 technical-administrative workers at a public university. Work ability was measured using the work ability index. The participants were as follows: 51.8 % male; mean age of 45 years (SD = ±11); married or in a stable union (61.5 %); holding a graduate degree (56.7 %); having only one job (83.3 %), working 40 h a week or less (78.6 %); not working evenings (79.8 %); and having direct contact with the public (58.3 %). The prevalence of reduced work ability was 13.9 %. The following factors were found to be associated with reduced work ability: age 50 years old or above (PR = 2.58; 95 % CI 1.25–5.09); female (PR = 2.77; 95 % CI 1.25–3.60); education up to secondary school (PR = 2.37; 95 % CI 1.13–3.59); overall poor self-assessed health (PR = 2.96; 95 % CI 1.32–3.93); signs and symptoms of depression (PR = 4.86; 95 % CI 2.23–6.55); sedentariness (PR = 3.00; 95 % CI 1.38–4.68) and poor social support at work (PR = 4.01; 95 % CI 1.66–4.37). Most of the participants showed good work ability, but some subjects had reduced work ability. This study makes a contribution to expanding the discussion about the factors associated with work ability toward proposing actions for maintaining that ability or helping recovery in the case of diminished ability. Such actions can help reduce work absenteeism and early retirement, both of which have a social and economic impact in Brazil. Studying the determinants of work ability and recommendations to address those determinants will help efforts to improve the quality of life of individuals, both at work and personally, and promote healthy aging.

Recent studies suggest that short‐sleep duration is independently associated with obesity in the general population. The population of truck drivers is of particular interest, because they frequently work irregular shifts that in turn are associated with short‐sleep duration. In addition, truck drivers have a high prevalence of sedentary habits, poor diet, and obesity. The present study aimed at verifying the association between sleep patterns and factors associated with obesity in this population. The study sample consisted in 4,878 truck drivers who participated in a campaign promoted by a highway company in the State of São Paulo, Brazil. This campaign offered highway truck drivers a medical and laboratorial evaluation. The truck drivers completed a questionnaire concerning demographic data, sleep duration, consumption of medications, and medical problems, such as diabetes, cardiopathy, and hypertension; as well as the Berlin questionnaire, which is able to discriminate low and high risk for obstructive sleep apnea. Blood samples were collected to measure glucose and cholesterol levels. Also, body weight and height were registered to calculate the body mass index (BMI). The mean age (±SD) of the truck drivers studied was 40±10 years. Out of the truck drivers analyzed, 28.3% (n=1,379) had a BMI ≥30.0 Kg/m² (obesity). Among the 4,878 drivers included in the study, 1,199 (24.6%) were on medications and 334 (6.8%) were diabetic. Drivers (26.9%) with the greater BMI had a short sleep length. The independent factors associated with obesity were sleep duration 40 years (OR=1.20), glucose levels >200 (OR=2.02), cholesterol levels >240 (OR=1.57), snoring (OR=1.74), and hypertension (OR=2.14). Smoking was not associated with obesity (OR=0.69), and diabetes was considered a control variable. In conclusion, this study supports the hypothesis that short sleep duration as well as age >40 years are independently associated with obesity. This particular combination (short‐sleep duration and obesity) is independently associated with several healthcare problems, including high levels of cholesterol, glucose, snoring, and hypertension. However, due to the cross‐sectional nature of this study, no cause–effect relationship can be drawn from these results.

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large number of individual experts. Evidence from mechanistic data suggests that occupational exposure to noise may cause cardiovascular disease (CVD). In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of parameters for estimating the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from CVD that are attributable to occupational exposure to noise, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of any (high) occupational exposure to noise (≥85 dBA), compared with no (low) occupational exposure to noise (<85 dBA), on the prevalence, incidence and mortality of ischaemic heart disease (IHD), stroke, and hypertension. A protocol was developed and published, applying the Navigation Guide as an organizing systematic review framework where feasible. We searched electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies up to 1 April 2019, including International Trials Register, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Lilacs, Scopus, Web of Science, and CISDOC. The MEDLINE and Pubmed searches were updated on 31 January 2020. We also searched grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consulted additional experts. We included working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but excluded children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. We included 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 noise on CVD prevalence, incidence or mortality, compared with the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (<85 dBA). At least two review authors independently screened 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. We prioritized evidence from cohort studies and combined relative risk estimates using random-effect meta-analysis. To assess the robustness of findings, we conducted sensitivity analyses (leave-one-out meta-analysis and used as alternative fixed effects and inverse-variance heterogeneity estimators). At least two review authors assessed the risk of bias, quality of evidence and strength of evidence, using Navigation Guide tools and approaches adapted to this project. Seventeen studies (11 cohort studies, six case-control studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 534,688 participants (39,947 or 7.47% females) in 11 countries in three WHO regions (the Americas, Europe, and the Western Pacific). The exposure was generally assessed with dosimetry, sound level meter and/or official or company records. The outcome was most commonly assessed using health records. We are very uncertain (low quality of evidence) about the effect of occupational exposure to noise (≥85 dBA), compared with no occupational exposure to noise (<85 dBA), on: having IHD (0 studies); acquiring IHD (relative risk (RR) 1.29, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.15 to 1.43, two studies, 11,758 participants, I² 0%); dying from IHD (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93-1.14, four studies, 198,926 participants, I² 26%); having stroke (0 studies); acquiring stroke (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.82-1.65, two studies, 170,000 participants, I² 0%); dying from stroke (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93-1.12, three studies, 195,539 participants, I² 0%); having hypertension (0 studies); acquiring hypertension (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.90-1.28, three studies, four estimates, 147,820 participants, I² 52%); and dying from hypertension (0 studies). Data for subgroup analyses were missing. Sensitivity analyses supported the main analyses. For acquiring IHD, we judged the existing body of evidence from human data to provide "limited evidence of harmfulness"; a positive relationship is observed between exposure and outcome where chance, bias, and confounding cannot be ruled out with reasonable confidence. For all other included outcomes, the bodies of evidence were judged as "inadequate evidence of harmfulness". Producing estimates for the burden of CVD attributable to occupational exposure to noise appears to not be evidence-based at this time. 10.1016/j.envint.2018.09.040. CRD42018092272.

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large network of individual experts. Evidence from mechanistic and human data suggests that occupational exposure to noise may cause cardiovascular disease. In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of occupational exposure to noise for estimating (if feasible) the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from cardiovascular disease that are attributable to exposure to this risk factor, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the prevalence of occupational exposure to noise. We searched electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Ovid Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and CISDOC. We also searched electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines, and organizational websites; hand-searched reference list of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consulted additional experts. We included working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economies in any WHO Member and/or ILO member State, but excluded children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. We included all study types with an estimate of the prevalence of occupational exposure to noise, categorized into two levels: no (low) occupational exposure to noise (<85dBA) and any (high) occupational exposure to noise (≥85dBA). At least two review authors independently screened 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. We combined prevalence estimates using random-effect meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using the RoB-SPEO tool and QoE-SPEO approach developed specifically for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. Sixty-five studies (56 cross-sectional studies and nine cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising 157,370 participants (15,369 females) across 28 countries and all six WHO regions (Africa, Americas, Eastern Mediterranean, Europe, South-East Asia, and Western Pacific). For the main analyses, we prioritized the four included studies that surveyed national probability samples of general populations of workers over the 58 studies of workers in industrial sectors and/or occupations with relatively high occupational exposure to noise. The exposure was generally assessed with dosimetry, sound level meter, or official or company records; in the population-based studies, it was assessed with validated questions. Estimates of the prevalence of occupational exposure to noise are presented for all 65 included studies, by country, sex, 5-year age group, industrial sector, and occupation where feasible. The pooled prevalence of any (high) occupational exposure to noise (≥85dBA) among the general population of workers was 0.17 (95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.19, 4 studies, 108,256 participants, 38 countries, two WHO regions, I² 98%, low quality of evidence). Subgroup analyses showed that pooled prevalence differed substantially by WHO region, sex, industrial sector, and occupation. Our systematic review and meta-analysis found that occupational exposure to noise is prevalent among general populations of workers. The current body of evidence is, however, of low quality, due to serious concerns for risk of bias and indirectness. Producing estimates of occupational exposure to noise nevertheless appears evidence-based, and the pooled effect estimates presented in this systematic review are suitable as input data for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates (if feasible). Protocol identifier: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.09.040 PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018092272.

Previous studies found students who both work and attend school undergo a partial sleep deprivation that accumulates across the week. The aim of the present study was to obtain information using a questionnaire on a number of variables (e.g., socio‐demographics, lifestyle, work timing, and sleep‐wake habits) considered to impact on sleep duration of working (n=51) and non‐working (n=41) high‐school students aged 14–21 yrs old attending evening classes (19:00–22:30 h) at a public school in the city of São Paulo, Brazil. Data were collected for working days and days off. Multiple linear regression analyses were performed to assess the factors associated with sleep duration on weekdays and weekends. Work, sex, age, smoking, consumption of alcohol and caffeine, and physical activity were considered control variables. Significant predictors of sleep duration were: work (p < 0.01), daily work duration (8–10 h/day; p < 0.01), sex (p=0.04), age 18–21 yrs (0.01), smoking (p=0.02) and drinking habits (p=0.03), irregular physical exercise (p < 0.01), ease of falling asleep (p=0.04), and the sleep‐wake cycle variables of napping (p < 0.01), nocturnal awakenings (p < 0.01), and mid‐sleep regularity (p < 0.01). The results confirm the hypotheses that young students who work and attend school showed a reduction in night‐time sleep duration. Sleep deprivation across the week, particularly in students working 8–10 h/day, is manifested through a sleep rebound (i.e., extended sleep duration) on Saturdays. However, the different roles played by socio‐demographic and lifestyle variables have proven to be factors that intervene with nocturnal sleep duration. The variables related to the sleep‐wake cycle—naps and night awakenings—proved to be associated with a slight reduction in night‐time sleep, while regularity in sleep and wake‐up schedules was shown to be associated with more extended sleep duration, with a distinct expression along the week and the weekend. Having to attend school and work, coupled with other socio‐demographic and lifestyle factors, creates an unfavorable scenario for satisfactory sleep duration.

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 cardiovascular disease attributable to exposure to occupational noise, to inform the development of the WHO/ILO joint methodology. We aim to systematically review studies on exposure to occupational noise (Systematic Review 1) and systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of occupational noise on cardiovascular diseases (Systematic Review 2), applying the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology as an organizing framework, 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 Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science and CISDOC. 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. The eligible risk factor will be occupational noise. Eligible outcomes will be hypertensive heart disease, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, cardiomyopathy, myocarditis, endocarditis and other circulatory diseases. For Systematic Review 1, we will include quantitative prevalence studies of exposure to occupational noise (i.e., low: <85 dB(A) and high: ≥85 dB(A)) stratified by country, sex, age 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 relative effect of high exposure to occupational noise on the prevalence of, incidence of or mortality due to cardiovascular disease, compared with the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (i.e., low exposure). 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 number: CRD42018092272.