Recent evidence suggests that traffic noise may negatively impact mental health. However, existing systematic reviews provide an incomplete overview of the effects of all traffic noise sources on mental health. We conducted a systematic literature search and summarized the evidence for road, railway, or aircraft noise-related risks of depression, anxiety, cognitive decline, and dementia among adults. We included 31 studies (26 on depression and/or anxiety disorders, 5 on dementia). The meta-analysis of five aircraft noise studies found that depression risk increased significantly by 12% per 10 dB L_DEN (Effect Size = 1.12, 95% CI 1.02–1.23). The meta-analyses of road (11 studies) and railway traffic noise (3 studies) indicated 2–3% (not statistically significant) increases in depression risk per 10 dB L_DEN. Results for road traffic noise related anxiety were similar. We did not find enough studies to meta-analyze anxiety and railway or aircraft noise, and dementia/ cognitive impairment and any traffic noise. In conclusion, aircraft noise exposure increases the risk for depression. Otherwise, we did not detect statistically significant risk increases due to road and railway traffic noise or for anxiety. More research on the association of cognitive disorders and traffic noise is required. Public policies to reduce environmental traffic noise might not only increase wellness (by reducing noise-induced annoyance), but might contribute to the prevention of depression and anxiety disorders.

A number of epidemiological studies report an association between occupational noise exposure and arterial hypertension. Existing systematic reviews report conflicting results, so we conducted an updated systematic review with meta-analysis. We registered the review protocol with PROSPERO (registration no.: CRD 42019147923) and searched for observational epidemiological studies in literature databases (Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science). Two independent reviewers screened the titles/abstracts and full texts of the studies. Two reviewers also did the quality assessment and data extraction. Studies without adequate information on recruitment, response, or without a comparison group that was exposed to occupational noise under 80 dB(A) were excluded. The literature search yielded 4583 studies, and 58 studies were found through hand searching. Twenty-four studies were included in the review. The meta-analysis found a pooled effect size (ES) for hypertension (systolic/diastolic blood pressure ≥140/90 mmHg) due to noise exposures ≥80 dB(A) of 1.75 (95% CI 1.46–2.10). There is no substantial risk difference between men and women, but data concerning this question are limited. We found a positive dose-response-relationship: ES = 1.21 (95% CI 0.78–1.87) ≤ 80 dB(A), ES = 1.66 (95% CI 1.24–2.22) > 80–≤85 dB(A), and ES = 3.38 (95% CI 1.37–8.35) > 85–≤90 dB(A). We found high quality of evidence that occupational noise exposure increases the risk of hypertension.

Stigmatization from work-related COVID-19 exposure has not been investigated in detail yet. Therefore, we systematically searched three databases: Medline, Embase, and PsychInfo (until October 2020), and performed a grey literature search (until February 2021). We identified 46 suitable articles from 24 quantitative and 11 qualitative studies, 6 systematic reviews, 3 study protocols and 1 intervention. The assessment of stigmatization varied widely, ranging from a single-item question to a 22-item questionnaire. Studies mostly considered perceived self-stigma (27 of 35 original studies) in healthcare workers (HCWs) or hospital-related jobs (29 of 35). All articles reported on stigmatization as a result of work-related COVID-19 exposure. However, most quantitative studies were characterized by convenience sampling (17 of 24), and all studies—also those with an adequate sampling design—were considered of low methodological quality. Therefore, it is not possible to determine prevalence of stigmatization in defined occupational groups. Nevertheless, the work-related stigmatization of occupational groups with or without suspected contact to COVID-19 is a relevant problem and increases the risk for depression (odds ratio (OR) = 1.74; 95% confidence interval CI 1.29–2.36) and anxiety (OR = 1.75; 95% CI 1.29–2.37). For promoting workers’ health, anti-stigma strategies and support should be implemented in the workplace.

The physical load ensuing from the repositioning and moving of patients puts health care workers at risk of musculoskeletal complaints. Technical equipment developed to aid with patient handling should reduce physical strain and workload; however, the efficacy of these aids in preventing musculoskeletal disorders and complaints is still unclear. A systematic review of controlled intervention studies was conducted to examine if the risk of musculoskeletal complaints and disorders is reduced by technical patient handling equipment. MEDLINE^®/PubMed^®, EMBASE^®, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL^®) were searched using terms for nursing, caregiving, technical aids, musculoskeletal injuries, and complaints. Randomized controlled trials and controlled before-after studies of interventions including technical patient handling equipment were included. The titles and abstracts of 9554 publications and 97 full-texts were screened by two reviewers. The qualitative synthesis included one randomized controlled trial (RCT) and ten controlled before-after studies. A meta-analysis of four studies resulted in a pooled risk ratio for musculoskeletal injury claims (post-intervention) of 0.78 (95% confidence interval 0.68–0.90). Overall, the methodological quality of the studies was poor and the results often based on administrative injury claim data, introducing potential selection bias. Interventions with technical patient handling aids appear to prevent musculoskeletal complaints, but the certainty of the evidence according to GRADE approach ranged from low to very low.

Children and adolescents may be particularly vulnerable to environmental influences such as noise which can affect mental well-being. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of transportation noise on behavioral and emotional disorders in children and adolescents using a meta-analytic approach. Therefore, we searched four databases (Pubmed, Embase, PsychINFO, and PSYNDEX) and grey literature until February of 2019. We identified 14 articles from 10 studies examining the effect of transportation noise exposure on the mental health of children. These studies predominately used the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) and mainly focused on schoolchildren and adolescents aged 9–10 years and 15–17 years in Europe. Three studies could be included in the meta-analysis. In sum, the odds for hyperactivity/inattention and total difficulties was significantly increased by 11% (Odds Ratio, OR = 1.11 (95% Confidence Interval, CI 1.04–1.19), respectively 9% (95% CI 1.02–1.16) per 10 dB road traffic noise. Thus, we obtained evidence for an effect of road traffic noise on hyperactivity/inattention and total difficulties, although we could consider few studies. Future studies are needed that use similar techniques to assess outcomes and exposures at schools and in homes. This would make it possible to conduct an individual participant data pooled analysis of the data.