Vitamin D deficiency is prevalent worldwide, but some groups are at greater risk. We aim to evaluate vitamin D levels in different occupations and identify groups vulnerable to vitamin D deficiency. An electronic search conducted in Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL Plus with Full Text generated 2505 hits; 71 peer-reviewed articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Occupations investigated included outdoor and indoor workers, shiftworkers, lead/smelter workers, coalminers, and healthcare professionals. We calculated the pooled average metabolite level as mean ± SD; deficiency/insufficiency status was described as % of the total number of subjects in a given category. Compared to outdoor workers, indoor workers had lower 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-(OH)D) levels (40.6 ± 13.3 vs. 66.7 ± 16.7 nmol/L; p < 0.0001). Mean 25-(OH)D levels (in nmol/L) in shiftworkers, lead/smelter workers and coalminers were 33.8 ± 10.0, 77.8 ± 5.4 and 56.6 ± 28.4, respectively. Vitamin D deficiency (25-(OH)D < 50 nmol/L), was high in shiftworkers (80%) and indoor workers (78%) compared to outdoor workers (48%). Among healthcare professionals, medical residents and healthcare students had the lowest levels of mean 25-(OH)D, 44.0 ± 8.3 nmol/L and 45.2 ± 5.5 nmol/L, respectively. The mean 25-(OH)D level of practising physicians, 55.0 ± 5.8 nmol/L, was significantly different from both medical residents (p < 0.0001) and healthcare students (p < 0.0001). Nurses and other healthcare employees had 25-(OH)D levels of 63.4 ± 4.2 nmol/L and 63.0 ± 11.0 nmol/L, respectively, which differed significantly compared to practising physicians (p = 0.01), medical residents (p < 0.0001) and healthcare students (p < 0.0001). Rates of vitamin D deficiency among healthcare professionals were: healthcare students 72%, medical residents 65%, practising physicians 46%, other healthcare employees 44%, and nurses 43%. Combined rates of vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency (25-(OH)D < 75 nmol/L) were very high in all investigated groups. Potential confounders such as gender and body composition were not consistently reported in the primary studies and were therefore not analyzed. Furthermore, the descriptions of occupational characteristics may be incomplete. These are limitations of our systematic review. Our review demonstrates that shiftworkers, healthcare workers and indoor workers are at high risk to develop vitamin D deficiency, which may reflect key lifestyle differences (e.g. sunlight exposure). This may help target health promotion and preventive efforts.

We systematically reviewed the evidence on the effectiveness of telerehabilitation (TR) applications. The review included reports on rehabilitation for any disability, other than mental health conditions, and drug or alcohol addiction. All forms of telecommunications technology for TR and all types of study design were considered. Study quality was assessed using an approach that considered both study performance and study design. Judgements were made on whether each TR application had been successful, whether reported outcomes were clinically significant, and whether further data were needed to establish the application as suitable for routine use. Sixty-one scientifically credible studies that reported patient outcomes or administrative changes were identified through computerized literature searches on five databases. Twelve clinical categories were covered by the studies. Those dealing with cardiac or neurological rehabilitation were the most numerous. Thirty-one of the studies (51%) were of high or good quality. Study results showed that 71% of the TR applications were successful, 18% were unsuccessful and for 11% the status was unclear. The reported outcomes for 51% of the applications appeared to be clinically significant. Poorer-quality studies tended to have worse outcomes than those from high- or good-quality studies. We judged that further study was required for 62% of the TR applications and desirable for 23%. TR shows promise in many fields, but compelling evidence of benefit and of impact on routine rehabilitation programmes is still limited. There is a need for more detailed, better-quality studies and for studies on the use of TR in routine care.

Background: A necessary shift from in-person to remote delivery of psychotherapy (eg, teletherapy, eHealth, videoconferencing) has occurred because of the COVID-19 pandemic. A corollary benefit is a potential fit in terms of the need for equitable and timely access to mental health services in remote and rural locations. Owing to COVID-19, there may be an increase in the demand for timely, virtual delivery of services among trauma-affected populations, including public safety personnel (PSP; eg, paramedics, police, fire, correctional officers), military members, and veterans. There is a lack of evidence on the question of whether digital delivery of trauma-therapies for military members, veterans, and PSP leads to similar outcomes to in-person delivery. Information on barriers and facilitators and recommendations regarding digital-delivery is also scarce. Objective: This study aims to evaluate the scope and quality of peer-reviewed literature on psychotherapeutic digital health interventions delivered remotely to military members, veterans, and PSP and synthesize the knowledge of needs, gaps, barriers to, and facilitators for virtual assessment of and virtual interventions for posttraumatic stress injury. Methods: Relevant studies were identified using MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online), EMBASE (Excerpta Medica dataBASE), APA (American Psychological Association) PsycINFO, CINAHL (Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature) Plus with Full Text, and Military & Government Collection. For collation, analysis, summarizing, and reporting of results, we used the CASP (Critical Skills Appraisal Program) qualitative checklist, PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database) scale, level of evidence hierarchy, PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews), and narrative synthesis. Results: A total of 38 studies were included in this review. Evidence for the effectiveness of digital delivery of prolonged exposure therapy, cognitive processing therapy, behavioral activation treatment with therapeutic exposure to military members, veterans, and PSP was rated level 1a, whereas evidence for cognitive behavioral therapy was conflicting. The narrative synthesis indicated that virtual delivery of these therapies can be as effective as in-person delivery but may reduce stigma and cost while increasing access to therapy. Issues of risk, safety, potential harm (ie, suicidality, enabling avoidance), privacy, security, and the match among the therapist, modality, and patient warrant further consideration. There is a lack of studies on the influences of gender, racial, and cultural factors that may result in differential outcomes, preferences, and/or needs. An investigation into other therapies that may be suitable for digital delivery is needed. Conclusions: Digital delivery of trauma therapies for military members, veterans, and PSP is a critical area for further research. Although promising evidence exists regarding the effectiveness of digital health within these populations, many questions remain, and a cautious approach to more widespread implementation is warranted.

Wildfires are increasing in frequency, size, and intensity, and increasingly affect highly populated areas. Wildfire smoke impacts cardiorespiratory health; children are at increased risk due to smaller airways, a higher metabolic rate and ongoing development. The objective of this systematic review was to describe the risk of pediatric respiratory symptoms and healthcare visits following exposure to wildfire smoke. Medical and scientific databases and the grey literature were searched from inception until December 2020. Included studies evaluated pediatric respiratory-related healthcare visits or symptoms associated with wildfire smoke exposure. Prescribed burns, non-respiratory symptoms and non-pediatric studies were excluded. Risk of bias was evaluated using the National Toxicology Program’s Office of Health Assessment and Translation Risk of Bias Rating Tool. Data are presented narratively due to study heterogeneity. Of 2138 results, 1167 titles and abstracts were screened after duplicate removal; 65 full text screens identified 5 pre-post and 11 cross-sectional studies of rural, urban and mixed sites from the USA, Australia, Canada and Spain. There is a significant increase in respiratory emergency department visits and asthma hospitalizations within the first 3 days of exposure to wildfire smoke, particularly in children < 5 years old.