Background: Although it is generally accepted that physical activity reduces the risk for chronic non-communicable disease and mortality, accumulating evidence suggests that occupational physical activity (OPA) may not confer the same health benefits as leisure time physical activity (LTPA). It is also unclear if workers in high OPA jobs benefit from LTPA the same way as those in sedentary jobs. Our objective was to determine whether LTPA and leisure time sedentary behaviour (LTSB) confer the same health effects across occupations with different levels of OPA.Methods: Searches were run in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, ProQuest Public Health and Scopus from inception to June 9, 2020. Prospective or experimental studies which examined the effects of LTPA or LTSB on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular disease, musculoskeletal pain, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, arrhythmias and depression among adult workers grouped by OPA (low OPA/sitters, standers, moderate OPA/intermittent movers, high OPA/heavy labourers) were eligible. Results were synthesized using narrative syntheses and harvest plots, and certainty of evidence assessed with GRADE.Results: The review includes 38 papers. Across all outcomes, except cardiovascular mortality, metabolic syndrome and atrial fibrillation, greater LTPA was consistently protective among low OPA, but conferred less protection among moderate and high OPA. For cardiovascular mortality and metabolic syndrome, higher levels of LTPA were generally associated with similar risk reductions among all OPA groups. Few studies examined effects in standers and none examined effects of LTSB across OPA groups.Conclusions: Evidence suggests that LTPA is beneficial for all workers, but with larger risk reductions among those with low compared to high OPA jobs. This suggests that, in our attempts to improve the health of workers through LTPA, tailored interventions for different occupational groups may be required. More high-quality studies are needed to establish recommended levels of LTPA/LTSB for different OPA groups.Protocol registration: PROSPERO #CRD42020191708.

Background: Health responses associated with occupational exposures can vary between men and women.Aims: This study reviewed the work injury and disability risks associated with similar types of occupational exposures for men and women within and across occupations.Materials & Methods: A systematic review was undertaken of observational studies published between 2009 and 2019. Studies were required to empirically compare men and women for associations between occupational exposures and work injury or disability outcomes. Included studies were appraised for methodological quality and medium to high rated studies were compared for risk differences between men and women.Results: Of 14,006 records identified, 440 articles were assessed for methodological quality, and 33 medium to high rated studies were included and reviewed. Among all occupations, the association between physical exposures, job demands, noise, and repetitive tasks, and injury risk were stronger among men. The relationship between repetitive tasks and sickness absence was stronger among women. Most studies examining psychological exposures found no risk differences for men and women across occupations. Men were at higher injury risk in certain occupations in primary and secondary industry sectors involving physical exposures and some chemical/biological exposures. Women were at higher injury risk for the physical demands and repetitive tasks of health care and aluminum production occupations.Conclusion: This review found that men and women can have different work injury and disability risks, both across and within the same occupations, for some physical exposures and to a lesser extent for some chemical and biological exposures. These differences might be a result of occupation‐specific task differences.

The labor market is undergoing a rapid artificial intelligence (AI) revolution. There is currently limited empirical scholarship that focuses on how AI adoption affects employment opportunities and work environments in ways that shape worker health, safety, well‐being and equity. In this article, we present an agenda to guide research examining the implications of AI on the intersection between work and health. To build the agenda, a full day meeting was organized and attended by 50 participants including researchers from diverse disciplines and applied stakeholders. Facilitated meeting discussions aimed to set research priorities related to workplace AI applications and its impact on the health of workers, including critical research questions, methodological approaches, data needs, and resource requirements. Discussions also aimed to identify groups of workers and working contexts that may benefit from AI adoption as well as those that may be disadvantaged by AI. Discussions were synthesized into four research agenda areas: (1) examining the impact of stronger AI on human workers; (2) advancing responsible and healthy AI; (3) informing AI policy for worker health, safety, well‐being, and equitable employment; and (4) understanding and addressing worker and employer knowledge needs regarding AI applications. The agenda provides a roadmap for researchers to build a critical evidence base on the impact of AI on workers and workplaces, and will ensure that worker health, safety, well‐being, and equity are at the forefront of workplace AI system design and adoption.

Background: Rising demands for traditional postpartum depression (PPD) treatment options ( e.g. , psychiatry), especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, are increasingly difficult to meet. More accessible treatment options ( e.g. , walking) are needed. Our objective is to determine the impact of walking on PPD severity. Methods: A structured search of seven electronic databases for randomized controlled trials published between 2000 and July 29, 2021 was completed. Studies were included if walking was the sole or primary aerobic exercise modality. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted for studies reporting PPD symptoms measured using a clinically validated tool. A simple count of positive/null effect studies was undertaken as part of a narrative summary. Results: Five studies involving 242 participants were included (mean age = ∼28.9 years; 100% with mild-to-moderate depression). Interventions were 12 ( n = 4) and 24 ( n = 1) weeks long. Each assessed PPD severity using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), and was included in the meta-analysis. The pooled effect estimate suggests that relative to controls walking yielded clinically significant decreases in mean EPDS scores from baseline to intervention end (pooled mean difference = −4.01; 95% CI: −7.18 to −0.84, I ² = 86%). The narrative summary provides preliminary evidence that walking-only, supervised, and group-based interventions, including 90–120+ minutes per week of moderate-intensity walking, may produce greater EPDS reductions. Conclusions: While limited by a relatively small number of included studies, pooled effect estimates suggest that walking may help mothers manage PPD. This is the first-time walking as treatment for PPD, an exercise modality that uniquely addresses many barriers faced by mothers, has been summarized in a systematic way. Trial registration: PROSPERO (CRD42020197521) on August 16th, 2020

Objective: There is increasing recognition of the value of integrating efforts to promote worker health with existing occupational health and safety activities. This paper aimed to identify facilitators, barriers and recommendations for implementing integrated worker health approaches. Methods: Thirteen stakeholders from different job sectors participated in a workshop that targeted key issues underlying integrated worker health approaches in their own and other organizations. Included were participants from human resources, occupational health and safety, government, and unions. Thematic analysis and an online ranking exercise identified recommendation priorities and contributed to a conceptual framework. Results: Participants highlighted the importance of planning phases in addition to implementation and evaluation. Themes highlighted organizational priorities, leadership buy-in, external pressures, training, program promotion and evaluation metrics. Conclusions: Findings provide practical directions for integrating worker health promotion and safety and implementation steps.