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 data and prior studies suggests that exposure to long working hours may cause stroke. 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 stroke that are attributable to exposure to long working hours, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of exposure to long working hours (three categories: 41-48, 49-54 and ≥55 h/week), compared with exposure to standard working hours (35-40 h/week), on stroke (three outcomes: prevalence, incidence, and mortality). A protocol was developed and published, applying the Navigation Guide to systematic reviews as an organizing framework where feasible. We searched electronic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, CISDOC, PsycINFO, and WHO ICTRP. We also searched grey literature databases, Internet search engines, and organizational websites; hand-searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews; and consulted additional experts. We included working-age (≥15 years) individuals in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but excluded children (aged < 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 exposure to long working hours (41-48, 49-54 and ≥55 h/week), compared with exposure to standard working hours (35-40 h/week), on stroke (prevalence, incidence or mortality). At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first review stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. Missing data were requested from principal study authors. We combined relative risks using random-effects meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias, quality of evidence and strength of evidence, using the Navigation Guide and GRADE tools and approaches adapted to this project. Twenty-two studies (20 cohort studies, 2 case-control studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 839,680 participants (364,616 females) in eight countries from three WHO regions (Americas, Europe, and Western Pacific). The exposure was measured using self-reports in all studies, and the outcome was assessed with administrative health records (13 studies), self-reported physician diagnosis (7 studies), direct diagnosis by a physician (1 study) or during a medical interview (1 study). The outcome was defined as an incident non-fatal stroke event in nine studies (7 cohort studies, 2 case-control studies), incident fatal stroke event in one cohort study and incident non-fatal or fatal ("mixed") event in 12 studies (all cohort studies). Cohort studies were judged to have a relatively low risk of bias; therefore, we prioritized evidence from these studies, but synthesised evidence from case-control studies as supporting evidence. For the bodies of evidence for both outcomes with any eligible studies (i.e. stroke incidence and mortality), we did not have serious concerns for risk of bias (at least for the cohort studies). Eligible studies were found on the effects of long working hours on stroke incidence and mortality, but not prevalence. Compared with working 35-40 h/week, we were uncertain about the effect on incidence of stroke due to working 41-48 h/week (relative risk (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-1.14, 18 studies, 277,202 participants, I2 0%, low quality of evidence). There may have been an increased risk for acquiring stroke when working 49-54 h/week compared with 35-40 h/week (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.00-1.28, 17 studies, 275,181participants, I2 0%, p 0.04, moderate quality of evidence). Compared with working 35-40 h/week, working ≥55 h/week may have led to a moderate, clinically meaningful increase in the risk of acquiring stroke, when followed up between one year and 20 years (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.61, 7 studies, 162,644 participants, I2 3%, moderate quality of evidence). Compared with working 35-40 h/week, we were very uncertain about the effect on dying (mortality) of stroke due to working 41-48 h/week (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91-1.12, 12 studies, 265,937 participants, I2 0%, low quality of evidence), 49-54 h/week (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.99-1.29, 11 studies, 256,129 participants, I2 0%, low quality of evidence) and 55 h/week (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.89-1.31, 10 studies, 664,647 participants, I2 20%, low quality of evidence). Subgroup analyses found no evidence for differences by WHO region, age, sex, socioeconomic status and type of stroke. Sensitivity analyses found no differences by outcome definition (exclusively non-fatal or fatal versus "mixed") except for the comparison working ≥55 h/week versus 35-40 h/week for stroke incidence (p for subgroup differences: 0.05), risk of bias ("high"/"probably high" ratings in any domain versus "low"/"probably low" in all domains), effect estimate measures (risk versus hazard versus odds ratios) and comparator (exact versus approximate definition). We judged the existing bodies of evidence for human evidence as "inadequate evidence for harmfulness" for all exposure categories for stroke prevalence and mortality and for exposure to 41-48 h/week for stroke incidence. Evidence on exposure to 48-54 h/week and ≥55 h/week was judged as "limited evidence for harmfulness" and "sufficient evidence for harmfulness" for stroke...

This paper contributes to the literature on organizational interventions on occupational health by presenting a concept study design to test the efficacy of a Participatory Organizational-level Intervention to improve working conditions and job satisfaction in Healthcare. The Participatory Organizational-level Intervention is developed using the Italian methodology to assess and manage psychosocial risks tailored to Healthcare. We added an additional step: evaluation, aiming to examine how the intervention works, what worked for whom and in which circumstances. This ongoing study is conducted in collaboration with two large Italian hospitals (more than 7000 employees). The study design comprises a quasi-experimental approach consisting of five phases and surveys distributed pre- and post-intervention aiming to capture improvements in working conditions and job satisfaction. Moreover, to evaluate the efficacy of the Intervention in terms of process and content, we use a realist evaluation to test Context-Mechanisms-Outcome (CMO) configurations. We collect contextual factors at baseline and during and post-intervention process data on the key principles of line manager support and employees participation. This study is expected to provide insights on methods and strategies to improve working conditions and employees’ job satisfaction and on national policies in the occupational health framework.

Background: Work-related stress is widely recognized as one of the major challenges to occupational health and safety. The correlation between work-related stress risk factors and physical health outcomes is widely acknowledged. This study investigated socio-demographic and occupational variables involved in perceived risk of work-related stress. Methods: The Italian version of the Health and Safety Executive Management Standards Indicator Tool was used in a large survey to examine the relationship between work-related stress risks and workers’ demographic and occupational characteristics. Out of 8,527 questionnaires distributed among workers (from 75 organizations) 6,378 were returned compiled (74.8%); a set of mixed effects models were adopted to test single and combined effects of the variables on work-related stress risk. Results: Female workers reported lower scores on control and peer support and more negative perceptions of relationships and change at work than male workers, most of them with full-time contracts. Age, job seniority, and educational level appeared positively correlated with control at work, but negatively with job demands. Fixed-term workers had positive perceptions regarding job demands and relationships, but more difficulties about their role at work than permanent workers. A commuting time longer than one hour and shift work appeared to be associated with higher levels of risk factors for work-related stress (except for role), the latter having more negative effects, increasing with age. Conclusions: The findings suggest that the assessment and management of work-related stress risk should consider specific socio-demographic and occupational risk factors such as gender, age, educational level, job status, shift work, commuting time, job contracts.

Background: Monitoring workplace violence (WPV) against health care workers (HCWs) through incident reporting is crucial to drive prevention, but the actual implementation is spotty and experiences underreporting. Objective: This study aims to introduce a systematic WPV surveillance in 2 public referral hospitals in Italy and assess underreporting, WPV annual rates, and attributes “before” (2016-2020) and “after” its implementation (November 2021 to 2022). Methods: During 2016-2020, incident reporting was based on procedures and data collection forms that were neither standardized between hospitals nor specific for aggressions. We planned and implemented a standardized WPV surveillance based on (1) an incident report form for immediate and systematic event notification, adopting international standards for violence definitions; (2) second-level root cause analysis with a dedicated psychologist, assessing violence determinants and impacts and offering psychological counseling; (3) a web-based platform for centralized data collection; and (4) periodic training for workforce coordinators and newly hired workers. We used data from incident reports to estimate underreporting, defined as an observed-to-expected (from literature and the “before” period) WPV ratio less than 1, and the 12-month WPV rates (per 100 HCWs) in the “before” and “after” periods. During the latter period, we separately estimated WPV rates for first and recurrent events. Results: In the “before” period, the yearly observed-to-expected ratios were consistently below 1 and as low as 0.27, suggesting substantial violence underreporting of up to 73%. WPV annual rates declined in 1 hospital (from 1.92 in 2016 to 0.57 in 2020) and rose in the other (from 0.52 to 1.0), with the divergence being attributable to trends in underreporting. Available data were poorly informative to identify at-risk HCW subgroups. In the “after” period, the observed-to-expected ratio rose to 1.14 compared to literature and 1.91 compared to the “before” period, consistently in both hospitals. The 12-month WPV rate was 2.08 (95% CI 1.79-2.42; 1.52 and 2.35 in the 2 hospitals); one-fifth (0.41/2.08, 19.7%) was due to recurrences. Among HCWs, the youngest group (3.79; P<.001), nurses (3.19; P<.001), and male HCWs (2.62; P=.008) reported the highest rates. Emergency departments and psychiatric wards were the 2 areas at increased risk. Physical assaults were more likely in male than female HWCs (45/67, 67.2% vs 62/130, 47.7%; P=.01), but the latter experienced more mental health consequences (46/130, 35.4% vs 13/67, 19.4%; P=.02). Overall, 40.8% (53/130) of female HWCs recognized sociocultural (eg, linguistic or cultural) barriers as contributing factors for the aggression, and 30.8% (40/130) of WPV against female HCWs involved visitors as perpetrators. Conclusions: A systematic WPV surveillance reduced underreporting. The identification of high-risk workers and characterization of violence patterns and attributes can better inform priorities and contents of preventive policies. Our evaluation provides useful information for the large-scale implementation of standardized WPV-monitoring programs.