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 experts. Evidence from mechanistic data suggests that exposure to long working hours may cause ischaemic heart disease (IHD). 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 IHD 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 IHD (three outcomes: prevalence, incidence and mortality). We developed and published a protocol, applying the Navigation Guide as an organizing systematic review framework where feasible. We searched electronic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, CISDOC, PsycINFO, and WHO ICTRP.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) workers 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 which contained 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 IHD (prevalence, incidence or mortality). 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. Missing data were requested from principal study authors. We combined relative risks using random-effect meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias, quality of evidence and strength of evidence, using Navigation Guide and GRADE tools and approaches adapted to this project. Thirty-seven studies (26 prospective cohort studies and 11 case-control studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 768,751 participants (310,954 females) in 13 countries in 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 (30 studies) or self-reported physician diagnosis (7 studies). The outcome was defined as incident non-fatal IHD event in 19 studies (8 cohort studies, 11 case-control studies), incident fatal IHD event in two studies (both cohort studies), and incident non-fatal or fatal ("mixed") event in 16 studies (all cohort studies). Because we judged cohort studies to have a relatively lower risk of bias, we prioritized evidence from these studies and treated evidence from case-control studies as supporting evidence. For the bodies of evidence for both outcomes with any eligible studies (i.e. IHD incidence and mortality), we did not have serious concerns for risk of bias (at least for the cohort studies). No eligible study was found on the effect of long working hours on IHD prevalence. Compared with working 35-40 h/week, we are uncertain about the effect on acquiring (or incidence of) IHD of working 41-48 h/week (relative risk (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.07, 20 studies, 312,209 participants, I² 0%, low quality of evidence) and 49-54 h/week (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.17, 18 studies, 308,405 participants, I² 0%, low quality of evidence). Compared with working 35-40 h/week, working ≥55 h/week may have led to a moderately, clinically meaningful increase in the risk of acquiring IHD, when followed up between one year and 20 years (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.26, 22 studies, 339,680 participants, I² 5%, moderate quality of evidence). Compared with working 35-40 h/week, we are very uncertain about the effect on dying (mortality) from IHD of working 41-48 h/week (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.12, 13 studies, 288,278 participants, I² 8%, low quality of evidence) and 49-54 h/week (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.25, 11 studies, 284,474 participants, I² 13%, low 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 dying from IHD when followed up between eight and 30 years (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.31, 16 studies, 726,803 participants, I² 0%, moderate quality of evidence). Subgroup analyses found no evidence for differences by WHO region and sex, but RRs were higher among persons with lower SES. Sensitivity analyses found no differences by outcome definition (exclusively non-fatal or fatal versus "mixed"), outcome measurement (health records versus self-reports) and risk of bias ("high"/"probably high" ratings in any domain versus "low"/"probably low" in all domains). We judged the existing bodies of evidence for human evidence as "inadequate evidence for harmfulness" for the exposure categories 41-48 and 49-54 h/week for IHD prevalence, incidence and mortality, and for the exposure category ≥55 h/week for IHD prevalence. Evidence on exposure to working ≥55 h/week was judged as "sufficient evidence of harmfulness" for IHD incidence and mortality. Producing estimates for the burden of IHD attributable to exposure to working ≥55 h/week appears evidence-based, and the pooled effect estimates presented in this systematic review could be used as input data for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates.

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...

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 melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer (or keratinocyte carcinoma) from occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation, to inform the development of the WHO/ILO joint methodology. We aim to systematically review studies on occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation (Systematic Review 1) and systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation on melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer (Systematic Review 2), applying the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology as an organizing framework and 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 Ovid Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science. 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. For Systematic Review 1, we will include quantitative studies on the prevalence of relevant levels of occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation (i.e. <0.33 SED/d and ≥0.33 SED/d) and of the total working time spent outdoors, stratified by country, sex, age and industrial sector or occupation, in the years 1960 to 2018. 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 effect of any occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation (i.e., ≥0.33 SED/d) on the prevalence of, incidence of or mortality due to melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer, compared with the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (i.e. <0.33 SED/d). 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 the 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. CRD42018094817.

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 disability-adjusted life years from osteoarthritis of hip or knee, and selected other musculoskeletal diseases respectively, attributable to exposure to occupational ergonomic risk factors to inform the development of the WHO/ILO joint methodology. We aim to systematically review studies on exposure to occupational ergonomic risk factors (Systematic Review 1) and systematically review and meta-analyze estimates of the effect of exposure to occupational ergonomic risk factors on osteoarthritis of the hip or knee, and selected other musculoskeletal diseases respectively (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 lists 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 included occupational ergonomic risk factors will be any exposure to one or more of: force exertion; demanding posture; repetitiveness; hand-arm vibration; lifting; kneeling and/or squatting; and climbing. Included outcomes will be (i) osteoarthritis and (ii) other musculoskeletal diseases (i.e., one or more of: rotator cuff syndrome; bicipital tendinitis; calcific tendinitis; shoulder impingement; bursitis shoulder; epicondylitis medialis; epicondylitis lateralis; bursitis elbow; bursitis hip; chondromalacia patellae; meniscus disorders; and/or bursitis knee). For Systematic Review 1, we will include quantitative prevalence studies of any exposure to occupational ergonomic risk factors stratified by country, gender, 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 any exposure with occupational ergonomic risk factors on the prevalence or incidence of osteoarthritis and/or selected musculoskeletal diseases, compared with the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (i.e., no 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: CRD42018102631.

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), supported by a large number of individual experts. Evidence from previous reviews suggests that exposure to long working hours may cause depression. In this article, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of parameters for estimating (if feasible) the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from depression 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 depression (three outcomes: prevalence, incidence and mortality). We developed and published a protocol, 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, including the WHO International Clinical Trial Registers Platform, Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CISDOC and PsycInfo. 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) workers 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 depression (prevalence, incidence and/or mortality). 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. Missing data were requested from principal study authors. We combined odds ratios using random-effects meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias, quality of evidence and strength of evidence, using Navigation Guide and GRADE tools and approaches adapted to this project. Twenty-two studies (all cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 109,906 participants (51,324 females) in 32 countries (as one study included multiple countries) in three WHO regions (Americas, Europe and Western Pacific). The exposure was measured using self-reports in all studies, and the outcome was assessed with a clinical diagnostic interview (four studies), interview questions about diagnosis and treatment of depression (three studies) or a validated self-administered rating scale (15 studies). The outcome was defined as incident depression in all 22 studies, with first time incident depression in 21 studies and recurrence of depression in one study. We did not identify any study on prevalence of depression or on mortality from depression. For the body of evidence for the outcome incident depression, we had serious concerns for risk of bias due to selection because of incomplete outcome data (most studies assessed depression only twice, at baseline and at a later follow-up measurement, and likely have missed cases of depression that occurred after baseline but were in remission at the time of the follow-up measurement) and due to missing information on life-time prevalence of depression before baseline measurement. Compared with working 35-40 h/week, we are uncertain about the effect on acquiring (or incidence of) depression of working 41-48 h/week (pooled odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.29, 8 studies, 49,392 participants, I² 46%, low quality of evidence); 49-54 h/week (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.21, 8 studies, 49,392 participants, I² 40%, low quality of evidence); and ≥ 55 h/week (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.24, 17 studies, 91,142 participants, I² 46%, low quality of evidence). Subgroup analyses found no evidence for statistically significant (P < 0.05) differences by WHO region, sex, age group and socioeconomic status. Sensitivity analyses found no statistically significant differences by outcome measurement (clinical diagnostic interview [gold standard] versus other measures) and risk of bias ("high"/"probably high" ratings in any domain versus "low"/"probably low" in all domains). We judged the existing bodies of evidence from human data as "inadequate evidence for harmfulness" for all three exposure categories, 41-48, 48-54 and ≥55 h/week, for depression prevalence, incidence and mortality; the available evidence is insufficient to assess effects of the exposure. Producing estimates of the burden of depression attributable to exposure to long working appears not evidence-based at this point. Instead, studies examining the association between long working hours and risk of depression are needed that address the limitations of the current evidence.