Workplaces can be high-risk environments for SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks and subsequent community transmission. Identifying, understanding, and implementing effective workplace SARS-CoV-2 infection prevention and control (IPC) measures is critical to protect workers, their families, and communities. A rapid review and meta-analysis were conducted to synthesize evidence assessing the effectiveness of COVID-19 IPC measures implemented in global workplace settings through April 2021. Medline, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies that quantitatively assessed the effectiveness of workplace COVID-19 IPC measures. The included studies comprised varying empirical designs and occupational settings. Measures of interest included surveillance measures, outbreak investigations, environmental adjustments, personal protective equipment (PPE), changes in work arrangements, and worker education. Sixty-one studies from healthcare, nursing home, meatpacking, manufacturing, and office settings were included, accounting for ~280,000 employees based in Europe, Asia, and North America. Meta-analyses showed that combined IPC measures resulted in lower employee COVID-19 positivity rates (0.2% positivity; 95% CI 0–0.4%) than single measures such as asymptomatic PCR testing (1.7%; 95% CI 0.9–2.9%) and universal masking (24%; 95% CI 3.4–55.5%). Modelling studies showed that combinations of (i) timely and widespread contact tracing and case isolation, (ii) facilitating smaller worker cohorts, and (iii) effective use of PPE can reduce workplace transmission. Comprehensive COVID-19 IPC measures incorporating swift contact tracing and case isolation, PPE, and facility zoning can effectively prevent workplace outbreaks. Masking alone should not be considered sufficient protection from SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in the workplace.

Professional athletes involved in high-performance sport are at a high injury risk, which may lead to long-term health consequences. Professional athletes often expose themselves to risky behaviours, resulting in a higher acceptance level of occupational risk compared to other occupations. To date, many studies have focused on elite athletes’ specific injury prevention techniques. The objective of this narrative review is to (1) summarise elite athletes’ attitudes towards important occupational safety and health (OSH) practices, including injury reporting, medicine usage and personal protective equipment (PPE) usage, and (2) explore factors that may influence elite athletes’ injury awareness. If injury awareness were given a similar weighting in elite sports as in any other highly physical occupation, the potential benefits to elite athletes and their long-term health could be highly significant. This review identifies that most elite athletes are not aware that sporting injuries are occupational injuries requiring behaviours determined by OSH rules. All the 39 studies identified met the moderate methodological quality criteria according to the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). The factors impeding athletes’ injury awareness from achieving occupational health standards are discussed from three safety management perspectives: organisational, societal and individual. This review contributes to a better understanding of how to build a positive safety culture, one that could reduce elite athletes’ injury rate and improve their long-term wellbeing. Further research is required to develop a quantitative measurement instrument to evaluate occupational health awareness in the sport context. Based on the papers reviewed, the study population was categorised as elite, professional, high-performance amateur and student-athletes.

Considerable research has been undertaken regarding the mental health inequalities experienced by lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI+) youth as a consequence of societal and individual prejudice, stigma and discrimination. Far less research has focussed on protective factors that promote wellbeing for this population. A scoping review was conducted using a six-stage methodological framework, and is reported in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR statement. This explored the extent, range and nature of the peer-reviewed, published, academic literature on what is known about the protective factors that promote LGBTI+ youth wellbeing. Six databases were systematically searched applying Population–Concept–Context key inclusion criteria, complemented by contact with authors to identify additional sources, reference checks and hand searches. Ninety-six individual research records were identified and analysed, drawing from Honneth’s Recognition Theory. Interpersonal relations with parents (n = 40), peers (n = 32) and providers (n = 22) were associated with indicators of enhanced wellbeing, as were LGBTI+ community relations (n = 32). Importantly, online (n = 10), faith (n = 10) and cultural (n = 5) communities were potentially protective. Content and thematic analysis highlighted the importance of Gay–Straight Alliances (GSAs) (n = 23) offering powerful protective opportunities through intersecting interpersonal, community and legal forms of recognition. GSAs enhance allyship by peers and providers (n = 21), facilitate access to LGBTI+ community networks (n = 11) and co-exist alongside inclusive policies (n = 12), curricular (n = 5) and extracurricular activities (n = 1). This scoping review underscores the need to move beyond the predominant focus on risk factors for LGBTI+ youth, which subsequently inform protectionist approaches. It concludes with an appeal to develop mechanisms to apply recognitive justice to policy, practice and, importantly, future research directions. This emphasises the salience of enhanced understandings of inclusion, which is rights-based, universally available and of potential benefit to all.

In light of global environmental crises and the need for sustainable development, the fields of public health and environmental sciences have become increasingly interrelated. Both fields require interdisciplinary thinking and global solutions, which is largely directed by scientific progress documented in peer-reviewed journals. Journal editors play a critical role in coordinating and shaping what is accepted as scientific knowledge. Previous research has demonstrated a lack of diversity in the gender and geographic representation of editors across scientific disciplines. This study aimed to explore the diversity of journal editorial boards publishing in environmental science and public health. The Clarivate Journal Citation Reports database was used to identify journals classified as Public, Environmental, and Occupational (PEO) Health, Environmental Studies, or Environmental Sciences. Current EB members were identified from each journal’s publicly available website between 1 March and 31 May 2021. Individuals’ names, editorial board roles, institutional affiliations, geographic locations (city, country), and inferred gender were collected. Binomial 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the proportions of interest. Pearson correlations with false discovery rate adjustment were used to assess the correlation between journal-based indicators and editorial board characteristics. Linear regression and logistic regression models were fitted to further assess the relationship between gender presence, low- and middle-income country (LMIC) presence and several journal and editor-based indicators. After identifying 628 unique journals and excluding discontinued or unavailable journals, 615 journal editorial boards were included. In-depth analysis was conducted on 591 journals with complete gender and geographic data for their 27,772 editors. Overall, the majority of editors were men (65.9%), followed by women (32.9%) and non-binary/other gender minorities (0.05%). 75.5% journal editorial boards (n = 446) were composed of a majority of men (>55% men), whilst only 13.2% (n = 78) demonstrated gender parity (between 45–55% women/gender minorities). Journals categorized as PEO Health had the most gender diversity. Furthermore, 84% of editors (n = 23,280) were based in high-income countries and only 2.5% of journals (n = 15) demonstrated economic parity in their editorial boards (between 45–55% editors from LMICs). Geographically, the majority of editors’ institutions were based in the United Nations (UN) Western Europe and Other region (76.9%), with 35.2% of editors (n = 9,761) coming solely from the United States and 8.6% (n = 2,373) solely from the United Kingdom. None of the editors-in-chief and only 27 editors in total were women based in low-income countries. Through the examination of journal editorial boards, this study exposes the glaring lack of diversity in editorial boards in environmental science and public health, explores the power dynamics affecting the creation and dissemination of knowledge, and proposes concrete actions to remedy these structural inequities in order to inform more equitable, just and impactful knowledge creation.