Shehnaz Bazeer1, Nomdo Jansonius2, Harold Snieder3, Christopher Hammond4, Jelle Vehof5. 1. Section of Academic Ophthalmology, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Course Sciences and Medicine (FoLSM), King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital, Lambeth Palace Road, Waterloo, London, SE1 7EH, United Kingdom. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, Postbus 30.001, Groningen, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, Postbus 30.001, Groningen, the Netherlands. 4. Section of Academic Ophthalmology, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Course Sciences and Medicine (FoLSM), King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital, Lambeth Palace Road, Waterloo, London, SE1 7EH, United Kingdom; Department of Ophthalmology, King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital, Lambeth Palace Road, Waterloo, London, SE1 7EH, London, United Kingdom. 5. Section of Academic Ophthalmology, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Course Sciences and Medicine (FoLSM), King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital, Lambeth Palace Road, Waterloo, London, SE1 7EH, United Kingdom; Department of Ophthalmology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, Postbus 30.001, Groningen, the Netherlands; Department of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, Postbus 30.001, Groningen, the Netherlands; Department of Ophthalmology, Rijnstate Hospital, Wagnerlaan 55, Postbus, 9555, Arnhem, the Netherlands. Electronic address: j.vehof@umcg.nl.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Environmental factors play an important aetiological role in dry eye. This cross-sectional study investigated the relationship between types of occupation and symptomatic dry eye. METHODS: 40,501 employed people working ≥8 h a week were included from the population-based Lifelines cohort in the Netherlands. Logistic regression was used to determine the association between symptomatic dry eye (assessed by the WHS questionnaire) and occupation (using the ISCO-08 classification system). RESULTS: After correction for age and sex, the professionals (e.g. legal, health, and business and administration professionals) (OR = 1.14, 95%CI = 1.08-1.19, P < 0.001) and clerical support workers (OR = 1.14, 95%CI = 1.07-1.22, P < 0.001) had the highest risk of dry eye of all 10 major occupation groups. Skilled agricultural workers (OR = 0.57, 95%CI = 0.49-0.67, P < 0.001) and elementary occupations (OR = 0.77, 95%CI = 0.69-0.85, P < 0.001), such as cleaners and carers, carried the lowest risk of dry eye. After additional correction for 45 dry eye associated comorbidities, professionals and clerical support workers showed no increased risk anymore, while craft and related trades workers, e.g. building workers and metal and machinery workers, showed the highest risk of dry eye (OR = 1.12, 95%CI = 1.02-1.24, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study underlines the importance of asking about type of occupation in dry eye patients. Screening for symptomatic dry eye in high risk occupations such as in building workers and in indoor occupations with high screen use is relevant from an occupational health and work productivity perspective. The lower risk of dry eye in outdoor and active occupation is intriguing and justifies future studies to investigate potential protective and treatment effects.
INTRODUCTION: Environmental factors play an important aetiological role in dry eye. This cross-sectional study investigated the relationship between types of occupation and symptomatic dry eye. METHODS: 40,501 employed people working ≥8 h a week were included from the population-based Lifelines cohort in the Netherlands. Logistic regression was used to determine the association between symptomatic dry eye (assessed by the WHS questionnaire) and occupation (using the ISCO-08 classification system). RESULTS: After correction for age and sex, the professionals (e.g. legal, health, and business and administration professionals) (OR = 1.14, 95%CI = 1.08-1.19, P < 0.001) and clerical support workers (OR = 1.14, 95%CI = 1.07-1.22, P < 0.001) had the highest risk of dry eye of all 10 major occupation groups. Skilled agricultural workers (OR = 0.57, 95%CI = 0.49-0.67, P < 0.001) and elementary occupations (OR = 0.77, 95%CI = 0.69-0.85, P < 0.001), such as cleaners and carers, carried the lowest risk of dry eye. After additional correction for 45 dry eye associated comorbidities, professionals and clerical support workers showed no increased risk anymore, while craft and related trades workers, e.g. building workers and metal and machinery workers, showed the highest risk of dry eye (OR = 1.12, 95%CI = 1.02-1.24, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study underlines the importance of asking about type of occupation in dry eyepatients. Screening for symptomatic dry eye in high risk occupations such as in building workers and in indoor occupations with high screen use is relevant from an occupational health and work productivity perspective. The lower risk of dry eye in outdoor and active occupation is intriguing and justifies future studies to investigate potential protective and treatment effects.
Authors: Abdelrahman M Elhusseiny; Ali A Khalil; Reem H El Sheikh; Mohammad A Bakr; Mohamed Gaber Eissa; Yasmine M El Sayed Journal: Int J Ophthalmol Date: 2019-10-18 Impact factor: 1.779
Authors: Ying-Hsi Liou; Ying-Jen Chen; Wei-Liang Chen; Kuan-Ying Li; Ting-Yu Chou; Yung-Chi Huang; Chung-Ching Wang; Ching-Huang Lai Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-17 Impact factor: 3.390