A Senthilselvan1, W V L Coonghe1, J Beach1,2. 1. School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton Heath Clinic Academy, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 2. Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Workers are exposed to physical, chemical and other hazards in the workplace, which may impact their respiratory health. AIMS: To examine the healthy worker effect in the Canadian working population and to identify the association between occupation and respiratory health. METHODS: Data from four cycles of the Canadian Health Measures Survey were utilized. The current occupation of employed participants was classified into 10 broad categories based on National Occupation Category 2011 codes. Data relating to 15 400 subjects were analysed. RESULTS: A significantly lower proportion of those in current employment than those not in current employment reported respiratory symptoms or diseases or had airway obstruction. Similarly, those currently employed reported better general health and had greater mean values for percent-predicted forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% of FVC (FEF25-75%) and FEV1/FVC ratio. Among males, females and older age groups, significant differences were observed for almost all the respiratory outcomes for those in current employment. Those in 'Occupations unique to primary industry' had a significantly greater likelihood of regular cough with sputum and ever asthma and had lower mean values of percent-predicted FEV1/FVC and FEF25-75% than those in 'Management occupations'. Those in 'Health occupations' had the highest proportion of current asthma. CONCLUSIONS: Participants in current employment were healthier than those not in current employment providing further support for the healthy worker effect. Those in 'Occupations unique to primary industry' had an increased risk of adverse respiratory outcomes and reducing workplace exposures in these occupations has the potential to improve their respiratory health.
BACKGROUND: Workers are exposed to physical, chemical and other hazards in the workplace, which may impact their respiratory health. AIMS: To examine the healthy worker effect in the Canadian working population and to identify the association between occupation and respiratory health. METHODS: Data from four cycles of the Canadian Health Measures Survey were utilized. The current occupation of employed participants was classified into 10 broad categories based on National Occupation Category 2011 codes. Data relating to 15 400 subjects were analysed. RESULTS: A significantly lower proportion of those in current employment than those not in current employment reported respiratory symptoms or diseases or had airway obstruction. Similarly, those currently employed reported better general health and had greater mean values for percent-predicted forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% of FVC (FEF25-75%) and FEV1/FVC ratio. Among males, females and older age groups, significant differences were observed for almost all the respiratory outcomes for those in current employment. Those in 'Occupations unique to primary industry' had a significantly greater likelihood of regular cough with sputum and ever asthma and had lower mean values of percent-predicted FEV1/FVC and FEF25-75% than those in 'Management occupations'. Those in 'Health occupations' had the highest proportion of current asthma. CONCLUSIONS:Participants in current employment were healthier than those not in current employment providing further support for the healthy worker effect. Those in 'Occupations unique to primary industry' had an increased risk of adverse respiratory outcomes and reducing workplace exposures in these occupations has the potential to improve their respiratory health.
Authors: T Sigsgaard; D Nowak; I Annesi-Maesano; B Nemery; K Torén; G Viegi; K Radon; S Burge; D Heederik Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Liliane Chénard; Ambikaipakan Senthilselvan; Vaneeta K Grover; Shelley P Kirychuk; Joshua A Lawson; Thomas S Hurst; James A Dosman Journal: Chest Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: M P Swanney; G Ruppel; P L Enright; O F Pedersen; R O Crapo; M R Miller; R L Jensen; E Falaschetti; J P Schouten; J L Hankinson; J Stocks; P H Quanjer Journal: Thorax Date: 2008-09-11 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Candice Y Johnson; Carissa M Rocheleau; Christina C Lawson; Barbara Grajewski; Penelope P Howards Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2017-08-25 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Anne G Wheaton; Roy A Pleasants; Janet B Croft; Jill A Ohar; Khosrow Heidari; David M Mannino; Yong Liu; Charlie Strange Journal: J Asthma Date: 2016-04-06 Impact factor: 2.515
Authors: Rune Grønseth; Marta Erdal; Wan C Tan; Daniel O Obaseki; Andre F S Amaral; Thorarinn Gislason; Sanjay K Juvekar; Parvaiz A Koul; Michael Studnicka; Sundeep Salvi; Peter Burney; A Sonia Buist; William M Vollmer; Ane Johannessen Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2017-09-20 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Rebecca Elisabeth Ghosh; Paul Cullinan; David Fishwick; Jennifer Hoyle; Chris J Warburton; David P Strachan; Barbara K Butland; Debbie Jarvis Journal: Thorax Date: 2013-01-21 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Anna Hansell; Rebecca E Ghosh; Suzanne Poole; Jan-Paul Zock; Mark Weatherall; Roel Vermeulen; Hans Kromhout; Justin Travers; Richard Beasley Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 2.162