Alexis Descatha1, Grace Sembajwe2, Frank Pega3, Yuka Ujita4, Michael Baer5, Fabio Boccuni6, Cristina Di Tecco7, Clement Duret8, Bradley A Evanoff9, Diana Gagliardi10, Lode Godderis11, Seong-Kyu Kang12, Beon Joon Kim13, Jian Li14, Linda L Magnusson Hanson15, Alessandro Marinaccio16, Anna Ozguler17, Daniela Pachito18, John Pell19, Fernando Pico20, Matteo Ronchetti21, Yves Roquelaure22, Reiner Rugulies23, Martijn Schouteden24, Johannes Siegrist25, Akizumi Tsutsumi26, Sergio Iavicoli27. 1. UNIV Angers, CHU Angers, Univ Rennes, Inserm, EHESP, Irset (Institut de recherche en santé, environnement et travail) - UMR_S 1085, F-49000 Angers, France; AP-HP (Paris Hospital), Occupational Health Unit, Poincaré University Hospital, Garches, France; Versailles St-Quentin Univ-Paris Saclay Univ (UVSQ), UMS 011, UMR-S 1168, France; Inserm, U1168 UMS 011, Villejuif, France. Electronic address: alexis.descatha@inserm.fr. 2. Department of Occupational Medicine Epidemiology and Prevention, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra University, Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Northwell Health, NY, USA. Electronic address: GSembajwe@northwell.edu. 3. Environment, Climate Change and Health Department, World Health Organization, 20 Avenue Appia, 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland. Electronic address: pegaf@who.int. 4. Labour Administration, Labour Inspection and Occupational Safety and Health Branch, International Labour Organization, Route des Morillons 4, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland. Electronic address: ujita@ilo.org. 5. AP-HP (Paris Hospital), SAMU92, Poincaré University Hospital, Garches, France. Electronic address: michel.baer@aphp.fr. 6. Inail, Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Epidemiology and Hygiene, Via Fontana Candida 1, 00078 Monte Porzio Catone (Rome), Italy. Electronic address: f.boccuni@inail.it. 7. Inail, Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Epidemiology and Hygiene, Via Fontana Candida 1, 00078 Monte Porzio Catone (Rome), Italy. Electronic address: c.ditecco@inail.it. 8. AP-HP (Paris Hospital), Occupational Health Unit, Poincaré University Hospital, Garches, France. Electronic address: clement.duret@aphp.fr. 9. Division of General Medical Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine, Campus Box 8005, 660 South Euclid Ave, St. Louis, MO 63110, United States. Electronic address: bevanoff@wustl.edu. 10. Inail, Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Epidemiology and Hygiene, Via Fontana Candida 1, 00078 Monte Porzio Catone (Rome), Italy. Electronic address: d.gagliardi@inail.it. 11. Environment and Health, Kapucijnenvoer 35 blok d - box 7001, 3000 Leuven, Belgium; IDEWE, External Service for Prevention and Protection at Work, Interleuvenlaan 58, 3001 Leuven, Belgium. Electronic address: lode.godderis@kuleuven.be. 12. Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Gachon University Gil Medical Center, Incheon, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: sk.kang@gachon.ac.kr. 13. Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Bundang-gu, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: Kim.BJ.Stroke@gmail.com. 14. Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Fielding School of Public Health, School of Nursing, University of California, Los Angeles, United States. Electronic address: jianli2019@ucla.edu. 15. Stress Research Institute, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden. Electronic address: linda.hanson@su.se. 16. Inail, Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Epidemiology and Hygiene, Via Fontana Candida 1, 00078 Monte Porzio Catone (Rome), Italy. Electronic address: a.marinaccio@inail.it. 17. AP-HP (Paris Hospital), SAMU92, Poincaré University Hospital, Garches, France; Inserm UMS 011, Villejuif, France. Electronic address: anna.ozguler@inserm.fr. 18. Núcleo de Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde, Hospital Sírio-Libanês, 142 Barata Ribeiro, Sao Paulo, Brazil. Electronic address: pachito@uol.com.br. 19. Hunter College Libraries, Social Work and Public Health Library, 2180 3rd Avenue, 110D, New York, NY 10035, United States. Electronic address: jpell@hunter.cuny.edu. 20. Neurology and Stroke Unit, Versailles Hospital, Le Chesnay, France. Electronic address: fpico@ch-versailles.fr. 21. Inail, Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Epidemiology and Hygiene, Via Fontana Candida 1, 00078 Monte Porzio Catone (Rome), Italy. Electronic address: m.ronchetti@inail.it. 22. UNIV Angers, CHU Angers, Univ Rennes, Inserm, EHESP, Irset (Institut de recherche en santé, environnement et travail) - UMR_S 1085, F-49000 Angers, France. Electronic address: YvRoquelaure@chu-angers.fr. 23. National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Lersø Parkallé 105, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, DK-1014 Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Psychology, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 2A, DK-1353 Copenhagen, Denmark. Electronic address: RER@nfa.dk. 24. IDEWE, External Service for Prevention and Protection at Work, Interleuvenlaan 58, 3001 Leuven, Belgium. Electronic address: Martijn.Schouteden@idewe.be. 25. Life Science Centre, University of Düsseldorf, Merowingerplatz 1a, Düsseldorf 40225, Germany. Electronic address: Johannes.Siegrist@med.uni-duesseldorf.de. 26. Kitasato University School of Medicine, 1-15-1 Kitasato, Minami, Sagamihara 252-0374, Japan. Electronic address: akizumi@kitasato-u.ac.jp. 27. Inail, Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Epidemiology and Hygiene, Via Fontana Candida 1, 00078 Monte Porzio Catone (Rome), Italy. Electronic address: s.iavicoli@inail.it.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 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. OBJECTIVES: 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). DATA SOURCES: 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. STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA: 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). STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSIONS: 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 incidence, respectively. Producing estimates for the burden of stroke attributable to exposures to working 48-54 and ≥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. PROTOCOL IDENTIFIER: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.06.016. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017060124.
BACKGROUND: 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. OBJECTIVES: 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). DATA SOURCES: 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. STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA: 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). STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSIONS: 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 incidence, respectively. Producing estimates for the burden of stroke attributable to exposures to working 48-54 and ≥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. PROTOCOL IDENTIFIER: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.06.016. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017060124.
Authors: Paul Whaley; Stephen W Edwards; Andrew Kraft; Kate Nyhan; Andrew Shapiro; Sean Watford; Steve Wattam; Taylor Wolffe; Michelle Angrish Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2020-12-24 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Jenni Ervasti; Jaana Pentti; Solja T Nyberg; Martin J Shipley; Constanze Leineweber; Jeppe K Sørensen; Lars Alfredsson; Jakob B Bjorner; Marianne Borritz; Hermann Burr; Anders Knutsson; Ida E H Madsen; Linda L Magnusson Hanson; Tuula Oksanen; Jan H Pejtersen; Reiner Rugulies; Sakari Suominen; Töres Theorell; Hugo Westerlund; Jussi Vahtera; Marianna Virtanen; G David Batty; Mika Kivimäki Journal: Lancet Reg Health Eur Date: 2021-09-06
Authors: Liliane R Teixeira; Frank Pega; Angel M Dzhambov; Alicja Bortkiewicz; Denise T Correa da Silva; Carlos A F de Andrade; Elzbieta Gadzicka; Kishor Hadkhale; Sergio Iavicoli; Martha S Martínez-Silveira; Małgorzata Pawlaczyk-Łuszczyńska; Bruna M Rondinone; Jadwiga Siedlecka; Antonio Valenti; Diana Gagliardi Journal: Environ Int Date: 2021-02-18 Impact factor: 9.621
Authors: Frank Pega; Nicholas Chartres; Neela Guha; Alberto Modenese; Rebecca L Morgan; Martha S Martínez-Silveira; Dana Loomis Journal: Environ Int Date: 2020-09-17 Impact factor: 9.621