Sara Allaouat1, Viraj K Reddy2, Kimmo Räsänen3, Sohaib Khan1, Mieke Egl Lumens4. 1. Faculty of Health Sciences, Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland. 2. George & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. 3. Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, Occupational Health Unit, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland. 4. Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences (IRAS), Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Occupational lead exposure can lead to serious health effects that range from general symptoms (depression, generalised ache, and digestive signs, such as loss of appetite, stomach ache, nausea, diarrhoea, and constipation) to chronic conditions (cerebrovascular and cardiovascular diseases, cognitive impairment, kidney disease, cancers, and infertility). Educational interventions may contribute to the prevention of lead uptake in workers exposed to lead, and it is important to assess their effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of educational interventions for preventing lead uptake in workers exposed to lead. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and OSH UPDATE to 5 June 2020, with no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We sought randomised controlled trials (RCT), cluster-RCTs (cRCT), interrupted time series (ITS), controlled before-after studies (CBA) and uncontrolled before-after studies that examined the effects of an educational intervention aimed at preventing lead exposure and poisoning in workers who worked with lead, for which effectiveness was measured by lead levels in blood and urine, blood zinc protoporphyrin levels and urine aminolevulinic acid levels. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the search results, assessed studies for eligibility, and extracted data using standard Cochrane methods. We used the ROBINS-I tool to assess the risk of bias, and GRADE methodology to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We did not find any RCT, cRCT, ITS or CBA studies that met our criteria. We included four uncontrolled before-after studies studies, conducted between 1982 and 2004. Blood lead levels Educational interventions may reduce blood lead levels, but the evidence is very uncertain. In the short-term after the educational intervention, blood lead levels may decrease (mean difference (MD) 9.17 µg/dL, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.14 to 14.20; one study with high baseline blood lead level, 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In the medium-term, blood lead levels may decrease (MD 3.80 µg/dL, 95% CI 1.48 to 6.12; one study with high baseline blood lead level, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In the long-term, blood lead levels may decrease when the baseline blood lead levels are high (MD 8.08 µg/dL; 95% CI 3.67 to 12.49; two studies, 69 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but not when the baseline blood lead levels are low (MD 1.10 µg/dL, 95% CI -0.11 to 2.31; one study, 52 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Urine lead levels In the long-term, urinary lead levels may decrease after the educational intervention, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD 42.43 µg/L, 95% CI 29.73 to 55.13; one study, 35 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Behaviour change The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of educational intervention on behaviour change. At medium-term follow-up after the educational intervention, very low-certainty evidence from one study (89 participants) found inconclusive results for washing before eating (risk ratio (RR) 1.71, 95% CI 0.42 to 6.91), washing before drinking (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.61 to 3.06), and not smoking in the work area (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.46). Very low-certainty evidence from one study (21 participants) suggested that employers may improve the provision of fit testing for all respirator users (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.16 to 3.01), and prohibit eating, drinking, smoking, and other tobacco use in the work area (RR 4.25, 95% CI 1.72 to 10.51), however, the results were inconclusive for the adequate provision of protective clothing (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.40). At long-term follow-up, very low-certainty evidence from one study (89 participants) suggested that workers may improve washing before drinking (RR 3.24, 95% CI 1.09 to 9.61), but results were inconclusive for washing before eating (RR 11.71, 95% CI 0.66 to 208.33), and for not smoking in the work area (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.50). Very low-certainty evidence from one study (21 participants) suggested that employers may improve the provision of fit testing for all respirator users (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.63), may provide adequate protective clothing (RR 2.80, 95% CI 1.23 to 6.37), and may prohibit eating, drinking, smoking, and other tobacco use in the work area (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.81). Improved knowledge or awareness of the adverse health effects of lead The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of educational intervention on workers' knowledge. At medium-term follow-up, questionnaires found that workers' knowledge may improve (MD 5.20, 95% CI 3.29 to 7.11; one study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence). At long-term follow-up, there may be an improvement in workers' knowledge (MD 5.80, 95% CI 3.89 to 7.71; one study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but results were inconclusive for employers' knowledge (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.74 to 3.75; one study, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the studies measured the other outcomes of interest: blood zinc protoporphyrin levels, urine aminolevulinic acid levels, air lead levels, and harms. One study provided the costs of each component of the intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Educational interventions may prevent lead poisoning in workers with high baseline blood lead levels and urine lead levels but this is uncertain. Educational interventions may not prevent lead poisoning in workers with low baseline blood lead levels but this is uncertain.
BACKGROUND: Occupational lead exposure can lead to serious health effects that range from general symptoms (depression, generalised ache, and digestive signs, such as loss of appetite, stomach ache, nausea, diarrhoea, and constipation) to chronic conditions (cerebrovascular and cardiovascular diseases, cognitive impairment, kidney disease, cancers, and infertility). Educational interventions may contribute to the prevention of lead uptake in workers exposed to lead, and it is important to assess their effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of educational interventions for preventing lead uptake in workers exposed to lead. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and OSH UPDATE to 5 June 2020, with no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We sought randomised controlled trials (RCT), cluster-RCTs (cRCT), interrupted time series (ITS), controlled before-after studies (CBA) and uncontrolled before-after studies that examined the effects of an educational intervention aimed at preventing lead exposure and poisoning in workers who worked with lead, for which effectiveness was measured by lead levels in blood and urine, blood zinc protoporphyrin levels and urine aminolevulinic acid levels. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the search results, assessed studies for eligibility, and extracted data using standard Cochrane methods. We used the ROBINS-I tool to assess the risk of bias, and GRADE methodology to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We did not find any RCT, cRCT, ITS or CBA studies that met our criteria. We included four uncontrolled before-after studies studies, conducted between 1982 and 2004. Blood lead levels Educational interventions may reduce blood lead levels, but the evidence is very uncertain. In the short-term after the educational intervention, blood lead levels may decrease (mean difference (MD) 9.17 µg/dL, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.14 to 14.20; one study with high baseline blood lead level, 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In the medium-term, blood lead levels may decrease (MD 3.80 µg/dL, 95% CI 1.48 to 6.12; one study with high baseline blood lead level, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In the long-term, blood lead levels may decrease when the baseline blood lead levels are high (MD 8.08 µg/dL; 95% CI 3.67 to 12.49; two studies, 69 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but not when the baseline blood lead levels are low (MD 1.10 µg/dL, 95% CI -0.11 to 2.31; one study, 52 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Urine lead levels In the long-term, urinary lead levels may decrease after the educational intervention, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD 42.43 µg/L, 95% CI 29.73 to 55.13; one study, 35 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Behaviour change The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of educational intervention on behaviour change. At medium-term follow-up after the educational intervention, very low-certainty evidence from one study (89 participants) found inconclusive results for washing before eating (risk ratio (RR) 1.71, 95% CI 0.42 to 6.91), washing before drinking (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.61 to 3.06), and not smoking in the work area (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.46). Very low-certainty evidence from one study (21 participants) suggested that employers may improve the provision of fit testing for all respirator users (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.16 to 3.01), and prohibit eating, drinking, smoking, and other tobacco use in the work area (RR 4.25, 95% CI 1.72 to 10.51), however, the results were inconclusive for the adequate provision of protective clothing (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.40). At long-term follow-up, very low-certainty evidence from one study (89 participants) suggested that workers may improve washing before drinking (RR 3.24, 95% CI 1.09 to 9.61), but results were inconclusive for washing before eating (RR 11.71, 95% CI 0.66 to 208.33), and for not smoking in the work area (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.50). Very low-certainty evidence from one study (21 participants) suggested that employers may improve the provision of fit testing for all respirator users (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.63), may provide adequate protective clothing (RR 2.80, 95% CI 1.23 to 6.37), and may prohibit eating, drinking, smoking, and other tobacco use in the work area (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.81). Improved knowledge or awareness of the adverse health effects of lead The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of educational intervention on workers' knowledge. At medium-term follow-up, questionnaires found that workers' knowledge may improve (MD 5.20, 95% CI 3.29 to 7.11; one study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence). At long-term follow-up, there may be an improvement in workers' knowledge (MD 5.80, 95% CI 3.89 to 7.71; one study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but results were inconclusive for employers' knowledge (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.74 to 3.75; one study, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the studies measured the other outcomes of interest: blood zinc protoporphyrin levels, urine aminolevulinic acid levels, air lead levels, and harms. One study provided the costs of each component of the intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Educational interventions may prevent lead poisoning in workers with high baseline blood lead levels and urine lead levels but this is uncertain. Educational interventions may not prevent lead poisoning in workers with low baseline blood lead levels but this is uncertain.
Authors: David A Sterling; R Gregory Evans; Brooke N Shadel; Fernando Serrano; Brenda Arndt; John J Chen; Lori Harris Journal: Arch Environ Health Date: 2004-03
Authors: Debora Weiss; Luke A Baertlein; Stephanie J Yendell; Krista Y Christensen; Carrie D Tomasallo; Paul D Creswell; Jenny L Camponeschi; Jon G Meiman; Henry A Anderson Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Gurusankar Saravanabhavan; Kate Werry; Mike Walker; Douglas Haines; Morie Malowany; Cheryl Khoury Journal: Int J Hyg Environ Health Date: 2016-10-17 Impact factor: 5.840
Authors: Asa Bradman; Alicia L Salvatore; Mark Boeniger; Rosemary Castorina; John Snyder; Dana B Barr; Nicholas P Jewell; Geri Kavanagh-Baird; Cynthia Striley; Brenda Eskenazi Journal: J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol Date: 2008-03-26 Impact factor: 5.563