Saf Health Work.  2023 Dec;14(4):347-357. 10.1016/j.shaw.2023.10.008.

A Systematized Overview of Published Reviews on Biological Hazards, Occupational Health, and Safety

Affiliations
  • 1Univ Angers, CHU Angers, Univ Rennes, Inserm, EHESP, Irset (Institut de recherche en santé, environnement et travail) e UMR_S 1085, IRSET-ESTER, SFR ICAT, CAPTV CDC, Angers, France
  • 2Department of Occupational Medicine, Epidemiology and Prevention, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine, Hofstra/Northwell, USA
  • 3Labour Administration, Inspection and Occupational Safety and Health Branch- International Labour Organization, HQ, Geneva, Switzerland
  • 4Faculty of Social Sciences/Health Sciences, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland
  • 5Department of Occupational and Environmental Health, Unisanté, University of Lausanne, Epalinges-Lausanne, Switzerland

Abstract

Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic turned biological hazards in the working environment into a global concern. This systematized review of published reviews aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the specific jobs and categories of workers exposed to biological hazards with the related prevention.
Methods
We extracted reviews published in English and French in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Two authors, working independently, subsequently screened the potentially relevant titles and abstracts recovered (step 1) and then examined relevant full texts (step 2). Disagreements were resolved by consensus. We built tables summarizing populations of exposed workers, types of hazards, types of outcomes (types of health issues, means of prevention), and routes of transmission.
Results
Of 1426 studies initially identified, 79 studies by authors from every continent were selected, mostly published after 2010 (n = 63, 79.7%). About half of the reviews dealt with infectious hazards alone (n = 38, 48.1%). The industrial sectors identified involved healthcare alone (n = 16), laboratories (n = 10), agriculture (including the animal, vegetable, and grain sectors, n = 32), waste (n = 10), in addition of 11 studies without specific sectors. The results also highlighted a range of hazards (infectious and non-infectious agents, endotoxins, bioaerosols, organic dust, and emerging agents).
Conclusion
This systematized overview allowed to list the populations of workers exposed to biological hazards and underlined how prevention measures in the healthcare and laboratory sectors were usually well defined and controlled, although this was not the case in the agriculture and waste sectors. Further studies are necessary to quantify these risks and implement prevention measures that can be applied in every country.

Keyword

Biological risk; Biosafety; Endotoxins; Exposure; Occupational setting
Full Text Links
  • SHAW
Actions
Cited
CITED
export Copy
Close
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2024 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr