During responses to outbreaks, the collection and analysis of data on employed case patients' industry and occupation are necessary to better understand the relationship between work and health outcomes. The occurrence of mpox by occupation and industry has not previously been assessed in the context of the 2022 outbreak. We analyzed employment data from 2548 mpox cases reported to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from surveillance systems in seven U.S. jurisdictions and population-based reference data on employment patterns from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics to describe the differential proportionate distribution of cases across occupation and industry groups using the proportionate morbidity ratio. In gender-specific analyses, we found that men employed in certain occupations and industries had a higher relative risk of mpox than others. While occupational transmission cannot be ruled out, it is more likely that individuals with personal and behavioral risk factors for mpox were more likely to work in these occupations and industries. This analysis provides an example of collecting and analyzing occupation and industry data in case reports to understand possible differences in risk by occupation and industry in infectious disease outbreak investigation and help inform resource allocation, messaging, and response.

OBJECTIVES: To measure associations between employment precarity and mental health among United States (US) workers. METHODS: This study used data from the US Medical Expenditure Panel Survey for 2008-2021. Multivariable generalized estimating equations were used to measure associations between employment precarity (operationalized as a multi-dimensional exposure) and self-rated mental health after adjusting for relevant confounders. Marginal effects analysis was used to assess potential dose-response relationships between precarity and mental health. RESULTS: Our sample (n = 57,529) was representative of >106 million US workers employed throughout 2008-2021. Compared to those with low levels of employment precarity, those with medium and high levels of precarity had an increased odds of reporting poor/fair mental health (aOR = 1.21; 95% CI = 1.11, 1.32 and 1.51; 95% CI = 1.36, 1.68, respectively). Marginal effects analysis indicated that increasing levels of precarity were associated with an increased probability of reporting poor/fair mental health. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing levels of employment precarity were associated with poor/fair self-rated mental health, findings potentially indicative of a dose-response relationship between the two. These nationally representative findings suggest employment precarity is an important social determinant of mental health. Future research could investigate how best to mitigate the negative effects of precarity on workers' lives and well-being, particularly regarding mental health.

OBJECTIVE: To describe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mitigation measures in workplaces of employed US blood donors by industry and work arrangement. METHODS: During May-December 2021, blood donors responded to a survey; we describe the distribution of reported workplace mitigation measures by industry and work arrangement, organized using the hierarchy of controls. RESULTS: Of 53,433 respondents representing 21 industries, ventilation upgrades were reported by 4%-38% of respondents (overall: 20%); telework access ranged from 14%-80% (53% overall). Requiring masks (overall: 84%; range: 40%-94%), physical distancing (77%; 51%-86%), paid leave for illness (70%; 38%-87%), and encouraging vaccination (61%; 33%-80%) were common. Independent workers reported fewer mitigation measures than those in traditional employment settings. CONCLUSIONS: Mitigation measures varied by industry and work arrangement. Some mitigation measures may be challenging to implement or irrelevant in certain industries, supporting the idea that mitigation is not a one-size-fits-all strategy. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Tailored strategies to mitigate workplace risks of disease transmission are vital. Strategies should rely on effective methods for identifying workplace controls (e.g., through the hierarchy of controls) and account for industry-specific characteristics and workplace environments.

BACKGROUND: Work is a social determinant of health that is often overlooked. There are major work-related differences in the risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and death, but there have been few analyses of infection rates across industry groups. To date, only one national assessment of SARS-CoV-2 infection prevalence by industry based on self-report has been completed. No study has looked at seroprevalence of COVID-19 by industry. METHODS: During May-December 2021, blood donors with SARS-CoV-2 antinucleocapsid testing were sent an electronic survey about their work. Free-text industry responses were classified using the North American Industry Classification System. We estimated seroprevalence and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of SARS-CoV-2 infection by industry. RESULTS: Of 57,726 donors, 7040 (12%, 95% CI: 11.9%-12.5%) had prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Seroprevalence was highest among Accommodation & Food Services (19.3%, 95% CI: 17.1%-21.6%), Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction (19.2%, 95% CI: 12.8%-27.8%), Healthcare & Social Assistance (15.6%, 95% CI: 14.9%-16.4%), and Construction (14.7%, 95% CI: 13.1%-16.3%). Seroprevalence was lowest among Management of Companies & Enterprises (6.5%, 95% CI: 3.5%-11.5%), Professional Scientific & Technical Services (8.4%, 95% CI: 7.7%-9.0%), and Information (9.9%, 95% CI: 8.5%-11.5%). CONCLUSIONS: While workers in all industries had serologic evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, certain sectors were disproportionately impacted. Disease surveillance systems should routinely collect work characteristics so public health and industry leaders can address health disparities using sector-specific policies.

BACKGROUND: While the occupational risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection for healthcare personnel in the United States has been relatively well characterized, less information is available on the occupational risk for workers employed in other settings. Even fewer studies have attempted to compare risks across occupations and industries. Using differential proportionate distribution as an approximation, we evaluated excess risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by occupation and industry among non-healthcare workers in six states. METHODS: We analyzed data on occupation and industry of employment from a six-state callback survey of adult non-healthcare workers with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and population-based reference data on employment patterns, adjusted for the effect of telework, from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. We estimated the differential proportionate distribution of SARS-CoV-2 infection by occupation and industry using the proportionate morbidity ratio (PMR). RESULTS: Among a sample of 1111 workers with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, significantly higher-than-expected proportions of workers were employed in service occupations (PMR 1.3, 99% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-1.5) and in the transportation and utilities (PMR 1.4, 99% CI 1.1-1.8) and leisure and hospitality industries (PMR 1.5, 99% CI 1.2-1.9). CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence of significant differences in the proportionate distribution of SARS-CoV-2 infection by occupation and industry among respondents in a multistate, population-based survey, highlighting the excess risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection borne by some worker populations, particularly those whose jobs require frequent or prolonged close contact with other people.

COVID-19 workplace mitigation strategies implemented within US businesses have been effective at preventing disease and protecting workers, but the extent of their use is not well understood. We examined reported COVID-19 workplace mitigation strategies by business size, geographic region, and industry using internet panel survey data from US adult respondents working full- or part-time outside the home (fall 2020, N = 1168) andfull- or part-time, inside or outside the home (fall 2021, N = 1778). We used chi-square tests to assess the differences in the strategies used (e.g., masking and COVID-19 screening) and ANOVA tests to examine the group differences on a mitigation strategies summative score. Fewer COVID-19 mitigation strategies were reported by respondents in fall 2021 (compared to fall 2020) across businesses of different sizes and regions. The participants in microbusinesses (1-10 employees) reported significantly (p < 0.05) lower mitigation scores than all other business sizes, and the respondents in these businesses were significantly less likely (p < 0.05) to have paid leave than those in enterprises with >10 employees. The healthcare and education sectors had the highest reported mean score of COVID-19 workplace mitigation strategies. Small and essential businesses are critical to the US economy. Insight is needed on their use of mitigation strategies to protect workers during the current and future pandemics.

OBJECTIVES: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, several outbreaks were linked with facilities employing essential workers, such as long-term care facilities and meat and poultry processing facilities. However, timely national data on which workplace settings were experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks were unavailable through routine surveillance systems. We estimated the number of US workplace outbreaks of COVID-19 and identified the types of workplace settings in which they occurred during August-October 2021. METHODS: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention collected data from health departments on workplace COVID-19 outbreaks from August through October 2021: the number of workplace outbreaks, by workplace setting, and the total number of cases among workers linked to these outbreaks. Health departments also reported the number of workplaces they assisted for outbreak response, COVID-19 testing, vaccine distribution, or consultation on mitigation strategies. RESULTS: Twenty-three health departments reported a total of 12 660 workplace COVID-19 outbreaks. Among the 12 470 workplace types that were documented, 35.9% (n = 4474) of outbreaks occurred in health care settings, 33.4% (n = 4170) in educational settings, and 30.7% (n = 3826) in other work settings, including non-food manufacturing, correctional facilities, social services, retail trade, and food and beverage stores. Eleven health departments that reported 3859 workplace outbreaks provided information about workplace assistance: 3090 (80.1%) instances of assistance involved consultation on COVID-19 mitigation strategies, 1912 (49.5%) involved outbreak response, 436 (11.3%) involved COVID-19 testing, and 185 (4.8%) involved COVID-19 vaccine distribution. CONCLUSIONS: These findings underscore the continued impact of COVID-19 among workers, the potential for work-related transmission, and the need to apply layered prevention strategies recommended by public health officials.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the U.S. by occupation. We identified occupations at higher risk for prior SARS-CoV-2 infection as defined by the presence of infection-induced antibodies among U.S. blood donors. METHODS: Using a nested case-control study design, blood donors during May-December 2021 with anti-nucleocapsid (anti-N) testing were sent an electronic survey on employment status, vaccination, and occupation. The association between previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and occupation-specific in-person work was estimated using multivariable logistic regression adjusting for sex, age, month of donation, race/ethnicity, education, vaccination, and telework. RESULTS: Among 85,986 included survey respondents, 9,504 (11.1%) were anti-N reactive. Healthcare support (20.3%), protective service (19.9%), and food preparation and serving related occupations (19.7%) had the highest proportion of prior infection. After adjustment, prior SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with healthcare practitioners (adjusted OR [aOR] 2.10, 95% CI 1.74-2.54) and healthcare support (aOR 1.83, 95% CI 1.39-2.40) occupations compared with computer and mathematical occupations as the referent group. Lack of COVID-19 vaccination (aOR 16.13, 95% CI 15.01-17.34) and never teleworking (aOR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05-1.30) were also independently associated with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Protective service occupations had the highest proportion of unvaccinated workers (30.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Workers in healthcare, protective services, and food preparation had the highest prevalence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Occupational risks for SARS-CoV-2 infection remained after adjusting for vaccination, telework, and demographic factors. These findings underscore the need for mitigation measures and personal protection in healthcare settings and other workplaces.

Objectives. To explore previous COVID-19 diagnosis and COVID-19 vaccination status among US essential worker groups. Methods. We analyzed the US Census Household Pulse Survey (May 26-July 5, 2021), a nationally representative sample of adults aged 18 years and older. We compared currently employed essential workers working outside the home with those working at home using adjusted prevalence ratios. We calculated proportion vaccinated and intention to be vaccinated, stratifying by essential worker and demographic groups for those who worked or volunteered outside the home since January 1, 2021. Results. The proportion of workers with previous COVID-19 diagnosis was highest among first responders (24.9%) working outside the home compared with workers who did not (13.3%). Workers in agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting had the lowest vaccination rates (67.5%) compared with all workers (77.8%). Those without health insurance were much less likely to be vaccinated across all worker groups. Conclusions. This study underscores the importance of improving surveillance to monitor COVID-19 and other infectious diseases among workers and identify and implement tailored risk mitigation strategies, including vaccination campaigns, for workplaces. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(11):1599-1610. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307010).

BACKGROUND: We describe the investigation of a nosocomial outbreak of rapidly growing mycobacteria (RGM) infections and the results of mitigation efforts after 8 years. METHODS: A cluster of RGM cases in a Kentucky hospital in 2013 prompted an investigation into RGM surgical site infections following joint replacement surgery. A case-control study was conducted to identify risk factors. RESULTS: Eight cases were identified, five caused by M. wolinskyi and three by M. goodii. The case-control study showed the presence of a particular nurse in the operating room was significantly associated with infection. Environmental sampling at the nurse's home identified an outdoor hot tub as the likely source of M. wolinskyi, confirmed by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis and whole genome sequencing. The hot tub reservoir was eliminated, and hospital policies were revised to correct infection control lapses. No new cases of RGM infections have been identified as of 2021. DISCUSSION: Breaches in infection control practices at multiple levels may have led to a chain of infection from a nurse's hot tub to surgical sites via indirect person-to-person transmission from a colonized health care worker (HCW). CONCLUSION: The multifactorial nature of the outbreak's cause highlights the importance of overlapping or redundant layers of protection preventing patient harm. Future investigations of RGM outbreaks should consider the potential role of colonized HCWs as a transmission vector.

BACKGROUND: Surveillance systems lack detailed occupational exposure information from workers with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health partnered with six states to collect information from adults diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection (either COVID-19 or asymptomatic infection) who worked in person (outside the home) in non-healthcare settings during the two weeks prior to illness onset. METHODS: The survey captured demographic, medical, occupational characteristics, and work- and non-work-related risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Reported close contact with a person known or suspected to have COVID-19 was categorized by setting as: exposure at work, exposure outside of work only, or no known exposure/didn't know if they had exposures. Frequencies and percentages of exposure types are compared by respondent characteristics and risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: Of 1,111 qualified respondents, 19.4% reported exposure at work, 23.4% reported exposure outside of work only, and 57.2% reported no known exposure/didn't know if they had exposures. Workers in protective service occupations (48.8%) and public administration industries (35.6%) reported exposure at work most often. Over a third (33.7%) of respondents who experienced close contact with ≥10 coworkers per day and 28.8% of respondents who experienced close contact with ≥10 customers/clients per day reported exposures at work. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SARS-CoV-2 at work was common among respondents. Examining differences in exposures among different groups of workers can help identify populations with the greatest need for prevention interventions. The benefits of recording employment characteristics as standard demographic information will remain relevant as new and reemerging public health issues occur.

BACKGROUND: Health care personnel (HCP) have experienced significant SARS-CoV-2 risk, but exposure settings among HCP COVID-19 cases are poorly characterized. METHODS: We assessed exposure settings among HCP COVID-19 cases in the United States from March 2020 to March 2021 with reported exposures (n = 83,775) using national COVID-19 surveillance data. Exposure setting and reported community incidence temporal trends were described using breakpoint estimation. Among cases identified before initiation of COVID-19 vaccination programs (n = 65,650), we used separate multivariable regression models to estimate adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) for associations of community incidence with health care and household and/or community exposures. RESULTS: Health care exposures were the most reported (52.0%), followed by household (30.8%) and community exposures (25.6%). Health care exposures and community COVID-19 incidence showed similar temporal trends. In adjusted analyses, HCP cases were more likely to report health care exposures (aPR = 1.31; 95% CI:1.26-1.36) and less likely to report household and/or community exposures (aPR = 0.73; 95% CI:0.70-0.76) under the highest vs lowest community incidence levels. DISCUSSION: These findings highlight HCP exposure setting temporal trends and workplace exposure hazards under high community incidence. Findings also underscore the need for robust collection of work-related data in infectious disease surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: Many reported HCP cases experienced occupational COVID-19 exposures, particularly during periods of higher community COVID-19 incidence.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the self-reported prevalence of prescription opioid use and illicit drug use in the U.S. METHODS: Self-reported prescription opioid use and illicit drug use (mostly non-opioid) were obtained for adults and adult workers (NHANES 2005-2016). RESULTS: Prevalence (95% CI) of prescription opioid use was 6.5% (6.0-7.0) (adults) and 4.1% (3.7-4.5) (workers). Prevalence of illicit drug use was 9.5% (8.8-10.1) (adults) and 10.2% (9.4-11.1) (workers). Among occupations, prevalence of prescription opioid use was highest in personal care (6.5%; 4.1-10.4) and healthcare practitioners (5.9%; 3.8-9.0); for illicit drug use, construction/extraction (18.0%; 15.1-21.3) and food preparation (15.8%; 12.5-19.7). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of prescription opioid use was elevated among some occupations. Judicious prescription strategies and targeted interventions are both needed. The prevalence of illicit drug use among certain occupational groups suggests the need to ensure access to therapy.

Healthcare personnel with SARS-CoV-2 infection were interviewed to describe activities and practices in and outside the workplace. Among 2,625 healthcare personnel, workplace-related factors that may increase infection risk were more common among nursing home personnel than hospital personnel, whereas selected factors outside the workplace were more common among hospital personnel.

Workplace musculoskeletal injuries due to patient handling and movement (PHM) are a significant occupational hazard for healthcare workers in the United States. Study authors Ahmed Gomaa, MD, ScD; Matthew R. Groenewold, PhD, MSPH; Kelly Vanoli; Susan Nowlin; and Stacey Marovich, MHI, MS, PMP, MCTS analyzed workplace musculoskeletal injuries surveillance data submitted by 116 hospitals participating in the Occupational Health Safety Network (OHSN) from 2012 to 2016. The detailed analysis of patient injury data showed nursing assistants, radiology technicians, and nurses are at the highest risk for injury. Improved data collection is needed to improve safe patient handling programs (SPHPs), and surveillance information is key for providing evidence on all aspects of SPHP.

Certain hazard controls, including physical barriers, cloth face masks, and other personal protective equipment (PPE), are recommended to reduce coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) transmission in the workplace (1). Evaluation of occupational hazard control use for COVID-19 prevention can identify inadequately protected workers and opportunities to improve use. CDC's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health used data from the June 2020 SummerStyles survey to characterize required and voluntary use of COVID-19-related occupational hazard controls among U.S. non-health care workers. A survey-weighted regression model was used to estimate the association between employer provision of hazard controls and voluntary use, and stratum-specific adjusted risk differences (aRDs) among workers reporting household incomes <250% and ≥250% of national poverty thresholds were estimated to assess effect modification by income. Approximately one half (45.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 41.0%-50.3%) of non-health care workers reported use of hazard controls in the workplace, 55.5% (95% CI = 48.8%-62.2%) of whom reported employer requirements to use them. After adjustment for occupational group and proximity to others at work, voluntary use was approximately double, or 22.3 absolute percentage points higher, among workers who were provided hazard controls than among those who were not. This effect was more apparent among lower-income (aRD = 31.0%) than among higher-income workers (aRD = 16.3%). Employers can help protect workers from COVID-19 by requiring and encouraging use of occupational hazard controls and providing hazard controls to employees (1).

As of September 21, 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic had resulted in 6,786,352 cases and 199,024 deaths in the United States.* Health care personnel (HCP) are essential workers at risk for exposure to patients or infectious materials (1). The impact of COVID-19 on U.S. HCP was first described using national case surveillance data in April 2020 (2). Since then, the number of reported HCP with COVID-19 has increased tenfold. This update describes demographic characteristics, underlying medical conditions, hospitalizations, and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, stratified by vital status, among 100,570 HCP with COVID-19 reported to CDC during February 12-July 16, 2020. HCP occupation type and job setting are newly reported. HCP status was available for 571,708 (22%) of 2,633,585 cases reported to CDC. Most HCP with COVID-19 were female (79%), aged 16-44 years (57%), not hospitalized (92%), and lacked all 10 underlying medical conditions specified on the case report form(†) (56%). Of HCP with COVID-19, 641 died. Compared with nonfatal COVID-19 HCP cases, a higher percentage of fatal cases occurred in males (38% versus 22%), persons aged ≥65 years (44% versus 4%), non-Hispanic Asians (Asians) (20% versus 9%), non-Hispanic Blacks (Blacks) (32% versus 25%), and persons with any of the 10 underlying medical conditions specified on the case report form (92% versus 41%). From a subset of jurisdictions reporting occupation type or job setting for HCP with COVID-19, nurses were the most frequently identified single occupation type (30%), and nursing and residential care facilities were the most common job setting (67%). Ensuring access to personal protective equipment (PPE) and training, and practices such as universal use of face masks at work, wearing masks in the community, and observing social distancing remain critical strategies to protect HCP and those they serve.

BACKGROUND: Histoplasmosis is often described as the most common endemic mycosis in the United States, but much remains unknown about its epidemiology among the general population. METHODS: We conducted enhanced surveillance in 9 states during 2018-2019 by identifying cases through routine surveillance and interviewing 301 patients about their clinical features and exposures. RESULTS: Before being tested for histoplasmosis, 60% saw a health care provider ≥3 times, and 53% received antibacterial medication. The median time from seeking health care to diagnosis (range) was 23 (0-269) days. Forty-nine percent were hospitalized, and 69% said that histoplasmosis interfered with their daily activities (median [range], 56 [2-3960] days). Possible exposures included handling plants (48%) and bird or bat droppings (24%); 22% reported no specific exposures. Only 15% had heard of histoplasmosis before their illness. CONCLUSIONS: Histoplasmosis can be severe and prolonged. Additional educational efforts to increase public and provider awareness and reduce delays in diagnosis are needed.

Certain underlying medical conditions are associated with higher risks for severe morbidity and mortality from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (1). Prevalence of these underlying conditions among workers differs by industry and occupation. Many essential workers, who hold jobs critical to the continued function of infrastructure operations (2), have high potential for exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, because their jobs require close contact with patients, the general public, or coworkers. To assess the baseline prevalence of underlying conditions among workers in six essential occupations and seven essential industries, CDC analyzed data from the 2017 and 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) surveys, the most recent data available.* This report presents unadjusted prevalences and adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) for selected underlying conditions. Among workers in the home health aide occupation and the nursing home/rehabilitation industry, aPRs were significantly elevated for the largest number of conditions. Extra efforts to minimize exposure risk and prevent and treat underlying conditions are warranted to protect workers whose jobs increase their risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2.

During a pandemic, syndromic methods for monitoring illness outside of health care settings, such as tracking absenteeism trends in schools and workplaces, can be useful adjuncts to conventional disease reporting (1,2). Each month, CDC's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) monitors the prevalence of health-related workplace absenteeism among currently employed full-time workers in the United States, overall and by demographic and occupational subgroups, using data from the Current Population Survey (CPS).* This report describes trends in absenteeism during October 2019-April 2020, including March and April 2020, the period of rapidly accelerating transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Overall, the prevalence of health-related workplace absenteeism in March and April 2020 were similar to their 5-year baselines. However, compared with occupation-specific baselines, absenteeism among workers in several occupational groups that define or contain essential critical infrastructure workforce(dagger) categories was significantly higher than expected in April. Significant increases in absenteeism were observed in personal care and service( section sign) (includes child care workers and personal care aides); healthcare support( paragraph sign); and production** (includes meat, poultry, and fish processing workers). Although health-related workplace absenteeism remained relatively unchanged or decreased in other groups, the increase in absenteeism among workers in occupational groups less able to avoid exposure to SARS-CoV-2 (3) highlights the potential impact of COVID-19 on the essential critical infrastructure workforce because of the risks and concerns of occupational transmission of SARS-CoV-2. More widespread and complete collection of occupational data in COVID-19 surveillance is required to fully understand workers' occupational risks and inform intervention strategies. Employers should follow available recommendations to protect workers' health.

Approximately 2.8 million nonfatal workplace illnesses and injuries were reported in the United States in 2018 (1). Current surveillance methods might underestimate the prevalence of occupational injuries and illnesses (2,3). One way to obtain more information on occupational morbidity is to assess workers' perceptions about whether they have ever experienced health problems related to work (4). Occupational exposures might directly cause, contribute to, exacerbate, or predispose workers to various health problems (work-related health problems). CDC's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health estimated the lifetime prevalence of self-reported, work-related health problems for the currently employed population overall and stratified by various demographic and job characteristics using data from the 2018 version of the SummerStyles survey. Overall, 35.1% of employed respondents had ever experienced a work-related health problem (95% confidence interval [CI] = 33.0%-37.3%). The most commonly reported work-related health problem was back pain (19.4%, 95% CI = 17.6%-21.2%). Among industries, construction (48.6%, 95% CI = 36.54%-60.58%) had the highest prevalence of any work-related health problems. Workplace injury and illness prevention programs are needed to reduce the prevalence of work-related health problems, especially in higher-risk industries.

BACKGROUND: Timely and reliable national estimates of the occurrence of occupational injury and illness are needed to monitor the burden of occupational morbidity and mortality, establish research and intervention priorities, and evaluate the progress and effectiveness of prevention efforts. METHODS: We provide updated estimates of morbidity from occupational injuries and selected illnesses, using current general population incidence rates, the proportion of the general public with a particular workplace exposure, and the relative risk of illness from that exposure. We provide estimates for the total U.S. working population and for specific industry sectors. RESULTS: We estimate that, in 2012, between 5 712 362 and 5 961 620 total occupational cases, including 0.7 to 1.0 million incident illnesses and 5.0 million injuries, occurred in the United States. CONCLUSION: The variety of disparate data sources and methods required to compile these estimates highlight the need for more comprehensive and compatible occupational health surveillance in the United States.

During an influenza pandemic and during seasonal epidemics, more persons have symptomatic illness without seeking medical care than seek treatment at doctor's offices, clinics, and hospitals (1). Consequently, surveillance based on mortality, health care encounters, and laboratory data does not reflect the full extent of influenza morbidity. CDC uses a mathematical model to estimate the total number of influenza illnesses in the United States (1). In addition, syndromic methods for monitoring illness outside health care settings, such as tracking absenteeism trends in schools and workplaces, are important adjuncts to conventional disease reporting (2). Every month, CDC's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) monitors the prevalence of health-related workplace absenteeism among full-time workers in the United States using data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) (3). This report describes the results of workplace absenteeism surveillance analyses conducted during the high-severity 2017-18 influenza season (October 2017-September 2018) (4). Absenteeism increased sharply in November, peaked in January and, at its peak, was significantly higher than the average during the previous five seasons. Persons especially affected included male workers, workers aged 45-64 years, workers living in U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Region 6* and Region 9,(dagger) and those working in management, business, and financial; installation, maintenance, and repair; and production and related occupations. Public health authorities and employers might consider results from relevant absenteeism surveillance analyses when developing prevention messages and in pandemic preparedness planning. The most effective ways to prevent influenza transmission in the workplace include vaccination and nonpharmaceutical interventions, such as staying home when sick, covering coughs and sneezes, washing hands frequently, and routinely cleaning frequently touched surfaces (5).

This is the prepublication, author-produced version of a manuscript accepted for publication in Annals of Internal Medicine. This version does not include post-acceptance editing and formatting. The American College of Physicians, the publisher of Annals of Internal Medicine, is not responsible for the content or presentation of the author-produced accepted version of the manuscript or any version that a third party derives from it. Readers who wish to access the definitive published version of this manuscript and any ancillary material related to this manuscript (e.g., correspondence, corrections, editorials, linked articles) should go to Annals.org or to the print issue in which the article appears. Those who cite this manuscript should cite the published version, as it is the official version of record.

BACKGROUND: We determined the incidence and circumstances of needlestick injuries and other body substance exposures among police officers in a city police department. METHODS: We analyzed data extracted from the city's centralized human resource database on all incidents from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2016, and characterized their circumstances. We calculated the annual incidence of needlestick injuries per 1,000 officers and per 10,000 reactive calls. We ran a Poisson regression model to determine the trend in the annual incidence over time. RESULTS: We found 13 needlestick injuries and 37 additional body substance exposures involving city police officers. Needlestick injuries most commonly occurred during pat-down searches and searches of property or vehicles; 9 source persons tested positive for hepatitis C. The annual incidence of needlestick injuries ranged from 0-5.1 per 1,000 police officers and from 0-2.5 per 10,000 reactive calls for service without a significant trend. Most body substance exposures consisted of spitting, human bites, and other contact with blood. No incidents reportedly led to transmission of bloodborne viruses. CONCLUSIONS: Although these appear to be rare events, police officers in this department are at risk for needlestick injuries and other body substance exposures. We recommended engineering, administrative, and personal protective equipment control improvements.

Repeated exposure to occupational ergonomic hazards, such as frequent exertion (repetitive bending or twisting) and frequent standing, can lead to injuries, most commonly musculoskeletal disorders (1). Work-related musculoskeletal disorders have been estimated to cost the United States approximately $2.6 billion in annual direct and indirect costs (2). A recent literature review provided evidence that prolonged standing at work also leads to adverse health outcomes, such as back pain, physical fatigue, and muscle pain (3). To determine which industry and occupation groups currently have the highest prevalence rates of frequent exertion at work and frequent standing at work, CDC analyzed data from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) Occupational Health Supplement (OHS) regarding currently employed adults in the United States. By industry, the highest prevalence of both frequent exertion and frequent standing at work was among those in the agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting industry group (70.9%); by occupation, the highest prevalence was among those in the construction and extraction occupation group (76.9%). Large differences among industry and occupation groups were found with regard to these ergonomic hazards, suggesting a need for targeted interventions designed to reduce workplace exposure.

BACKGROUND: Workplace violence is a substantial occupational hazard for healthcare workers in the United States. METHODS: We analyzed workplace violence injury surveillance data submitted by hospitals participating in the Occupational Health Safety Network (OHSN) from 2012 to 2015. RESULTS: Data were frequently missing for several important variables. Nursing assistants (14.89, 95%CI 10.12-21.91) and nurses (8.05, 95%CI 6.14-10.55) had the highest crude workplace violence injury rates per 1000 full-time equivalent (FTE) workers. Nursing assistants' (IRR 2.82, 95%CI 2.36-3.36) and nurses' (IRR 1.70, 95%CI 1.45-1.99) adjusted workplace violence injury rates were significantly higher than those of non-patient care personnel. On average, the overall rate of workplace violence injury among OHSN-participating hospitals increased by 23% annually during the study period. CONCLUSION: Improved data collection is needed for OHSN to realize its full potential. Workplace violence is a serious, increasingly common problem in OHSN-participating hospitals. Nursing assistants and nurses have the highest injury risk.

BACKGROUND: We examined the association between self-reported hearing protection use at work and incidence of hearing shifts over a 5-year period. METHODS: Audiometric data from 19,911 workers were analyzed. Two hearing shift measures-OSHA standard threshold shift (OSTS) and high-frequency threshold shift (HFTS)-were used to identify incident shifts in hearing between workers' 2005 and 2009 audiograms. Adjusted odds ratios were generated using multivariable logistic regression with multi-level modeling. RESULTS: The odds ratio for hearing shift for workers who reported never versus always wearing hearing protection was nonsignificant for OSTS (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.92-1.64) and marginally significant for HFTS (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.00-1.59). A significant linear trend towards increased risk of HFTS with decreased use of hearing protection was observed (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The study raises concern about the effectiveness of hearing protection as a substitute for noise control to prevent noise-induced hearing loss in the workplace.

OBJECTIVE: To examine trends in the proportion of work-related emergency department visits not expected to be paid by workers' compensation during 2003-2006, and to identify demographic and clinical correlates of such visits. DATA SOURCE: A total of 3,881 work-related emergency department visit records drawn from the 2003-2006 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys. STUDY DESIGN: Secondary, cross-sectional analyses of work-related emergency department visit data were performed. Odds ratios and 95 percent confidence intervals were modeled using logistic regression. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A substantial and increasing proportion of work-related emergency department visits in the United States were not expected to be paid by workers' compensation. Private insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, and workers themselves were expected to pay for 40 percent of the work-related emergency department visits with this percentage increasing annually. Work-related visits by blacks, in the South, to for-profit hospitals and for work-related illnesses were all more likely not to be paid by workers' compensation. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency department-based surveillance and research that determine work-relatedness on the basis of expected payment by workers' compensation systematically underestimate the occurrence of occupational illness and injury. This has important methodological and policy implications.

BACKGROUND: Twenty-two million workers are exposed to hazardous noise in the United States. The purpose of this study is to estimate the prevalence of hearing loss among U.S. industries. METHODS: We examined 2000-2008 audiograms for male and female workers ages 18-65, who had higher occupational noise exposures than the general population. Prevalence and adjusted prevalence ratios (PRs) for hearing loss were estimated and compared across industries. RESULTS: In our sample, 18% of workers had hearing loss. When compared with the Couriers and Messengers industry sub-sector, workers employed in Mining (PR = 1.65, CI = 1.57-1.73), Wood Product Manufacturing (PR = 1.65, CL = 1.61-1.70), Construction of Buildings (PR = 1.52, CI = 1.45-1.59), and Real Estate and Rental and Leasing (PR = 1.59, CL = 1.51-1.68) had higher risks for hearing loss. CONCLUSIONS: Workers in the Mining, Manufacturing, and Construction industries need better engineering controls for noise and stronger hearing conservation strategies. More hearing loss research is also needed within traditional "low-risk" industries like Real Estate. (Am. J. Ind. Med. (c) 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)