OBJECTIVES: Occupational health surveillance programs have rarely incorporated syndromic surveillance. We documented a process for evaluating and revising syndromic surveillance definitions, using the example of work-related emergency department (ED) visits. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 140 331 481 ED visits in the National Syndromic Surveillance Program from May 15, 2016, through October 31, 2017, we extracted 391 827 records for phase 1 that met the previously unevaluated original work-related definition or included a work-related employment status ICD-10-CM code (Y99.0/Y99.1; International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification). Also for phase 1, we evaluated the performance of the original work-related definition using ICD-10-CM work-related employment status codes as a reference standard. In phase 2, we extracted 99 109 records containing candidate work-related keywords. Finally, in phase 3, we examined individual keywords and developed and evaluated a revised definition. RESULTS: The revised work-related definition identified 259 153 visits by keyword alone, 104 342 visits by ICD-10-CM work-related employment status codes alone, and 16 385 ED visits by both methods. Sensitivity (13.6% vs 11.3%) and positive predictive value (5.9% vs 4.8%) were higher for the revised definition than for the original work-related definition. Manual review indicated that 91.3% (95% CI, 89.6%-93.0%) of visits identified by the revised definition keywords met the study criteria for work-related visits as compared with 75.5% (95% CI, 73.0%-78.4%) of visits for the original work-related definition. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The original work-related definition performed suboptimally because keywords were not sufficiently specific. The revised definition is an improvement but requires testing in real-world scenarios. The presented methods for developing a syndromic surveillance definition are useful, not only for occupational health, but for identification of other subpopulations treated in the ED.

BACKGROUND: Certain workers are at increased risk for acquiring Legionnaires' disease compared with other workers. This study aims to identify occupations at increased risk for acquiring Legionnaires' disease. METHODS: Using data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Supplemental Legionnaires' Disease Surveillance System, this study identified Legionnaires' disease confirmed patients ≥16 years of age in 39 states with reported symptom onset during 2014-2016. Age-adjusted and sex-adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRR) stratified by occupation group were calculated by comparing Legionnaires' disease patients in an occupation group (eg, transportation) to those in all other occupation groups (eg, non-transportation). RESULTS: A total of 2553 patients had a known occupation group. The two occupations with the highest burden were transportation (N=287; IRR=2.11) and construction (N=269; IRR=1.82). Truck drivers comprised the majority (69.7%) of the transportation occupation group and construction labourers comprised almost half (49%) of the construction occupation group. The healthcare support occupation had the highest IRR (N=75; IRR=2.16). CONCLUSION: Transportation and construction workers, who are generally not covered by guidance related to building water systems, have increased risk of Legionnaires' disease compared with other workers. One hypothesised risk factor for truck drivers is the use of non-genuine windshield cleaner in their vehicles. A simple intervention is to use genuine windshield cleaner with bactericidal properties (ie, includes isopropanol/methanol) which can reduce the risk of Legionella growth and transmission. To improve surveillance of Legionnaires' disease and identification of similar exposures, the authors encourage the collection of occupation and industry information for all patients with Legionnaires' disease.

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.

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.

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: 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: The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) produced an advisory list identifying essential critical infrastructure workers (ECIW) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) response. The CISA advisory list is the most common national definition of ECIW but has not been mapped to United States (U.S.) Census industry codes (CICs) to readily identify these worker populations in public health data sources. METHODS: We identified essential critical infrastructure industry designations corresponding to v4.0 of the CISA advisory list for all six-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and cross-walked NAICS codes to CICs. CICs were grouped as essential, non-essential, or mixed essential/non-essential according to component NAICS industries. We also obtained national estimated population sizes for NAICS and Census industries and cross-tabulated Census industry and occupation codes to identify industry-occupation pairs. RESULTS: We produced and made publicly available spreadsheets containing essential industry designations corresponding to v4.0 of the CISA advisory list for NAICS and Census industry titles and codes and population estimates by six-digit NAICS industry, Census industry, and Census industry-occupation pair. The CISA advisory list is highly inclusive and contains most industries and U.S. workers; 71.0% of Census industries comprising 80.6% of workers and 80.7% of NAICS industries comprising 87.1% of workers were designated as essential. CONCLUSIONS: We identified workers in essential critical infrastructure industries as defined by CISA using standardized industry codes. These classifications may support public health interventions and analyses related to the COVID-19 pandemic and future public health crises.

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.

BACKGROUND: Transit workers have jobs requiring close public contact for extended periods of time, placing them at increased risk for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and more likely to have risk factors for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related complications. Collecting timely occupational data can help inform public health guidance for transit workers; however, it is difficult to collect during a public health emergency. We used nontraditional epidemiological surveillance methods to report demographics and job characteristics of transit workers reported to have died from COVID-19. METHODS: We abstracted demographic and job characteristics from media scans on COVID-19 related deaths and reviewed COVID-19 memorial pages for the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) and Transport Workers Union (TWU). ATU and TWU provided a list of union members who died from COVID-19 between March 1-July 7, 2020 and a total count of NYC metro area union members. Peer-reviewed publications identified through a scientific literature search were used to compile comparison demographic statistics of NYC metro area transit workers. We analyzed and reported characteristics of ATU and TWU NYC metro area decedents. RESULTS: We identified 118 ATU and TWU NYC metro area transit worker COVID-19 decedents with an incidence proportion of 0.3%. Most decedents were male (83%); median age was 58 years (range: 39-71). Median professional tenure was 20 years (range: 2-41 years). Operator (46%) was the most reported job classification. More than half of the decedents (57%) worked in positions associated with close public contact. CONCLUSION: Data gathered through nontraditional epidemiological surveillance methods provided insight into risk factors among this workforce, demonstrating the need for mitigation plans for this workforce and informing transit worker COVID-19 guidance as the pandemic progressed.

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.

Workplace activities involving close contact with coworkers and customers can lead to transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (1,2). Information on the approach to and effectiveness of COVID-19 workplace investigations is limited. In May 2020, Public Health - Seattle & King County (PHSKC), King County, Washington established a COVID-19 workplace surveillance and response system to enhance COVID-19 contact tracing and identify outbreaks in workplaces. During June 15-November 15, 2020, a total of 2,881 workplaces in King County reported at least one case of COVID-19. Among 1,305 (45.3%) investigated workplaces,* 524 (40.3%) met the definition of a workplace outbreak.(†) Among 306 (58.4%) workplaces with complete data,(§) an average of 4.4 employee COVID-19 cases(¶) (median = three; range = 1-65) were identified per outbreak, with an average attack rate among employees of 17.5%. PHSKC and the Washington State Department of Health optimized resources by establishing a classification scheme to prioritize workplace investigations as high, medium, or low priority based on workplace features observed to be associated with increased COVID-19 spread and workforce features associated with severe disease outcomes. High-priority investigations were significantly more likely than medium- and low-priority investigations to have two or more cases among employees (p<0.001), two or more cases not previously linked to the workplace (p<0.001), or two or more exposed workplace contacts not previously identified during case interviews (p = 0.002). Prioritization of workplace investigations allowed for the allocation of limited resources to effectively conduct workplace investigations to limit the potential workplace spread of COVID-19. Workplace investigations can also serve as an opportunity to provide guidance on preventing workplace exposures to SARS-CoV-2, facilitate access to vaccines, and strengthen collaborations between public health and businesses.

We aimed to describe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) deaths among first responders early in the COVID-19 pandemic. We used media reports to gather timely information about COVID-19-related deaths among first responders during March 30-April 30, 2020, and evaluated the sensitivity of media scanning compared with traditional surveillance. We abstracted information about demographic characteristics, occupation, underlying conditions, and exposure source. Twelve of 19 US public health jurisdictions with data on reported deaths provided verification, and 7 jurisdictions reported whether additional deaths had occurred; we calculated the sensitivity of media scanning among these 7 jurisdictions. We identified 97 COVID-19-related first-responder deaths during the study period through media and jurisdiction reports. Participating jurisdictions reported 5 deaths not reported by the media. Sixty-six decedents worked in law enforcement, and 31 decedents worked in fire/emergency medical services. Media reports rarely noted underlying conditions. The media scan sensitivity was 88% (95% CI, 73%-96%) in the subset of 7 jurisdictions. Media reports demonstrated high sensitivity in documenting COVID-19-related deaths among first responders; however, information on risk factors was scarce. Routine collection of data on industry and occupation could improve understanding of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality among all workers.

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).

OBJECTIVES: To identify important background information on pooled tested of employees that employers workers, and health authorities should consider. METHODS: This paper is a commentary based on the review by the authors of pertinent literature generally from preprints in medrixiv.org prior to August 2020. RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: Pooled testing may be particularly useful to employers in communities with low prevalence of COVID-19. It can be used to reduce the number of tests and associated financial costs. For effective and efficient pooled testing employers should consider it as part of a broader, more comprehensive workplace COVID-19 prevention and control program. Pooled testing of asymptomatic employees can prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and help assure employers and customers that employees are not infectious.

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.

As of April 9, 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic had resulted in 1,521,252 cases and 92,798 deaths worldwide, including 459,165 cases and 16,570 deaths in the United States (1,2). Health care personnel (HCP) are essential workers defined as paid and unpaid persons serving in health care settings who have the potential for direct or indirect exposure to patients or infectious materials (3). During February 12-April 9, among 315,531 COVID-19 cases reported to CDC using a standardized form, 49,370 (16%) included data on whether the patient was a health care worker in the United States; including 9,282 (19%) who were identified as HCP. Among HCP patients with data available, the median age was 42 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 32-54 years), 6,603 (73%) were female, and 1,779 (38%) reported at least one underlying health condition. Among HCP patients with data on health care, household, and community exposures, 780 (55%) reported contact with a COVID-19 patient only in health care settings. Although 4,336 (92%) HCP patients reported having at least one symptom among fever, cough, or shortness of breath, the remaining 8% did not report any of these symptoms. Most HCP with COVID-19 (6,760, 90%) were not hospitalized; however, severe outcomes, including 27 deaths, occurred across all age groups; deaths most frequently occurred in HCP aged ≥65 years. These preliminary findings highlight that whether HCP acquire infection at work or in the community, it is necessary to protect the health and safety of this essential national workforce.

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.

Secondhand tobacco smoke (SHS) exposure contributes to ill health and disease, including heart disease, lung cancer, and stroke (1). Although cigarette smoking has declined among U.S. workers, workplace exposure to SHS remains high, particularly among workers in certain industries, such as construction (2,3). Implementation of smoke-free laws has proven to be beneficial in reducing SHS exposure in general (1). CDC analyzed data from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) Occupational Health Supplement to assess the prevalence of self-reported workplace SHS exposure among nonsmoking workers by smoke-free policy status in the workers' states of residence and in detailed industry categories and subcategories. In 2015, 19.9% of nonsmoking workers reported any exposure to SHS at work during the 12 months preceding the interview, and 10.1% reported frequent exposure (twice a week or more). Nonsmoking workers who resided in states with comprehensive smoke-free laws in all three categories of venues (private worksites, bars, and restaurants) were least likely to report frequent exposure to workplace SHS. Nonsmoking workers employed in the commercial and industrial machinery and equipment repair and maintenance industry reported the highest prevalences of any workplace SHS exposure (65.1%), whereas the construction industry had the highest reported number of exposed workers (2.9 million); these industry categories/subcategories include outdoor workplaces and other settings that are unlikely to be protected by smoke-free laws. Identifying specific at-risk workplaces and implementing targeted intervention strategies could help reduce SHS exposure at work and protect workers' health.

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).

Workers in specific settings and activities are at increased risk for certain infectious diseases. When an infectious disease case occurs in a worker, investigators need to understand the mechanisms of disease propagation in the workplace. Few publications have explored these factors in the United States; a literature search yielded 66 investigations of infectious disease occurring in US workplaces during 2006-2015. Reported cases appear to be concentrated in specific industries and occupations, especially the healthcare industry, laboratory workers, animal workers, and public service workers. A hierarchy-of-controls approach can help determine how to implement effective preventive measures in workplaces. Consideration of occupational risk factors and control of occupational exposures will help prevent disease transmission in the workplace and protect workers' health.

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.

PURPOSE: To examine how the availability of and participation in workplace health promotion programs (WHPPs) vary as a function of sociodemographic, occupation, and work organization characteristics. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: 2015 National Health Interview Survey and Occupational Health Supplement. PARTICIPANTS: The study sample included 17 469 employed adults who completed the WHPP questions. MEASURES: The 2 dependent outcome measures were availability of WHPPs and participation in these programs when available. Independent variables included occupation and 8 work organization and employment characteristics: company size, hours worked, supervisory responsibility, hourly pay, paid sick leave, health insurance offered by employer, work schedule, and work arrangement. ANALYSIS: Poisson regression analyses were conducted with SUDAAN 11.0.1. RESULTS: Overall, 57.8% of 46.6% employees who have WHPPs available reported participating in these programs. This study found that adults who worked </=20 h/wk, worked regular night shifts, were paid by the hour, or worked for temporary agencies were less likely to participate in WHPPs. Workers who supervised others were 13% more likely to participate than nonsupervisors. Borderline associations were seen for having access to employer-sponsored health insurance and working at a site with <10 employees. CONCLUSION: Despite the potential for improving physical and mental health, only 58% of US workers participated in WHPPs. Since barriers to WHPP participation (eg, time constraints, lack of awareness, and no perceived need) may vary across occupations and work organization characteristics, employers should tailor WHPPs based on their specific work organization characteristics to maximize participation.

INTRODUCTION: For most Americans, health insurance is obtained through employers. Health insurance coverage can lead to better health outcomes, yet disparities in coverage exist among workers with different sociodemographic and job characteristics. This study compared uninsured rates among workers with different work arrangements. METHODS: Data from the 2010 and 2015 National Health Interview Survey-Occupational Health Supplements were used to capture a representative sample of the U.S. civilian, non-institutionalized population. Associations between work arrangement and lack of health insurance were analyzed, adjusting for covariates. Analyses were performed during 2016-2018. RESULTS: The percentage of workers aged 18-64years without health insurance coverage decreased significantly by 6.8% among workers in all work arrangement categories between 2010 and 2015. However, workers in nonstandard work arrangements were still more likely than standard workers to have no health insurance coverage. In 2015, for workers to have no health insurance the ORs were 4.92 (95% CI=3.91, 6.17) in independent, 2.87 (95% CI=2.00, 4.12) in temporary or contract, and 2.79 (95% CI=0.34, 0.41) in other work arrangements. Standard full-time workers in small establishments and standard part-time workers were also more likely to have no health insurance coverage (OR=2.74, 95% CI=2.27, 3.31, and OR=1.65, 95% CI=1.25, 2.18, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Important disparities in health insurance coverage among workers with different work arrangements existed in 2010 and persisted in 2015. Further research is needed to monitor coverage trends among workers.

Workers in Coccidioides-endemic areas performing soil-disturbing work or exposed to windy and dusty conditions are at increased risk for coccidioidomycosis. Four occupational coccidioidomycosis outbreaks from 2007 to 2014 in California are described, involving construction workers in a number of excavation projects and an outdoor filming event involving cast and crew. These outbreaks highlight the importance of identifying industries and occupations at high risk for coccidioidomycosis, conducting targeted occupational health surveillance to assess the burden of illness, developing and implementing prevention strategies, and setting research priorities.

The Commissioned Corps of the United States Public Health Service (USPHS), an all-officer uniformed service, includes more than 730 physicians who serve in multiple federal agencies within and outside of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and are stationed in more than 60 locations, including state and local health departments. These officers serve in direct patient care and applied public health roles, working on the clinical, science, and policy frontlines of key public health challenges including the opioid epidemic and antimicrobial resistance.1,2 These physicians’ professional interests are represented by a Chief Professional Officer (CPO) and the Physicians Professional Advisory Committee (PPAC) leadership team, which includes 2 co-chairs and a vice-chair. The authors currently serve as the leadership team of the PPAC. We serve in these roles on a voluntary basis, in addition to our primary duties with our agencies.

OBJECTIVE: There is growing interest in the NIOSH Total Worker Health program, specifically in the process of designing and implementing safer, health-promoting work and workplaces. A Total Worker Health (TWH) Research Methodology Workshop was convened to discuss research methods and future needs. METHODS: Twenty-six experts in occupational safety and health and related fields reviewed and discussed current methodological and measurement issues and those showing promise. RESULTS: TWH intervention studies face the same challenges as other workplace intervention studies and some unique ones. Examples are provided of different approaches and their applications to TWH intervention studies, and desired developments in the TWH literature. CONCLUSIONS: This report discusses and outlines principles important to building the TWH intervention research base. Rigorous, valid methodologic, and measurement approaches are needed for TWH intervention as well as for basic/etiologic, translational, and surveillance research.

The opioid epidemic affects multiple segments of the U.S. population (1). Occupational patterns might be critical to understanding the epidemic. Opioids are often prescribed for specific types of work-related injuries, which vary by occupation* (2). CDC used mortality data from the National Occupational Mortality Surveillance (NOMS) system to examine unintentional or undetermined drug overdose mortality within 26 occupation groups. This study included data from the 21 U.S. states participating in NOMS during 2007-2012.(dagger) Drug overdose mortality was compared with total mortality using proportional mortality ratios (PMRs) indirectly standardized for age, sex, race, year, and state. Mortality patterns specific to opioid-related overdose deaths were also assessed. Construction occupations had the highest PMRs for drug overdose deaths and for both heroin-related and prescription opioid-related overdose deaths. The occupation groups with the highest PMRs from methadone, natural and semisynthetic opioids, and synthetic opioids other than methadone were construction, extraction (e.g., mining, oil and gas extraction), and health care practitioners. The workplace is an integral part of life for the majority of the adult U.S. population; incorporating workplace research and interventions likely will benefit the opioid epidemic response.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the challenges of service coordination through the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) for Hurricane Maria evacuees, particularly those on dialysis. DESIGN: Public health report. SETTING: Georgia. REPORT: On November 25, 2017, there were 208 patients evacuated to Georgia in response to Hurricane Maria receiving NDMS support. Most were evacuated from the US Virgin Islands (97 percent) and the remaining from Puerto Rico (3 percent); 73 percent of these patients were on dialysis, all from the US Virgin Islands. From the beginning of the evacuation response through November 25, 2017, there were 282 patients evacuated to Georgia via NDMS, with a median length of coverage through NDMS for those on and not on dialysis of 60 and 16 days, respectively. CONCLUSION: The limited capacity and capability of dialysis centers currently in the US Virgin Islands are delaying the return to home of many Hurricane Maria evacuees who are on dialysis.

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.

INTRODUCTION: Outbreaks of pertussis can occur in healthcare settings. Vaccinating healthcare personnel may be helpful in protecting healthcare personnel from pertussis and potentially limiting spread to others in healthcare settings. METHODS: Data from 21 states using the 2013 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System industry/occupation module were analyzed in 2016. Tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccination status was self-reported by healthcare personnel along with their occupation, healthcare setting/industry, demographics, and access to care factors. To compare groups, t-tests were used. The median state response rate was 44.0%. RESULTS: Among all healthcare personnel, 47.2% were vaccinated for Tdap. Physicians had higher Tdap coverage (66.8%) compared with all other healthcare personnel except nurse practitioners and registered nurses (59.5%), whose coverage did not statistically differ from that of physicians. Tdap vaccination coverage was higher among workers in hospitals (53.3%) than in long-term care facilities (33.3%) and other clinical settings, such as dentist, chiropractor, and optometrist offices (39.3%). Healthcare personnel who were younger, who had higher education, higher annual household income, a personal healthcare provider, and health insurance had higher Tdap vaccination coverage compared with reference groups. Tdap vaccination coverage among healthcare personnel in 21 states ranged from 30.6% in Mississippi to 65.9% in Washington. CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in Tdap vaccination among healthcare personnel is needed to potentially reduce opportunities for spread of pertussis in healthcare settings. On-site workplace vaccination, offering vaccines free of charge, and promoting vaccination may increase vaccination among healthcare personnel.