BACKGROUND: While studies have examined effects of parental job loss early in the COVID-19 pandemic, few have assessed economic impacts of student job loss. METHODS: The Adolescent Behaviors and Experiences Survey (ABES) was a one-time online, nationally-representative survey administered by CDC in 2021 to understand high school students' experiences. We assessed associations between student, parent, and dyadic employment experiences and two measures of economic stress: housing instability and food insufficiency. RESULTS: Parental job loss was common and associated with both adverse economic outcomes. The adjusted prevalence rate (aPR) for housing instability was 2.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.73-4.51. A new finding is that student employment may also play a role in food sufficiency. Student job loss was significantly associated with both any food insufficiency and frequent food insufficiency (aPR = 1.61, 95% CI = 1.35-1.93 and aPR = 1.96, 95% CI = 1.43-2.70, respectively). DISCUSSION: Analysis of associations between employment status before and during the COVID-19 public health emergency and measures of household economic insecurity reveals social safety net gaps. Our finding that student employment may affect household food sufficiency highlights the need to better understand the role of student employment in household economic stress.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between workplace psychosocial, organization, and physical risk factors with low back pain (LBP) among U.S. workers. METHODS: 2015 National Health Interview Survey data was analyzed to calculate prevalences and prevalence ratios for LBP across levels of workplace psychosocial and organizational risk factors among 17,464 U.S. adult workers who worked ≥20 hours/week. Results were also stratified by workplace physical exertion. RESULTS: The adjusted prevalences of LBP were significantly elevated for workers reporting high job demand, low job control, work-family imbalance, bullying, job insecurity, working alternate shifts, and physical exertion. Job control and nonstandard shifts were significantly associated with LBP only among those who reported low/no physical exertion. CONCLUSIONS: LBP prevalence was associated with select workplace psychosocial and organization risk factors. Stratification by physical exertion modified multiple associations.

BACKGROUND: While more than 2.5 million U.S. high students worked in 2020, data to assess how work affects this group are sparse. To facilitate such research, a set of occupational safety and health questions for inclusion on the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) and other youth-focused surveys was developed. METHODS: Survey questions about occupational experiences of young workers were adapted from other surveys or created de novo. Key audiences were engaged to define priority topic areas and develop draft questions, which were further refined through cognitive interviews with working youth. RESULTS: Twenty-one resulting questions spanned multiple work-related topics: employment status; health outcomes; psychosocial exposures; and safety climate. Cognitive testing revealed that youth (aged 14-19) had difficulty with temporal concepts. Some difficulties reflected the propensity of youth to engage in multiple, online, and informal jobs. During 3 rounds of interviews, questions were adjusted to better reflect youth employment circumstances and language. Four states added at least 1 work-related question to their 2023 Youth Risk Behavior Survey questionnaire, and the full set of questions has been disseminated to federal agencies and partners. CONCLUSION: Including tailored questions about employment in surveys of youth will facilitate occupational health surveillance for this group. Analysis of resulting data can help to close knowledge gaps, provide current prevalence data, inform policy, and allow development of focused prevention and intervention strategies to reduce adverse outcomes among young workers.

In 2020, approximately 21.5 million employed U.S. adults aged 18-64 years had some form of disability. Although 75.8% of noninstitutionalized persons without disability aged 18-64 were employed, only 38.4% of their counterparts with disability were employed (1). Persons with disability have job preferences similar to persons without disability but might encounter barriers (e.g., lower average training or education levels, discrimination, or limited transportation options) that affect the types of jobs they hold (2,3). CDC analyzed 2016-2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data from 35 states and Guam to estimate disability prevalences, by type and occupation group, among currently employed U.S. adults aged 18-64 years. The highest adjusted disability prevalences were among workers in three of the 22 major occupation groups: food preparation and serving-related (19.9%); personal care and service (19.4%); and arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media (17.7%). Occupation groups with the lowest adjusted disability prevalences were business and financial operations (11.3%), health care practitioners and technicians (11.1%), and architecture and engineering (11.0%). The distributions of persons with and without disability differ across occupations. Workplace programs that address the training, education, and workplace needs of employees with disability might improve workers' ability to enter, thrive in, and advance in a wider range of occupations.

This article summarizes what is currently known about the 2019 novel coronavirus and offers interim guidance.

Domestic travel creates a serious risk of spreading COVID-19, including novel strains of the virus. Motivating potential travelers to take precautions is critical, especially for those at higher risk for severe illness. To provide an evidence base for communication efforts, we examined the experiences and views of travelers during the summer of 2020 through a telephone survey of 1,968 US adults, conducted in English and Spanish, July 2 through July 16, 2020. The survey found that more than one-quarter (28%) of adults had traveled domestically in the prior 30 days, most commonly for "vacation" (43%), and less than half wore masks (46%) or practiced social distancing (47%) "all of the time." Although high-risk adults were significantly less likely to travel than non-high-risk adults (23% vs 31%; P < .001), they were no more likely to take precautions. Many travelers did not wear a mask or practice social distancing because they felt such actions were unnecessary (eg, they were outside or with friends and family). Although a substantial share of travelers (43% to 53%) trusted public health agencies "a great deal" for information about reducing risks while traveling, more travelers (73%) trusted their own healthcare providers. Findings suggest that outreach may be improved by partnering with providers to emphasize the benefits of layering precautions and provide targeted education to high-risk individuals. Messages that are empathetic to the need to reduce stress and convey how precautions can protect loved ones may be particularly resonant after more than a year of pandemic-related restrictions.

SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, can spread rapidly in prisons and can be introduced by staff members and newly transferred incarcerated persons (1,2). On September 28, 2020, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS) contacted CDC to report a COVID-19 outbreak in a state prison (prison A). During October 6-20, a CDC team investigated the outbreak, which began with 12 cases detected from specimens collected during August 17-24 from incarcerated persons housed within the same unit, 10 of whom were transferred together on August 13 and under quarantine following prison intake procedures (intake quarantine). Potentially exposed persons within the unit began a 14-day group quarantine on August 25. However, quarantine was not restarted after quarantined persons were potentially exposed to incarcerated persons with COVID-19 who were moved to the unit. During the subsequent 8 weeks (August 14-October 22), 869 (79.4%) of 1,095 incarcerated persons and 69 (22.6%) of 305 staff members at prison A received positive test results for SARS-CoV-2. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) of specimens from 172 cases among incarcerated persons showed that all clustered in the same lineage; this finding, along with others, demonstrated that facility spread originated with the transferred cohort. To effectively implement a cohorted quarantine, which is a harm reduction strategy for correctional settings with limited space, CDC's interim guidance recommendation is to serial test cohorts, restarting the 14-day quarantine period when a new case is identified (3). Implementing more effective intake quarantine procedures and available mitigation measures, including vaccination, among incarcerated persons is important to controlling transmission in prisons. Understanding and addressing the challenges faced by correctional facilities to implement medical isolation and quarantine can help reduce and prevent outbreaks.

Public health travel restrictions (PHTR) are crucial measures during communicable disease outbreaks to prevent transmission during commercial airline travel and mitigate cross-border importation and spread. We evaluated PHTR implementation for US citizens on the Diamond Princess during its coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak in Japan in February 2020 to explore how PHTR reduced importation of COVID-19 to the United States during the early phase of disease containment. Using PHTR required substantial collaboration among the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, other US government agencies, the cruise line, and public health authorities in Japan. Original US PHTR removal criteria were modified to reflect international testing protocols and enable removal of PHTR for persons who recovered from illness. The impact of PHTR on epidemic trajectory depends on the risk for transmission during travel and geographic spread of disease. Lessons learned from the Diamond Princess outbreak provide critical information for future PHTR use.

The collection of industrial hygiene (IH) air, surface, and noise data is a critical task at the center of the IH profession. Industrial hygienists usually collect occupational exposure measurements using sampling methods that have been validated by Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) or National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to protect workers from chemical, biological, and physical hazards. But beyond the information required on a standard chain of custody form (sampler/media type, analysis method, sample time, sample volume, and so on), any additional data elements and variables collected are often left to the discretion of the hygienist. ... American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) has increased efforts to promote data quality and standardization by including an appendix on data quality in the latest edition of &quot;A Strategy for Assessing and Managing Occupational Exposures,&quot; which was published in 2015. This appendix introduces literature on how to evaluate historical or current IH data quality and includes a checklist of data elements adapted from the literature, including the 1996 special report in the Applied journal. The checklist serves as a source for comparison, providing a method for evaluating current IH forms to examine which data fields are being captured and how.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of diagnosed diabetes among employed U.S. adults from 36 states by occupation group using data from 2014-2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. METHODS: Prevalence of diabetes was calculated by 22 broad and 93 detailed occupation groups among a sample of 366,633 employed respondents. Wald chi-square values were used to determine the significance of associations between diabetes and occupation groups after adjusting for sex, age, and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: The prevalence of diabetes was 6.4% among employed U.S. adults. The three broad occupation groups with the highest adjusted prevalence of diabetes were protective services (8.9%), farming, fishing, and forestry (8.8%), and community and social services (8.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence of diabetes differed by occupation. Work-related factors (e.g. shift work, job stress) should be further examined in relation to risk of developing diabetes.

In January 2020, with support from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), CDC instituted an enhanced entry risk assessment and management (screening) program for air passengers arriving from certain countries with widespread, sustained transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The objectives of the screening program were to reduce the importation of COVID-19 cases into the United States and slow subsequent spread within states. Screening aimed to identify travelers with COVID-19-like illness or who had a known exposure to a person with COVID-19 and separate them from others. Screening also aimed to inform all screened travelers about self-monitoring and other recommendations to prevent disease spread and obtain their contact information to share with public health authorities in destination states. CDC delegated postarrival management of crew members to airline occupational health programs by issuing joint guidance with the Federal Aviation Administration.* During January 17-September 13, 2020, a total of 766,044 travelers were screened, 298 (0.04%) of whom met criteria for public health assessment; 35 (0.005%) were tested for SARS-CoV-2, and nine (0.001%) had a positive test result. CDC shared contact information with states for approximately 68% of screened travelers because of data collection challenges and some states' opting out of receiving data. The low case detection rate of this resource-intensive program highlighted the need for fundamental change in the U.S. border health strategy. Because SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission can occur in the absence of symptoms and because the symptoms of COVID-19 are nonspecific, symptom-based screening programs are ineffective for case detection. Since the screening program ended on September 14, 2020, efforts to reduce COVID-19 importation have focused on enhancing communications with travelers to promote recommended preventive measures, reinforcing mechanisms to refer overtly ill travelers to CDC, and enhancing public health response capacity at ports of entry. More efficient collection of contact information for international air passengers before arrival and real-time transfer of data to U.S. health departments would facilitate timely postarrival public health management, including contact tracing, when indicated. Incorporating health attestations, predeparture and postarrival testing, and a period of limited movement after higher-risk travel, might reduce risk for transmission during travel and translocation of SARS-CoV-2 between geographic areas and help guide more individualized postarrival recommendations.

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.

Background: Excessive alcohol use, including binge drinking (i.e., >/=5 drinks (males); >/=4 drinks (females), per occasion during the past 30 days), is associated with work-related injuries, absenteeism, and lost productivity. Binge drinking varies by sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., age, sex, income). However, information on binge drinking by occupation is limited. Purpose: This study examined binge drinking prevalence, frequency, intensity, and total binge drinks per binge drinker by sociodemographic characteristics and occupation. Methods: Data were analyzed from 358,355 currently employed U.S. adults who resided in the 32 states that administered the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System industry and occupation questions during 2013-2016. Binge drinking was evaluated using weighted and adjusted prevalence models. Results: Among currently employed adults in the 32 states, 20.8% reported binge drinking, with an average of nearly 49 times per year and an average intensity of 7.4 drinks per binge episode, resulting in 478 total binge drinks per binge drinker. The adjusted binge drinking prevalence ranged from 15.9% among community and social services workers to 26.3% among construction and extraction workers. The total annual binge drinks per binge drinker ranged from 207 drinks among community and social services workers to 749 drinks among construction and extraction workers. Conclusions: One in five employed adults binge drink, and binge drinking varied across occupation groups. Widespread use of effective community-based strategies for preventing excessive alcohol use (e.g., regulating alcohol outlet density), as well as interventions tailored to specific occupation groups, and could reduce binge drinking and improve occupational safety and health.

Introduction: Workers’ compensation (WC) insurers offer services and programs for prospective client selection and insured client risk control (RC) purposes. Toward these aims, insurers collect employer data that may include information on types of hazards present in the workplace, safety and health programs and controls in place to prevent injury/illness, and return-to-work programs to reduce injury/illness severity. Despite the potential impact of RC systems on workplace safety and health and the use of RC data in guiding prevention efforts, few research studies on the types of RC services provided to employers or the RC data collected have been published in the peer-reviewed literature. Methods: Researchers conducted voluntary interviews with nine private and state-fund WC insurers to collect qualitative information on RC data and systems. Results: Insurers provided information describing their RC data, tools, and practices. Unique practices as well as similarities including those related to RC services, policyholder goals, and databases were identified. Conclusions: Insurers collect and store extensive RC data, which have utility for public health research for improving workplace safety and health. Practical applications: Increased public health understanding of RC data and systems and an identification of key collaboration opportunities between insurers and researchers will facilitate increased use of RC data for public health purposes.

Workers' compensation (WC) insurers collect large amounts of industrial hygiene (IH) data in the United States. The data collected is not easily accessible for research or surveillance purposes. Individual WC insurers are using computerized systems to standardize and store the IH data, leaving a gap in standardization among the different WC insurers. This study sought to standardize IH data collection among WC insurers and to determine the feasibility of pooling collected IH data. IH air and noise survey forms were collected from WC insurers. Data fields on the forms were evaluated for importance and a study list of core fields was developed. The core study list was presented to an IH review panel for review before finalization. The final core study list was compared to recommendations published by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) and the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA). Fifty-nine forms from 10 organizations were collected. Industrial hygienists from research organizations, state-based WC insurers, and private WC insurers participated in the data field evaluation and on the review panel. For both air and noise survey forms, more than half the data fields (55% and 54%, respectively) were ranked as "essential." Three of the four fields in the worker and control observations category ranked "essential" were found less than half of the time on both types of survey forms. The study list of core data elements consisted of more than half of the data fields from both the air and noise survey forms. Three additional fields were added based on the comparison to the ACGIH-AIHA recommendations. Data fields essential to standardizing IH data collection were identified and verified. The "essential" data fields will be made available and have the potential to be incorporated into WC insurers electronic IH data management systems. Future research should focus on other IH survey forms, such as those used in ergonomic assessments and specific chemical exposures, and methods to transfer data fields to electronic platforms.

Despite substantial financial and personnel resources being devoted to occupational exposure monitoring (OEM) by employers, workers' compensation insurers, and other organizations, the United States (US) lacks comprehensive occupational exposure databases to use for research and surveillance activities. OEM data are necessary for determining the levels of workers' exposures; compliance with regulations; developing control measures; establishing worker exposure profiles; and improving preventive and responsive exposure surveillance and policy efforts. Workers' compensation insurers as a group may have particular potential for understanding exposures in various industries, especially among small employers. This is the first study to determine how selected state-based and private workers' compensation insurers collect, store, and use OEM data related specifically to air and noise sampling. Of 50 insurers contacted to participate in this study, 28 completed an online survey. All of the responding private and the majority of state-based insurers offered industrial hygiene (IH) services to policyholders and employed one to three certified industrial hygienists on average. Many, but not all, insurers used standardized forms for data collection, but the data were not commonly stored in centralized databases. Data were most often used to provide recommendations for improvement to policyholders. Although not representative of all insurers, the survey was completed by insurers that cover a substantial number of employers and workers. The 20 participating state-based insurers on average provided 48% of the workers' compensation insurance benefits in their respective states or provinces. These results provide insight into potential next steps for improving the access to and usability of existing data as well as ways researchers can help organizations improve data collection strategies. This effort represents an opportunity for collaboration among insurers, researchers, and others that can help insurers and employers while advancing the exposure assessment field in the US.

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.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the health-related quality of life among workers in 22 standard occupation groups using data from the 2013-2014 US Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. METHODS: We examined the health-related quality of life measures of self-rated health, frequent physical distress, frequent mental distress, frequent activity limitation, and frequent overall unhealthy days by occupation group for 155 839 currently employed adults among 17 states. We performed multiple logistic regression analyses that accounted for the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System's complex survey design to obtain prevalence estimates adjusted for potential confounders. RESULTS: Among all occupation groups, the arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupation group reported the highest adjusted prevalence of frequent physical distress, frequent mental distress, frequent activity limitation, and frequent overall unhealthy days. The personal care and service occupation group had the highest adjusted prevalence for fair or poor self-rated health. CONCLUSIONS: Workers' jobs affect their health-related quality of life. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print June 22, 2017: e1-e8. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2017.303840).

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine and the Sleep Research Society have determined that adults require ≥7 hours of sleep per day to promote optimal health. Short sleep duration (<7 hours per day) has been linked to adverse health outcomes including cardiovascular disease, obesity, diabetes, depression, and anxiety, as well as safety issues related to drowsy driving and injuries. Additional research has found that sleep duration varies by characteristics such as race, education, marital status, obesity, and cigarette smoking. Work-related factors such as job stress, work hours, shift work, and physically demanding work have been found to be associated with sleep duration and quality. All of these work factors vary by industry and occupation of employment, and the prevalence of short sleep duration has been shown to vary by broad industry and occupation category. To provide updated and more detailed information about which occupation groups have the highest prevalences of short sleep duration, CDC analyzed data from currently employed adults surveyed for the 2013 and 2014 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) in 29 states. Among 22 major occupation groups, the highest prevalences of short sleep duration were among workers in the following five groups: Production (42.9%), Healthcare Support (40.1%), Healthcare Practitioners and Technical (40.0%), Food Preparation and Serving-Related (39.8%), and Protective Service (39.2%). The significant differences among occupation groups in the prevalence of short sleep duration suggest that work-related factors should be further evaluated as they might relate to sleep.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) accounts for one of every three deaths in the United States, making it the leading cause of mortality in the country (1). The American Heart Association established seven ideal cardiovascular health behaviors or modifiable factors to improve CVD outcomes in the United States. These cardiovascular health metrics (CHMs) are 1) not smoking, 2) being physically active, 3) having normal blood pressure, 4) having normal blood glucose, 5) being of normal weight, 6) having normal cholesterol levels, and 7) eating a healthy diet (2). Meeting six or all seven CHMs is associated with a lower risk for all-cause, CVD, and ischemic heart disease mortalities compared with the risk to persons who meet none or only one CHM (3). Fewer than 2% of U.S. adults meet all seven of the American Heart Association's CHMs (4). Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality account for an estimated annual $120 billion in lost productivity in the workplace; thus, workplaces are viable settings for effective health promotion programs (5). With over 130 million employed persons in the United States, accounting for about 55% of all U.S. adults, the working population is an important demographic group to evaluate with regard to cardiovascular health status. To determine if an association between occupation and CHM score exists, CDC analyzed data from the 2013 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) industry and occupation module, which was implemented in 21 states. Among all occupational groups, community and social services employees (14.6%), transportation and material moving employees (14.3%), and architecture and engineering employees (11.6%) had the highest adjusted prevalence of meeting two or fewer CHMs. Transportation and material moving employees also had the highest prevalence of "not ideal" ("0" [i.e., no CHMs met]) scores for three of the seven CHMs: physical activity (54.1%), blood pressure (31.9%), and weight (body mass index [BMI]; 75.5%). Disparities in cardiovascular health status exist among U.S. occupational groups, making occupation an important consideration in employer-sponsored health promotion activities and allocation of prevention resources.