Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37279493›Full record

ReviewJournal of occupational and environmental hygiene2023

Exposure frequency, intensity, and duration: What we know about work-related asthma risks for healthcare workers from cleaning and disinfection.

Amanda M Wilson, Olusola O Ogunseye, Tina Fingesi, D Jean McClelland, Lynn B Gerald, Philip Harber, Paloma I Beamer, Rachael M Jones

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Amanda M WilsonDepartment of Community, Environment, & Policy, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.ORCID 0000-0003-3259-8169
Olusola O OgunseyeDepartment of Community, Environment, & Policy, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.
Tina FingesiDepartment of Community, Environment, & Policy, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.
D Jean McClellandArizona Health Sciences Library, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.
Lynn B GeraldDepartment of Health Promotion Sciences, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.
Philip HarberDepartment of Community, Environment, & Policy, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.
Paloma I BeamerDepartment of Community, Environment, & Policy, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.
Rachael M JonesDepartment of Environmental Health Sciences, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.

Funding

SOUTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES CENTERP30ES006694 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI DEAN BILLHEIMER · 1994 to 2026
$36.7M
Training in Environmental Toxicology of Human DiseaseT32ES007091 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI Nathan J Cherrington · 1985 to 2026
$10.7M
NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES006694NIEHS NIH HHS T32 ES007091
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this review was to scope the current evidence base related to three exposure assessment concepts: frequency, intensity, and duration (latency) for cleaning and disinfection exposures in healthcare and subsequent work-related asthma risks. A search strategy was developed addressing intersections of four main concepts: (1) work-related asthma; (2) occupation (healthcare workers/nurses); (3) cleaning and disinfection; and (4) exposure. Three databases were searched: Embase, PubMed, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) database. Data were extracted related to three main components of risk assessment: (1) exposure frequency, (2) exposure intensity, and (3) exposure duration. Latency data were analyzed using an exponential distribution fit, and extracted concentration data were compared to occupational exposure limits. The final number of included sources from which data were extracted was 133. Latency periods for occupational asthma were exponentially distributed, with a mean waiting time (1/λ) of 4.55 years. No extracted concentration data were above OELs except for some formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde concentrations. Data from included sources also indicated some evidence for a dose-response relationship regarding increased frequency yielding increased risk, but this relationship is unclear due to potential confounders (differences in role/task and associated exposure) and the healthy worker effect. Data priority needs to include linking concentration data to health outcomes, as most current literature does not include both types of measurements in a single study, leading to uncertainty in dose-response relationships.

Indexed as

AsthmaOccupational DiseasesOccupational ExposureDisinfectionGlutaralHealth PersonnelHumansGlutaralChemicalhygieneinhalationlatencyoccupational healthrespiratoryreview

Identifiers

PMID37279493
PMCPMC10696642

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.