ArticleOccupational and environmental medicine2026
Using social media to highlight inhaled occupational exposures as a cause of lung disease.
Article in Occupational and environmental medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Is primary care the 'right care' for respiratory medicine in Africa?African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe risks to lung health from workplace hazards remain incompletely understood and may still be overlooked by workers, employers and healthcare professionals. We used an online tool to collect European population-based data relating to workplace exposures, training and lung health.
methodsA targeted industry-specific digital tool, enquiring about the link between respiratory symptoms and work, was made accessible online over a 24-month period.
results22 393 individuals (mean age 43.6 years) responded; 55.7% were female, 46.7% completed in English, 19.9% in Portuguese, 17.8% in French, 10.5% in Dutch and 5% in German. 47% reported nasal symptoms, 42% cough, 21% chest tightness and 20% wheeze. 8412 (37.6%) reported at least one work-related symptom. The use of workplace training (11%) and guidance (17%) to prevent respiratory ill health was uncommon. 980 (5.9%) had changed their job because it had affected their breathing. Increasing age (OR 1.02 per year age increase), completion language (English (OR 0.66), French (OR 0.39)), workplace (bakery (OR 1.64), mine (OR 1.91), sports centre (OR 3.03) and farm (OR 1.77)) and workplace training (OR 0.71) were significantly associated with this outcome. These workers also had more work-related symptoms (p<0.001) and complained of more wheeze (p<0.001) and nasal symptoms (p<0.001). 919 (5.6%) workers with a more likely diagnosis of occupational asthma were more female, had less workplace guidance and training and had co-workers with health complaints.
conclusionThis tool has reached real-world working populations and these findings identify the need for further awareness raising, education and social media interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.