Search results

Influenza remains a significant threat to public health, yet there is significant uncertainty about the routes of influenza transmission from an infectious source through the environment to a receptor, and their relative risks. Herein, data pertaining to factors that influence the environmental mediation of influenza transmission are critically reviewed, including: frequency, magnitude and size distribution and virus expiration, inactivation rates, environmental and self‐contact rates, and viral transfer efficiencies during contacts. Where appropriate, two‐stage Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis is used to characterize variability and uncertainty in the reported data. Significant uncertainties are present in most factors, due to: limitations in instrumentation or study realism; lack of documentation of data variability; or lack of study. These analyses, and future experimental work, will improve parameterization of influenza transmission and risk models, facilitating more robust characterization of the magnitude and uncertainty in infection risk.

Abstract
While sex is a biological attribute associated with physical and physiological features, gender refers to socially constructed roles, behaviors, expressions, and identities. On the biological side, males and females differ concerning hormonal and anatomical differences, and It is therefore plausible occupational exposure may act differently on males and females. In contrast, gender may influence the work organization, work environment conditions and exposures, and employment conditions, leading people of different genders to perform different jobs or job tasks, be exposed to different stressors, and work under different employment terms.
Traditionally, occupational exposures have been assessed without considering how exposures may differ by sex or gender. Early research focused on occupations that primarily employed men. However, women have entered occupations historically dominated by men, leading to emerging exploration of gender differences in exposure. Some women-dominated occupations have become the focus of intensive research activity. In the Annals, the number of articles including sex and gender issues has increased dramatically over time, with only two published prior to 1980, and 70 in the 2010s, and with a special issue dedicated to Gender, Work, and Health in 2018 where the editors highlighted a need to improve assessment of gender and sex identities to allow for more nuanced knowledge to elucidate the role of work organization and contextual factors about gender, work exposures, and health.
Females, on average, have different body dimensions than males, which affects how well workplaces and personal protective equipment (PPE) fit females, and there remains a need for further improvements to ensure that females are protected equally well. On the other hand, females tend to comply more frequently with PPE requirements than men highlighting the need for gender-specific initiatives in order to increase PPE performance and compliance.
In conclusion, there is still work to do in order to fill in the existing knowledge gap with regard to sex, gender, and work, but there are promising initiatives and the field is progressing.

Abstract
National standards for surgical respirators and masks are written and enforced to protect healthcare workers from particles and microorganisms such as Severe Acute Respriatory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). In addition to the ability to filter particles (e.g. filtration efficiency, FE), the standards address breathability (e.g. differential pressure), how well the mask seals to a worker's face (e.g. fit test), the level of protection from a fluid splash, and other factors. Standards used in the USA, European Union (EU), and China were compared with respect to testing methods and certification criteria. Although there are substantial similarities in standards for respirators, such as surgical N95, FFP2, and KN95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs), there are differences with respect to who performs that testing and fit-testing requirements that influence certification. There is greater variation in test methods between countries for surgical (USA) or medical (EU and China) masks than for FFRs. Surgical/medical masks can be certified to different levels of protection. The impact of the similarities and differences in testing methods and certification criteria on FFR and mask performance for protecting healthcare workers from SARS-CoV-2 are discussed, as well as the value of a new standard in the EU for testing fabrics for masks used by the public. Health and safety personnel in healthcare settings must understand the differences between standards so that they can select respirators and masks that provide appropriate protection for healthcare workers.

National standards for surgical respirators and masks are written and enforced to protect healthcare workers from particles and microorganisms such as Severe Acute Respriatory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). In addition to the ability to filter particles (e.g. filtration efficiency, FE), the standards address breathability (e.g. differential pressure), how well the mask seals to a worker's face (e.g. fit test), the level of protection from a fluid splash, and other factors. Standards used in the USA, European Union (EU), and China were compared with respect to testing methods and certification criteria. Although there are substantial similarities in standards for respirators, such as surgical N95, FFP2, and KN95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs), there are differences with respect to who performs that testing and fit-testing requirements that influence certification. There is greater variation in test methods between countries for surgical (USA) or medical (EU and China) masks than for FFRs. Surgical/medical masks can be certified to different levels of protection. The impact of the similarities and differences in testing methods and certification criteria on FFR and mask performance for protecting healthcare workers from SARS-CoV-2 are discussed, as well as the value of a new standard in the EU for testing fabrics for masks used by the public. Health and safety personnel in healthcare settings must understand the differences between standards so that they can select respirators and masks that provide appropriate protection for healthcare workers.

AbstractInfections among health‐care personnel (HCP) occur as a result of providing care to patients with infectious diseases, but surveillance is limited to a few diseases. The objective of this study is to determine the annual number of influenza infections acquired by HCP as a result of occupational exposures to influenza patients in hospitals and emergency departments (EDs) in the United States. A risk analysis approach was taken. A compartmental model was used to estimate the influenza dose received in a single exposure, and a dose–response function applied to calculate the probability of infection. A three‐step algorithm tabulated the total number of influenza infections based on: the total number of occupational exposures (tabulated in previous work), the total number of HCP with occupational exposures, and the probability of infection in an occupational exposure. Estimated influenza infections were highly dependent upon the dose–response function. Given current compliance with infection control precautions, we estimated 151,300 and 34,150 influenza infections annually with two dose–response functions (annual incidence proportions of 9.3% and 2.1%, respectively). Greater reductions in infectious were achieved by full compliance with vaccination and IC precautions than with patient isolation. The burden of occupationally‐acquired influenza among HCP in hospitals and EDs in the United States is not trivial, and can be reduced through improved compliance with vaccination and preventive measures, including engineering and administrative controls.

Models of influenza transmission have focused on the ability of vaccination, antiviral therapy, and social distancing strategies to mitigate epidemics. Influenza transmission, however, may also be interrupted by hygiene interventions such as frequent hand washing and wearing masks or respirators. We apply a model of influenza disease transmission that incorporates hygiene and social distancing interventions. The model describes population mixing as a Poisson process, and the probability of infection upon contact between an infectious and susceptible person is parameterized by p. While social distancing interventions modify contact rates in the population, hygiene interventions modify p. Public health decision making involves tradeoffs, and we introduce an objective function that considers the direct costs of interventions and new infections to determine the optimum intervention type (social distancing versus hygiene intervention) and population compliance for epidemic mitigation. Significant simplifications have been made in these models. However, we demonstrate that the method is feasible, provides plausible results, and is sensitive to the selection of model parameters. Specifically, we show that the optimum combination of nonpharmaceutical interventions depends upon the probability of infection, intervention compliance, and duration of infectiousness. Means by which realism can be increased in the method are discussed.