Work conditions and occupational morbidity in Latvia

Copyright: Copyright 2012 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.The aim of study was to analyse work conditions and occupational morbidity in Latvia during a 15-year period for recommendations to employment policy programmes. The study included the analysis of the database of occupational risk factor measurements in more than 7000 enterprises and companies performed in period 1995-2010 by the Laboratory of Hygiene and Occupational Diseases of the Institute of Occupational Safety and Environmental Health of Riga Stradins University. The analysis of registered occupational diseases according to the data from the Latvian State Registry of Occupational diseases run by the Centre of Occupational and Radiation Medicine of Pauls Stradins Clinical University Hospital for the same period was performed. Occupational diseases in Latvia are diagnosed and coded in accordance with the International Classification of Diseases. Results of measurements showed that for one third of measured occupational risk factors values exceeded recommended limits. The traditional work risk factors (chemical, physical, biological etc.) have been partly replaced by new risks (ergonomic and psychosocial factors). The results of the study indicated that the following enterprises form a major risk group of non-compliance with legislation regarding occupational health and safety: small enterprises; enterprises of private and non-governmental sectors; enterprises of different industries (construction, metal processing and wood processing). The number of firstly diagnosed occupational diseases and patients has gradually increased. The total number of firstly diagnosed and registered occupational patients per 100,000 employees was 11.2 in 1995 and 140.5 in 2009. The structure of occupational diseases shows musculoskeletal diseases (46.1%) as the leading group of diseases followed by diseases of the nervous system and organs of sense (29.3%), traumatic disorders and intoxications (11.7%).publishersversionPeer reviewe

Recognition of COVID-19 with occupational origin: a comparison between European countries

Objectives: This study aims to present an overview of the formal recognition of COVID-19 as occupational disease (OD) or injury (OI) across Europe. Methods: A COVID-19 questionnaire was designed by a task group within COST-funded OMEGA-NET and sent to occupational health experts of 37 countries in WHO European region, with a last update in April 2022. Results: The questionnaire was filled out by experts from 35 countries. There are large differences between national systems regarding the recognition of OD and OI: 40% of countries have a list system, 57% a mixed system and one country an open system. In most countries, COVID-19 can be recognised as an OD (57%). In four countries, COVID-19 can be recognised as OI (11%) and in seven countries as either OD or OI (20%). In two countries, there is no recognition possible to date. Thirty-two countries (91%) recognise COVID-19 as OD/OI among healthcare workers. Working in certain jobs is considered proof of occupational exposure in 25 countries, contact with a colleague with confirmed infection in 19 countries, and contact with clients with confirmed infection in 21 countries. In most countries (57%), a positive PCR test is considered proof of disease. The three most common compensation benefits for COVID-19 as OI/OD are disability pension, treatment and rehabilitation. Long COVID is included in 26 countries. Conclusions: COVID-19 can be recognised as OD or OI in 94% of the European countries completing this survey, across different social security and embedded occupational health systems

Recognition of COVID-19 with occupational origin: a comparison between European countries

Objectives This study aims to present an overview of the formal recognition of COVID-19 as occupational disease (OD) or injury (OI) across Europe. Methods A COVID-19 questionnaire was designed by a task group within COST-funded OMEGA-NET and sent to occupational health experts of 37 countries in WHO European region, with a last update in April 2022. Results The questionnaire was filled out by experts from 35 countries. There are large differences between national systems regarding the recognition of OD and OI: 40% of countries have a list system, 57% a mixed system and one country an open system. In most countries, COVID-19 can be recognised as an OD (57%). In four countries, COVID-19 can be recognised as OI (11%) and in seven countries as either OD or OI (20%). In two countries, there is no recognition possible to date. Thirty-two countries (91%) recognise COVID-19 as OD/OI among healthcare workers. Working in certain jobs is considered proof of occupational exposure in 25 countries, contact with a colleague with confirmed infection in 19 countries, and contact with clients with confirmed infection in 21 countries. In most countries (57%), a positive PCR test is considered proof of disease. The three most common compensation benefits for COVID-19 as OI/OD are disability pension, treatment and rehabilitation. Long COVID is included in 26 countries. Conclusions COVID-19 can be recognised as OD or OI in 94% of the European countries completing this survey, across different social security and embedded occupational health systems.This publication is based on work from COST Action CA16216 (OMEGA-NET), supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology)

Scaling up strategies of the chronic respiratory disease programme of the European innovation partnership on active and healthy ageing (Action Plan B3: Area 5)

Action Plan B3 of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (EIP on AHA) focuses on the integrated care of chronic diseases. Area 5 (Care Pathways) was initiated using chronic respiratory diseases as a model. The chronic respiratory disease action plan includes (1) AIRWAYS integrated care pathways (ICPs), (2) the joint initiative between the Reference site MACVIA-LR (Contre les MAladies Chroniques pour un VIeillissement Actif) and ARIA (Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma), (3) Commitments for Action to the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing and the AIRWAYS ICPs network. It is deployed in collaboration with the World Health Organization Global Alliance against Chronic Respiratory Diseases (GARD). The European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing has proposed a 5-step framework for developing an individual scaling up strategy: (1) what to scale up: (1-a) databases of good practices, (1-b) assessment of viability of the scaling up of good practices, (1-c) classification of good practices for local replication and (2) how to scale up: (2-a) facilitating partnerships for scaling up, (2-b) implementation of key success factors and lessons learnt, including emerging technologies for individualised and predictive medicine. This strategy has already been applied to the chronic respiratory disease action plan of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing

Is diet partly responsible for differences in COVID-19 death rates between and within countries?

Correction: Volume: 10 Issue: 1 Article Number: 44 DOI: 10.1186/s13601-020-00351-w Published: OCT 26 2020Reported COVID-19 deaths in Germany are relatively low as compared to many European countries. Among the several explanations proposed, an early and large testing of the population was put forward. Most current debates on COVID-19 focus on the differences among countries, but little attention has been given to regional differences and diet. The low-death rate European countries (e.g. Austria, Baltic States, Czech Republic, Finland, Norway, Poland, Slovakia) have used different quarantine and/or confinement times and methods and none have performed as many early tests as Germany. Among other factors that may be significant are the dietary habits. It seems that some foods largely used in these countries may reduce angiotensin-converting enzyme activity or are anti-oxidants. Among the many possible areas of research, it might be important to understand diet and angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (ACE2) levels in populations with different COVID-19 death rates since dietary interventions may be of great benefit.Peer reviewe

Erratum to: Scaling up strategies of the chronic respiratory disease programme of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (Action Plan B3: Area 5).

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s13601-016-0116-9.]

Concepts for the development of person-centred, digitally-enabled, Artificial Intelligence-assisted ARIA care pathways (ARIA 2024)

The traditional healthcare model is focused on diseases (medicine and natural science) and does not acknowledge patients' resources and abilities to be experts in their own life based on their lived experiences. Improving healthcare safety, quality and coordination, as well as quality of life, are important aims in the care of patients with chronic conditions. Person-centred care needs to ensure that people's values and preferences guide clinical decisions. This paper reviews current knowledge to develop (i) digital care pathways for rhinitis and asthma multimorbidity and (ii) digitally-enabled person-centred care (1). It combines all relevant research evidence, including the so-called real-world evidence, with the ultimate goal to develop digitally-enabled, patient-centred care. The paper includes (i) Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA), a two-decade journey, (ii) Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE), the evidence-based model of guidelines in airway diseases, (iii) mHealth impact on airway diseases, (iv) from guidelines to digital care pathways, (v) embedding Planetary Health, (vi) novel classification of rhinitis and asthma, (vi) embedding real-life data with population-based studies, (vii) the ARIA-EAACI strategy for the management of airway diseases using digital biomarkers, (viii) Artificial Intelligence, (ix) the development of digitally-enabled ARIA Person-Centred Care and (x) the political agenda. The ultimate goal is to propose ARIA 2024 guidelines centred around the patient in order to make them more applicable and sustainable