BACKGROUND: Welders are exposed to many known and suspected carcinogens. An excess lung cancer risk among welders is well established, but whether this is attributable to welding fumes is unclear. Excess risks of other cancers have been suggested, but not established. We investigated welding cancer risks in the population-based Canadian Census Health and Environmental Cohort. METHODS: Among 1.1 million male workers, 12,845 welders were identified using Standard Occupational Classification codes and followed through retrospective linkage of 1991 Canadian Long Form Census and Canadian Cancer Registry (1992–2010) records. Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using Cox proportional hazards models based on estimated risks of lung cancer, mesothelioma, and nasal, brain, stomach, kidney, and bladder cancers, and ocular melanoma. Lung cancer histological subtypes and risks by industry group and for occasional welders were examined. Some analyses restricted comparisons to blue-collar workers to minimize effects of potential confounders. RESULTS: Among welders, elevated risks were observed for lung cancer [HR: 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.03–1.31], mesothelioma (HR: 1.78, 95% CI: 1.01–3.18), bladder cancer (HR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.15–1.70), and kidney cancer (HR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.01–1.67). When restricted to blue-collar workers, lung cancer and mesothelioma risks were attenuated, while bladder and kidney cancer risks increased. CONCLUSION: Excess risks of lung cancer and mesothelioma may be partly attributable to factors including smoking and asbestos. Welding-specific exposures may increase bladder and kidney cancer risks, and particular sources of exposure should be investigated. Studies that are able to disentangle welding effects from smoking and asbestos exposure are needed.
Asbestos ; Brain ; Carcinogens ; Censuses* ; Classification ; Cohort Studies* ; Humans ; Kidney ; Kidney Neoplasms ; Lung Neoplasms ; Male ; Melanoma ; Mesothelioma ; Occupational Diseases ; Occupational Exposure ; Proportional Hazards Models ; Retrospective Studies ; Smoke ; Smoking ; Stomach ; Urinary Bladder ; Urinary Bladder Neoplasms ; Welding

BACKGROUND: Outdoor workers are at risk of high ultraviolet radiation exposure, and may have difficulty using sun protection. The objectives were to determine the prevalence of sun protection behaviors in a sample of outdoor construction workers, and to assess which factors predict better sun protection practices. METHODS: Participants were recruited via construction unions. Workers answered a questionnaire on demographics, skin cancer risk, sun protection behaviors, and job. Sun protection behavior scores (from questions on sunscreen use, sleeved shirt, hat, shade seeking, sunglasses) were calculated by converting Likert-scale answers to scores from 0 to 4, and taking the mean (separately for work and leisure). Determinants of sun protection behavior scores were examined for work and leisure using generalized linear models. RESULTS: Seventy-seven workers had complete questionnaire data (participation 98%). Sun protection behaviors used most often were hats (79% often/always) and sleeved shirts (82% often/always); least prevalent were shade-seeking (8% often/always) and sunscreen (29% often/always). For both work and leisure scores, the strongest predictor was skin type, with fairer-skinned individuals having higher sun protection behavior scores. Workers had higher scores at work than on weekends. Workplaces that required hats and sleeved shirts for safety purposes had higher protection behavior scores. CONCLUSION: This high-participation rate cohort helps characterize sun protection behaviors among outdoor workers. Workers practiced better sun protection at work than on weekends, suggesting that workplace policies supportive of sun protection could be useful for skin cancer prevention in the construction industry.
Cohort Studies ; Construction Industry ; Demography ; Leisure Activities* ; Linear Models ; Occupational Health ; Prevalence ; Radiation Exposure ; Skin ; Skin Neoplasms ; Solar System*

BACKGROUND: Selecting priority occupational carcinogens is important for cancer prevention efforts; however, standardized selection methods are not available. The objective of this paper was to describe the methods used by CAREX Canada in 2015 to establish priorities for preventing occupational cancer, with a focus on exposure estimation and descriptive profiles. METHODS: Four criteria were used in an expert assessment process to guide carcinogen prioritization: (1) the likelihood of presence and/or use in Canadian workplaces; (2) toxicity of the substance (strength of evidence for carcinogenicity and other health effects); (3) feasibility of producing a carcinogen profile and/or an occupational estimate; and (4) special interest from the public/scientific community. Carcinogens were ranked as high, medium or low priority based on specific conditions regarding these criteria, and stakeholder input was incorporated. Priorities were set separately for the creation of new carcinogen profiles and for new occupational exposure estimates. RESULTS: Overall, 246 agents were reviewed for inclusion in the occupational priorities list. For carcinogen profile generation, 103 were prioritized (11 high, 33 medium, and 59 low priority), and 36 carcinogens were deemed priorities for occupational exposure estimation (13 high, 17 medium, and 6 low priority). CONCLUSION: Prioritizing and ranking occupational carcinogens is required for a variety of purposes, including research, resource allocation at different jurisdictional levels, calculations of occupational cancer burden, and planning of CAREX-type projects in different countries. This paper outlines how this process was achieved in Canada; this may provide a model for other countries and jurisdictions as a part of occupational cancer prevention efforts.
Canada ; Carcinogens ; Occupational Exposure ; Occupational Health ; Resource Allocation

OBJECTIVES: To describe the time perspective of return to work and the factors that facilitate and hinder return to work in a group of survivors of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHODS: Retrospective semi-structured telephone survey 2 to 3 years after hospitalization with 84 employed Dutch ACS-patients from one academic medical hospital. RESULTS: Fifty-eight percent of patients returned to work within 3 months, whereas at least 88% returned to work once within 2 years. Two years after hospitalization, 12% of ACS patients had not returned to work at all, and 24% were working, but not at pre-ACS levels. For all ACS-patients, the most mentioned categories of facilitating factors to return to work were having no complaints and not having signs or symptoms of heart disease. Physical incapacity, co-morbidity, and mental incapacity were the top 3 categories of hindering factors against returning to work. CONCLUSION: Within 2 years, 36% of the patients had not returned to work at their pre-ACS levels. Disease factors, functional capacity, environmental factors, and personal factors were listed as affecting subjects' work ability level.
Acute Coronary Syndrome ; Heart Diseases ; Hospitalization ; Humans ; Retrospective Studies ; Return to Work ; Survivors ; Telephone