Objective To explore the applicability of four risk assessment methods in evaluating occupational health risks associated with low-level benzene homologues exposure in key work sites within the automobile manufacturing industry. Methods The work sites (paint mixing and spray painting) with exposure to benzene homologues among six automobile manufacturing enterprises in Guangdong Province were selected as the study subjects using the judgmental sampling method. Qualitative risk assessment, exposure index method, non-carcinogenic risk assessment, and the International Council on Mining and Metals risk rating method were independently applied to evaluate the occupational health risks of benzene homologues at these work sites. Accuracy, consistency, and correlation of the four methods were compared. Results The air levels of benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethylbenzene in work sites of paint mixing and spray painting across all six enterprises met national occupational health standards. The median ratios of occupational exposure limits for benzene and toluene in spray painting site were higher than those in paint mixing site (0.017 vs 0.010, P<0.05). Using this ratio as a reference for evaluating method accuracy, the non-carcinogenic risk assessment method could distinguish paint mixing site from spray painting site in terms of risk level (P<0.05), whereas the other three methods could not (both P>0.05). The result of consistency testing revealed that the Kappa coefficients between the four methods ranged from -0.13-0.26, indicating poor consistency. The result of Spearman correlation analysis showed that the non-carcinogenic risk assessment and exposure index methods had higher correlation with occupational exposure limits ratios (Spearman correlation coefficients were 0.501 and 0.656, respectively, all P<0.05). Conclusion Occupational health risk assessment can serve as a supplementary tool to evaluate the hazard level of key work sites in the automobile manufacturing industry. Non-carcinogenic risk assessment shows higher accuracy.

To study the prevalence of depression, anxiety, and insomnia among social workers during the prolonged battle against the COVID-19 pandemic and explore the associated risk factors.

ObjectiveTo investigate the menstrual conditions of women infected with COVID-19 in Shanghai and analyze the influencing factors. MethodsFrom December 2022 to March 2023， menstrual data from 281 women infected with COVID-19 in Shanghai were collected with a questionnaire survey， including usual menstrual characteristics， the most recent menstrual period post-infection， symptoms of infection， and medication usage. According to the crossover period between the menstrual period and the infection period of the respondents， the samples were divided into two groups for comparative analysis： those whose menstrual and infection periods overlapped （positive group） and those whose menstruation started after conversion to virus-negative （negative conversion group）. ResultsAmong the 281 respondents， 196 （65.8%） experienced menstrual changes. Among them， 145 （51.6%） had changes in menstrual volume， color and texture， and 109 （38.8%） had changes in menstrual duration or cycle. Decreased menstrual volume （22.1%）， darker color （23.49%）， thicker texture （21.0%）， increased blood clots （16.7%）， and prolonged duration （21.8%） were observed in both groups. The rate of changes in menstrual volume， color， and texture was higher in the positive group （56.8%， 69/110） than that in negative group （37.3%， 76/171） （P<0.05）. Regarding the menstrual cycle changes， the rate of early onset was higher in the positive group （14.5%） compared to the negative conversion group （3.5%）（P<0.05）， while the rate of delayed menstruation was higher in the negative conversion group （25.1%） than that in the positive group （5.5%） （P<0.05）. Correlation analysis showed a weak association between sore throat and menstrual changes （r=0.154， P<0.05）. ConclusionSome women infected with COVID-19 experience short-term changes in their menstrual conditions， characterized by reduced volume， darker color， thick texture， increased clots， and prolonged menstrual duration， reflecting a pathogenesis of blood stasis. Menstruation during the infection period tends to occur earlier， while delayed menstruation is more prevalent at post-conversion.

ObjectiveTo explore the impact of the interaction between occupational and non-occupational noise exposure on the risk of high-frequency hearing loss (HFHL) in noise-exposed workers. Methods A total of 602 male workers with normal hearing, engaged in an automobile manufacturing company between 2016 and 2018, were selected as the study subjects using the retrospective cohort study method. Pure-tone audiometry and questionnaire surveys were conducted on the workers. The Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model were used to analyze the interaction between occupational and non-occupational noise exposure and the risk of HFHL in these workers. Results The prevalence of HFHL of the workers was 34.1% in 2020, without any cases of speech frequency hearing loss. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis result showed that the risk of HFHL increased in workers with excessive national occupational noise exposure intensity, self-reported noisy living environments, and both excessive national occupational noise exposure intensity and self-reported noisy living environments (all P<0.01). The results of the Cox proportional hazards model showed that the combined effect of excessive national occupational noise exposure intensity and self-reported noisy living environments [relative risk (RR)=2.40, P<0.01] was higher than the individual effects of excessive national occupational noise exposure intensity (RR=2.09, P<0.01) and self-reported noisy living environments (RR=2.39, P<0.01). There was an antagonistic effect between excessive national occupational noise exposure intensity and self-reported noisy living environments (interaction index <1.00). Conclusion Both occupational and non-occupational noise exposure can increase the risk of HFHL in noise-exposed workers, and there is an interaction between them.

This study used the Appraisal of Guidelines Research & Evaluation-Health Systems （AGREE-HS） to demonstratively compare 34 global coronavirus disease-2019 （COVID-19） health systems guidance documents （HSGs） and 6 World Health Organization （WHO） standard HSGs. The comparison involved topic， participants， methods， recommendations， and implementability， with the aim of exploring the characteristics of emergency HSGs. The results showed that the emergency HSGs had an overall average score of 49%， with topic having the highest score， recommendations having the second highest score， and participants having the lowest score. The standard HSGs had an overall average score of 79%， with high scores in all items. The emergency HSGs had lower scores in participants， methods， recommendations， and implementability than the standard HSGs （P<0.001）， while the COVID-19 emergency HSGs developed by the WHO had higher score in topic than the standard HSGs （P<0.05）. Compared with those released by countries， the COVID-19 emergency HSG developed by the WHO showed superiority in all items and overall scores （P=0.000 2）. This indicates that emergency HSGs， represented by the COVID-19 emergency HSG， place equal emphasis on topic and recommendations as standard HSGs but have low requirements in terms of expert participation， evidence support， and comprehensive consideration in the time- and resource-limited context. They have the characteristics of prominent topics， clear purposes， orientation to demand， keeping up with the latest evidence， flexible adjustment， and timeliness， emphasizing immediate implementation effects， weakening long-term effects， and focusing on comprehensive benefits. Additionally， developers， types， and report completeness are important influencing factors.

The scientific rigor and efficacy of methodologies employed in drafting emergency health systems guidance documents （HSGs） are paramount in guaranteeing the quality， reliability， and applicability of HSGs. According to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation- Health Systems （AGREE-HS）， we demonstratively assessed both global coronavirus disease-2019 （COVID-19） emergency HSGs and World Health Organization （WHO） standard HSGs to uncover the core attributes of methods employed in the development of emergency HSGs. Our evaluation findings revealed that across the five assessment items of AGREE-HS， methods in the 34 emergency HSGs evaluated ranked third， trailing behind topic and recommendations. Notably， criterion 2 （the best available and most contextually relevant evidence is considered） received the highest score， whereas criterion 5 （evidence of cost and cost-effectiveness of the potential options is described） scored the lowest. Compared with the WHO standard HSGs， the COVID-19 emergency HSGs exhibited low scores in methods （P<0.05）， which was reflected in nine criteria （P<0.05）， especially in criteria 1 （systematic and transparent methods are used to identify and review the evidence） and 9 （systematic and transparent methods are used to agree upon the final recommendations）. Among the COVID-19 emergency HSGs， that developed by the WHO achieved higher scores in eight out of all nine criteria， excluding criterion 8 （P<0.05）. The clinically relevant emergency HSGs had higher scores in the criteria 3 （the evidence base is current） and 8 （the rationale behind the recommendations is clear） than other types of emergency HSGs. Collectively， the methodology for developing emergency HSGs， represented by the COVID-19 emergency HSG， underscores evidence orientation and integrates expert consensus. It is characterized by adaptable evidence synthesis strategies， streamlined evidence review protocols， and contextual relevance， all of which are influenced by external， internal， and implementation-specific factors.

The formulation method of emergency health systems guidance （HSG） is crucial， directly impacting the efficiency and effectiveness of responses in emergencies. A scientifically sound， systematic， and easily executable guidance document can assist health institutions at all levels in quickly coordinating resources， standardizing emergency response processes， and safeguarding public health. This study employed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation for Health Systems （AGREE-HS） to analyze the characteristics of participants in developing emergency HSGs represented by the COVID-19 emergency HSG. The results showed that in the 34 HSGs included in this study， the item participants received the lowest score. Within this item， criterion 1 （diversity of development group） scored the highest （3.13±1.55）， while criterion 5 （prevention of funding agency influence） scored the lowest （1.21±0.47）. There were differences （P<0.05） in measures taken to mitigate funding agency influence between the six standard HSGs developed by the World Health Organization （WHO） and the four emergency HSGs. Additionally， differences （P<0.05） existed in the development group members， background， conflicts of interest， and preventive measures between the six WHO standard HSGs and the 34 emergency HSGs， as well as between the HSGs developed by the WHO and those developed by countries. The participants in developing emergency HSGs were influenced by various factors， including limited time for guideline development， modes of participation， scarce evidence， and uncertainties in expected outcomes. There is a need to downplay extensive requirements concerning the composition of group members， institutional diversity， and conflicts of interest， emphasizing the roles of key participants like government officials and professionals who can provide rapid， practical guidance in emergency situations.

Recommendations， consensus-based syntheses of the best available evidence， constitute the core content of a guideline. This paper analyzes the characteristics of emergency health systems guidance documents （HSGs）， represented by the coronavirus disease-2019 （COVID-19） emergency HSG， regarding the item "recommendations" and its eight evaluation criteria in the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation for Health Systems （AGREE-HS）. The World Health Organization （WHO） standard HSGs were used as reference to explore the characteristics of emergency HSGs that are different from non-emergency HSGs. The results showed that the “recommendations” scored second after “topic” among the five items. Criterion 7 relating to operability scored higher than others among the eight criteria， and criterion 3 dealing with ethical principles scored lower than other criteria. Compared with the standard HSGs， the emergency HSGs showed decreased scores （P<0.05） of the item recommendations and the criteria of this item except criterion 4 concerning equity promotion. Among the HSGs with different developers， those developed by the WHO had higher （P<0.05） scores of recommendations than nationally developed HSGs， as evidenced by criterion 4， criterion 5 involving acceptability to and alignment with sociocultural and political interests， and criterion 8 for updating plans. The HSGs regarding global or country strategy scored higher （P<0.05） on criterion 2 relating to comprehensiveness than those involving specific guidance on clinical or material issues. Overall， the emergency HSGs， represented by the COVID-19 emergency HSGs， differ from the standard HSGs in a number of ways in terms of their recommendations. Emergency HSGs have more condensed content and weaker articulation of expected outcomes. They incline to put more emphasis on updating plans， rather than comprehensiveness or integrative requirements in terms of ethics， equity， and sociocultural and political interests.

The clear definition of the topic in emergency health systems guidance （HSG） ensures the relevance， scientific rigor， and practicality of the guidance， providing a clear direction and a framework for a rapid and effective public health response. This study used the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation-Health Systems （AGREE-HS） to demonstratively evaluate the global COVID-19 emergency HSGs and World Health Organization （WHO） standard HSGs， aiming to explore the characteristics of topic in emergency HSGs. The results showed that in the 34 HSGs included， the item topic received the highest score. Specifically， criterion 4 relating to relevant and applicable factors scored the highest （5.59）， while criterion 3 concerning the prioritization of health system challenges scored the lowest （2.76）. There were differences （P<0.05） in criterion 1 between standard HSGs and overall emergency HSGs， as well as between WHO and national emergency HSGs. Criterion 3 also showed differences （P<0.05） between standard HSGs and emergency HSGs， as well as between WHO and national emergency HSGs. Criterion 4 displayed differences （P<0.000 1） between WHO and national emergency HSGs. No differences were observed in intra-group or inter-group comparisons of different emergency HSG subcategories （P<0.05）. Overall， emergency HSGs represented by the COVID-19 emergency HSG focus on detailing the challenges faced by the health system， including the natures of challenges， affected populations， and other relevant and applicable factors， while aligning with stakeholder concerns. The prioritization is downplayed， with emphasis placed on rapid responses to and flexible handling of urgent issues. Influenced by factors such as the evidence base， phase timing， and effectiveness， the topic setting shows variations.

Guidance implementation acts as a bridge between theory and practice，enabling the rapid expansion of their impact and application. This study demonstratively evaluated emergency health systems guidance documents （HSG），represented by the COVID-19 emergency HSG，based on the item implementability of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-Health Systems （AGREE-HS），aiming to explore the characteristics of implementability in emergency HSG. The evaluation results indicated that the COVID-19 emergency HSG had a low mean score in implementability，which ranked just above the item participants. Criterion 2 （costs and resource considerations for implementing the recommendations） received the highest mean score of 4.29，while criterion 9 （systematic evaluation of implementation） received the lowest mean score of 1.34. The emergency HSG formulated by the World Health Organization（WHO） and those formulated by various countries showed no difference （P=0.114） in criterion 1 （barriers and facilitators to implementation） but had differences （P<0.05） regarding the average item scores and the scores of the remaining criteria. The WHO standard HSG had high overall scores and had differences （P<0.05） in both the mean item scores and the scores of the nine criteria when compared with the emergency HSG. The global/national HSG showed differences in scores of criterion 1 （barriers and facilitators to implementation） compared with the both clinically relevant HSG and material support HSG （P<0.05）. Emergency HSG prioritized considerations of implementation costs，resources，and flexibility in terms of implementability，while de-emphasizing aspects such as stakeholder opinions，dissemination strategies，and evaluation of HSG. This may be attributed to the context in which emergency HSG are formulated，given the inherent flexibility and variability of emergency health events. The developers should comprehensively consider the needs and characteristics related to the implementability of emergency HSG during the formulation process.