An occupational disease may be defined simply as one that
is caused, or made worse, by exposure at work. While epidemiological studies of populations can determine whether disease is attributable to
a particular type or level of exposure, for an individual patient this
is less clear. Judgments about the patterns of exposure likely to
be causal may be made in medicolegal cases or claims for
compensation but these decisions have little value in determining
the true extent of disease caused by work, not least because of the
absence of reliable exposure data. Information about the incidence and distribution of such diseases is thus far from complete. This review
describes recent advances in the understanding of the patterns and
causes of occupational disease.
|
Summary points
An understanding of the causes of occupational disease requires
both good epidemiology and detailed knowledge of the nature of exposure
and the susceptibility of those exposed
Concern about the effects of workplace exposures on male reproductive
capacity remains great despite the paucity of evidence for hypotheses
about male mediated effects on the fetus
Good evaluative studies of preventive programmes are needed but are in
short supply
Future advances in prevention of chronic non-malignant disease may come
in part through better understanding of the role of psychosocial
factors in the workplace
Despite our best efforts, occupational disease persists and may
contribute significantly to disability in elderly people long past
retirement
|
 |
Methods |
This article is based on published information on occupational
disease from general and specialist medical journals and from epidemiological, psychological, and ergonomic journals, and from my own
ongoing research. A review was carried out of all articles published
since January 1997 in four influential occupational health journals:
Occupational and Environmental Medicine, American Journal of Industrial Medicine, Scandinavian Journal of
Work and Environment and Health, and Annals of
Occupational Hygiene.
 |
Distribution of disease |
Some years ago the then Director of Medical
Services of the UK Health and Safety Executive addressed the need to
have information on the burden of occupational disease in order to set
rational priorities for prevention.1 Of the methods
advocated the most promising was the voluntary reporting of new cases
of occupational disease by specialist physicians. At that time two
occupational disease surveillance schemes were in place, one for
respiratory disease (SWORD; Surveillance of Work Related and
Occupational Respiratory Disease) and one for dermatoses
(EPIDERM).
2 3
In April 1998 these two schemes were
brought together with five other surveillance schemes for occupational
physicians, rheumatologists, consultants in communicable disease,
audiological physicians, and psychiatrists to form the Occupational
Disease Intelligence Network (ODIN) (fig 1). Some 2000 consultant
physicians participate in these schemes providing an estimated total in
excess of 20 000 new cases of occupational disease per year.
Figure 2 shows the distribution of diseases reported by occupational
physicians in the first 2 years of their specialist surveillance scheme
(OPRA; Occupational Physicians Reporting Activity). Of an estimated
21 686 cases, nearly one half were musculoskeletal disorders, a
proportion similar to that self reported by workers.4 Each
specialist physician participating in the Occupational Disease Intelligence Network receives a monthly or quarterly summary of incident cases including the distribution by occupation, industry, and
suspected cause.

View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig 2.
New cases of diseases (n=21 686) reported by
occupational physicians to Occupational Physicians Reporting Activity
during 1996-7
|
|
 |
Causes |
In promoting the practice of occupational health a
simple message may be the most effective
lead, radiation, and asbestos are bad for people, silicosis kills, and occupational disease can be
eliminated by better work practices. Scientific advance, however, comes
only from questioning such a simplistic approach. The hazard of
exposure to a substance may depend on the form the substance takes, the
circumstances of the exposure, or the worker's susceptibility. Thus
silica, classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer
as a human carcinogen may be carcinogenic only in certain industrial
processes perhaps because of external factors affecting its biological
activity or distribution of its polymorphs.5 Asbestos
undoubtedly causes mesothelioma but the likelihood of this depends
on the fibre type. Chrysotile is less likely to cause this cancer than
crocidolite or amosite and then perhaps only when contaminated with
tremolite.6 The carcinogenicity of man made mineral fibres
developed as substitutes for asbestos seem to depend on their
durability in the lung.7 In contrast, ultrafine particles
seem to be much more harmful to the lung than an equivalent mass of
fine particles of the same material8 with the substantial
component of ultrafine particles in environmental9 and
occupational10 air pollution thought to be responsible for increases in cardiovascular mortality. These advances in knowledge have
been achieved by refining information on the nature of the exposure
once the class of hazardous substance has been identified in
epidemiological studies.
Another area in which closer study of exposure has forwarded knowledge
is occupational asthma, where discussion has been not simply about the
nature of the substance that can produce asthma by immunological or
other mechanisms but also the type and concentration of exposure. It
seems, for example, that a single high exposure to a respiratory
irritant may induce reactive airways disease that is clinically similar
to asthma11 and that, for certain chemicals of low
molecular weight, dermal exposure may be sufficient to sensitise the
respiratory tract.12 Extensive work by the group at the
National Heart and Lung Institute in London has shown a clear
exposure-response relation for the development of specific IgE and
asthma caused by the inhalation at work of both inhaled proteins, such
as rat urine protein,13 and low molecular weight chemicals, such as acid anhydrides.14 The maximum risk of
disease is highest in the first 2 years of exposure and is further
increased in people who smoke cigarettes.
The National Heart and Lung Institute group and other groups have also
investigated differences in susceptibility to occupational hazards on
the basis of a person's genotype. Sensitisation to several chemical
causes of asthma is related to specific HLA genotype. Sensitisation to
the acid anhydride tremellitic anhydride15 and to the
complex platinum salt ammonium hexachloroplatinate16 is
increased in those with HLA DR3. Bignon et al showed that asthma caused
by isocyanates was more likely to occur in people with a particular
combination of HLA DQB1 alleles.17 Balboni et al suggested
this increased susceptibility was due to the presence of aspartic acid
in position 57 of the HLA DQB1 molecule (HLA DQB Asp
57).18 Similarly, the risk of developing chronic beryllium disease is greatly increased in those with HLA DPB1 Glu
69.19
In occupational health, the identification of a substance as
hazardous always carries a cost. This cost may be very significant particularly if no safe level of exposure can be achieved and no
effective substitute found. In 1990 it was postulated that paternal
exposure to radiation at work was responsible for the excess of
childhood leukaemias at Seascale in west Cumbria.20 The
implications of this hypothesis, both scientifically and for the
nuclear industry, were considerable, and publication of the hypothesis
led to further epidemiological and experimental work. This work was
reviewed recently by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in
the Environment, which concluded that "paternal preconception
irradiation cannot account for the Seascale childhood leukaemia
excess."21 A review of recent advances in occupational health in 1990 would no doubt have included Gardner et al's paper as a
landmark investigation, which it was, but the more recent rejection of
the hypothesis can be seen as an advance of equal importance.
After Gardner et al's hypothesis, several studies of male mediated
effects on the fetus were undertaken, some of which have now been
published.
22 23
Suggestions about declining sperm counts
have prompted reviews and research funding on the effects of chemicals
on male fertility.
24 25
Despite considerable efforts, no
effects have been found to match the impact of earlier work on
azoospermia in men exposed to dibromochloropropane.26
 |
Prevention |
The aim of occupational health is to prevent disease, and
advances can be measured not simply by knowledge of disease causation but also by the extent to which interventions are shown to be effective
in reducing incidence or severity. With diseases of long latency it
will inevitably be many years before decreased exposures today can
result in less disease,27 but the intervention
for example, the substitution of non-allergenic gloves for those made of
latex
may at times follow so obviously from the identification of a
hazard that reduced incidence is evident from routine voluntary surveillance.28 In general, however, systematic evaluation
of preventive measures in occupational health is seriously lacking, although methods have long been available.29 A recent
attempt to assess, by systematic review, evidence from intervention
studies on the prevention of back pain incidence judged the quality of the studies to be so poor that the reviewers were able to conclude only
that exercise might help in the prevention of back pain but that
training did not.30
 |
Future advances |
Detailed epidemiological studies being carried out
to define, diagnose, and measure musculoskeletal disease and to
characterise exposure should result in a clearer understanding of the
relation between exposure and disease and of factors predicting its
onset.31-36 Reduction in the incidence of such cases will
require systematic investigation not only of physical job demands but
also of those psychosocial factors in the workplace that may mediate
disability and themselves be susceptible to
intervention.37 The role of such psychological factors,
specifically low job control, has been shown in new episodes of heart
disease.38 If well designed intervention studies can show
that reduction in disease results from increasing workers' control
over their jobs this will be a major advance in occupational health.
The elimination of occupational disease, however laudable an aim,
remains unattainable; there are too many areas in which rapid progress
seems unlikely. There is, for example, little advance in determining
safe levels of exposure to respiratory sensitisers or of improving
working conditions sufficiently to prevent asthma. The incidence of
occupational dermatoses, barely mentioned in recent occupational health
journals, continues largely unchecked. In diseases of long latency,
biological markers of past exposure or future disease remain elusive,
seriously limiting the capacity to show that protective measures
proposed today will be effective. Recent work has begun to show the
effects in elderly people of repeated exposures to hazards during their
working life, but this is an area in which few studies have been
reported.39 Large numbers of elderly people, mentally or
physically disabled by work, would represent a very considerable cost
to society, but the recognition and prevention of such late onset
chronic disease does not seem to be at the top of any agenda.