BMJ open · 2023
Pregnancy, obstetrical and neonatal outcomes in women exposed to physician-related occupational hazards: a scoping review.
МетаанализСтатьяScoping ReviewНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Marsters Candace M, Stafl Lenka, Bugden Sarah, Gustainis Rita, Nkunu Victoria, Reimer Renee, Fletcher Sarah, Smith Stephanie, Bruton Joe Moss, Hyde Christine, Dance Erica, Ruzycki Shannon M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Evidence is needed to guide organisational decision making about workplace accommodations for pregnant physicians. Our objective was to characterise the strengths and limitations of current research examining the association between physician-related occupational hazards with pregnancy, obstetrical and neonatal outcomes.
DESIGN: Scoping review.
DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL/ EBSCO, SciVerse Scopus and Web of Science/Knowledge were searched from inception to 2 April 2020. A grey literature search was performed on 5 April 2020. The references of all included articles were hand searched for additional citations.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: English language citations that studied employed pregnant people and any 'physician-related occupational hazards', meaning any relevant physical, infectious, chemical or psychological hazard, were included. Outcomes included any pregnancy, obstetrical or neonatal complication.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Physician-related occupational hazards included physician work, healthcare work, long work hours, 'demanding' work, disordered sleep, night shifts and exposure to radiation, chemotherapy, anaesthetic gases or infectious disease. Data were extracted independently in duplicate and reconciled through discussion.
RESULTS: Of the 316 included citations, 189 were original research studies. Most were retrospective, observational and included women in any occupation rather than healthcare workers. Methods for exposure and outcome ascertainment varied across studies and most studies had a high risk of bias in data ascertainment. Most exposures and outcomes were defined categorically and results from different studies could not be combined in a meta-analysis due to heterogeneity in how these categories were defined. Overall, some data suggested that healthcare workers may have an increased risk of miscarriage compared with other employed women. Long work hours may be associated with miscarriage and preterm birth.
CONCLUSIONS: There are important limitations in the current evidence examining physician-related occupational hazards and adverse pregnancy, obstetrical and neonatal outcomes. It is not clear how the medical workplace should be accommodated to improve outcomes for pregnant physicians. High-quality studies are needed and likely feasible.
DESIGN: Scoping review.
DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL/ EBSCO, SciVerse Scopus and Web of Science/Knowledge were searched from inception to 2 April 2020. A grey literature search was performed on 5 April 2020. The references of all included articles were hand searched for additional citations.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: English language citations that studied employed pregnant people and any 'physician-related occupational hazards', meaning any relevant physical, infectious, chemical or psychological hazard, were included. Outcomes included any pregnancy, obstetrical or neonatal complication.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Physician-related occupational hazards included physician work, healthcare work, long work hours, 'demanding' work, disordered sleep, night shifts and exposure to radiation, chemotherapy, anaesthetic gases or infectious disease. Data were extracted independently in duplicate and reconciled through discussion.
RESULTS: Of the 316 included citations, 189 were original research studies. Most were retrospective, observational and included women in any occupation rather than healthcare workers. Methods for exposure and outcome ascertainment varied across studies and most studies had a high risk of bias in data ascertainment. Most exposures and outcomes were defined categorically and results from different studies could not be combined in a meta-analysis due to heterogeneity in how these categories were defined. Overall, some data suggested that healthcare workers may have an increased risk of miscarriage compared with other employed women. Long work hours may be associated with miscarriage and preterm birth.
CONCLUSIONS: There are important limitations in the current evidence examining physician-related occupational hazards and adverse pregnancy, obstetrical and neonatal outcomes. It is not clear how the medical workplace should be accommodated to improve outcomes for pregnant physicians. High-quality studies are needed and likely feasible.