S Lines

Publications of S Lines

• The incidence of occupational skin disease as reported to The Health and Occupation Reporting (THOR) network between 2002 and 2005.

  Authors: S Turner, M Carder, M van Tongeren, R McNamee, S Lines, L Hussey, A Bolton, M H Beck, M Wilkinson, R Agius

  The British journal of dermatology. 11/2007; 157(4):713-22.

  BACKGROUND: Estimated incidence rates for occupational skin disease in the U.K. are provided by voluntary surveillance schemes involving dermatologists and occupational physicians. These rates allowBACKGROUND: Estimated incidence rates for occupational skin disease in the U.K. are provided by voluntary surveillance schemes involving dermatologists and occupational physicians. These rates allow monitoring of occupational dermatoses, and intervention planning aimed at reducing workplace risks. OBJECTIVES: To summarize occupational skin disease reported to The Health and Occupation Reporting (THOR) network (2002-2005), and to provide baseline information for comparison with future studies of occupational skin disease in the U.K. and beyond. METHODS: Incidence rates for occupational dermatoses were calculated using THOR data as numerators, and Labour Force Survey data or information from the most recent U.K. survey on provision of occupational physician services as denominators. RESULTS: In the U.K. (2002-2005) the average annual incidence rate of work-related skin disease reported to THOR by dermatologists was 91.3 [95% confidence interval (CI) 81.8-101.1] per million, and by occupational physicians was 316.6 (95% CI 251.8-381.3) per million. Most reports were of contact dermatitis: dermatologists 68.0 (95% CI 59.8-76.2) per million, occupational physicians 259.7 (95% CI 200.8-318.6) per million. CONCLUSIONS: Information produced by THOR is an important source for calculating incidence rates of occupational skin disease. A range of reporting groups should also be used when building an overall picture of occupational skin disease incidence in the U.K.

• Physicians' beliefs in the assessment of work attribution when reporting musculoskeletal disorders.

  Authors: Y Chen, R Agius, R McNamee, S Turner, S Taylor, L Fulluck, S Lines, C Roberts, L Hussey

  Occupational medicine (Oxford, England). 07/2005; 55(4):298-307.

  BACKGROUND: There is considerable uncertainty about work-relatedness and musculoskeletal disorders in general, and it is also not clear how physicians decide whether work has caused a disorder in anBACKGROUND: There is considerable uncertainty about work-relatedness and musculoskeletal disorders in general, and it is also not clear how physicians decide whether work has caused a disorder in an individual patient. AIMS: To investigate physicians' beliefs about assessment of occupational attribution for work-related musculoskeletal disorders. METHODS: A questionnaire survey was sent to 526 occupational physicians and 248 rheumatologists on: characteristics of cases seen, assessment of work attribution, definition of work-relatedness and threshold for case reporting. Continuous variables were analysed by mean, standard deviation, an independent two-sample t-test and the Mann-Whitney test. Mean and median values were calculated and Spearman's rank test was applied to ranked data. RESULTS: Questionnaires were completed by 68% occupational physicians and 64% rheumatologists. Both groups of physicians believed that 'history of onset in relation to workplace changes' and 'symptoms consistent with work exposure' were the most important factors suggesting work attribution. They considered that the most important objective of a reporting scheme was detection of trends in disease incidence and that the most suitable criteria for defining work-relatedness was the probability that exposure at work 'more likely than not' caused the condition (mean 0.73; SD=0.17), in a perceived likelihood scale (0-1). CONCLUSION: There was a strong agreement between occupational physicians and rheumatologists on questions about work-relatedness and musculoskeletal disorders. The level of probability for concluding work-relatedness has been quantified.

• Work-related infectious disease reported to the Occupational Disease Intelligence Network and The Health and Occupation Reporting network in the UK (2000-2003).

  Authors: S Turner, S Lines, Y Chen, L Hussey, R Agius

  Occupational medicine (Oxford, England). 07/2005; 55(4):275-81.

  BACKGROUND: Infectious diseases remain an important cause of self-reported work-related illness, with socio-economic consequences, including sickness absence. Reporting of infectious disease byBACKGROUND: Infectious diseases remain an important cause of self-reported work-related illness, with socio-economic consequences, including sickness absence. Reporting of infectious disease by occupational and specialist physicians is an important tool in the investigation of occupationally related infections and is relevant in their management. AIMS: To examine the reporting of cases of infectious disease by occupational and specialist physicians to schemes collecting data on occupational ill-health. METHODS: Cases of infectious disease reported by occupational and specialist physicians to the UK based schemes, Occupational Disease Intelligence Network (ODIN) and The Health and Occupation Reporting network (THOR), from 2000 to 2003 were analysed by reporting patterns, diagnosis, single case or outbreak reporting and industry. RESULTS: The total number of estimated cases of infectious disease reported to ODIN and THOR from 2000 to 2003 was 5606; 74.9% cases were diarrhoeal disease, and 11.1% scabies. The majority (81.4%) of cases were reported in SIDAW, where the participation rate for reporters was 55%. Reporting rates were much higher in OPRA, SWORD and EPIDERM (ranging from 86 to 96%). The most frequently reported industrial sectors were social care (39.5%) and health (29.4%); while the manufacture of chemical products contributed 4.3% overall, but 33.8% to estimated cases in OPRA. CONCLUSIONS: Despite limitations related to under reporting, the occupational and specialist physician schemes in ODIN and THOR provide data that may be used to look at patterns of case reporting for occupational ill-health, including infectious disease. The reporting schemes also provide an important means of alerting peers about potential novel causes, precipitating factors, or industrial sectors associated with occupational disease.