Documents Jones, Rachael M. 3 results

"National standards for surgical respirators and masks are written and enforced to protect healthcare workers from particles and microorganisms such as Severe Acute Respriatory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). In addition to the ability to filter particles (e.g. filtration efficiency, FE), the standards address breathability (e.g. differential pressure), how well the mask seals to a worker's face (e.g. fit test), the level of protection from a fluid splash, and other factors. Standards used in the USA, European Union (EU), and China were compared with respect to testing methods and certification criteria. Although there are substantial similarities in standards for respirators, such as surgical N95, FFP2, and KN95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs), there are differences with respect to who performs that testing and fit-testing requirements that influence certification. There is greater variation in test methods between countries for surgical (USA) or medical (EU and China) masks than for FFRs. Surgical/medical masks can be certified to different levels of protection. The impact of the similarities and differences in testing methods and certification criteria on FFR and mask performance for protecting healthcare workers from SARS-CoV-2 are discussed, as well as the value of a new standard in the EU for testing fabrics for masks used by the public. Health and safety personnel in healthcare settings must understand the differences between standards so that they can select respirators and masks that provide appropriate protection for healthcare workers."

"The COVID-19 pandemic spurred some regulators in the USA to require occupational health and safety programs to prevent COVID-19 transmission in workplaces. The objective of this study was to describe such state and federal regulations enacted between January 2020 and January 2022. Regulations, including emergency temporary standards (ETS) and permanent standards, were identified through a search of Nexis Uni and Bloomberg Law and review of US OSHA websites and the Federal Register. Full texts were reviewed for regulatory scope, hazard and exposure definitions, determination of exposure or risk levels, and control strategies. Four state (California, Michigan, Virginia, and Oregon) and two federal regulations were identified. All regulations described respiratory aerosols as the primary source of SARS-CoV-2 and recognized person-to-person transmission by droplet, airborne, and contact routes. Only the US OSHA ETS for healthcare explicitly stated that inhalation of respiratory particles was the most likely method of COVID-19 transmission. The Virginia, Michigan, and Oregon regulations described different categories of risk defined by exposure frequency and duration or specific workplace activities. California described exposure as places and times when employees come into contact or congregate with other people. The US OSHA ETS for healthcare described exposure as involving close contact with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients. While all of the state regulations required strategies from across the hierarchy, only the Virginia regulations specifically incorporated the hierarchy of controls. Only the California and Virginia regulations explicitly linked control strategies to the transmission route, while Virginia demarcated control strategies by risk level. Oregon linked risk level to occupancy levels and physical distancing requirements and referred to the use of a layered approach for transmission control. The US OSHA ETS for healthcare defined droplet and airborne precautions but made no mention of the hierarchy of controls or risk levels. Respirators were discussed in most of the regulations. The first Michigan regulation explicitly required respirators appropriate to exposure risk. The California regulations noted that respirators protect the wearer while face coverings protect people around the wearer. These regulations offer insights for a permanent US OSHA infectious disease regulation, such as the need to consider a range of transmission modes including near- and far-range aerosol inhalation, endemic and novel pathogens, workplaces beyond healthcare settings, factors that contribute to exposure and risk, the hierarchy of controls, the role of vaccination, and the importance of written exposure assessment and infection prevention plans."

"While sex is a biological attribute associated with physical and physiological features, gender refers to socially constructed roles, behaviors, expressions, and identities. On the biological side, males and females differ concerning hormonal and anatomical differences, and It is therefore plausible occupational exposure may act differently on males and females. In contrast, gender may influence the work organization, work environment conditions and exposures, and employment conditions, leading people of different genders to perform different jobs or job tasks, be exposed to different stressors, and work under different employment terms.
Traditionally, occupational exposures have been assessed without considering how exposures may differ by sex or gender. Early research focused on occupations that primarily employed men. However, women have entered occupations historically dominated by men, leading to emerging exploration of gender differences in exposure. Some women-dominated occupations have become the focus of intensive research activity. In the Annals, the number of articles including sex and gender issues has increased dramatically over time, with only two published prior to 1980, and 70 in the 2010s, and with a special issue dedicated to Gender, Work, and Health in 2018 where the editors highlighted a need to improve assessment of gender and sex identities to allow for more nuanced knowledge to elucidate the role of work organization and contextual factors about gender, work exposures, and health.
Females, on average, have different body dimensions than males, which affects how well workplaces and personal protective equipment (PPE) fit females, and there remains a need for further improvements to ensure that females are protected equally well. On the other hand, females tend to comply more frequently with PPE requirements than men highlighting the need for gender-specific initiatives in order to increase PPE performance and compliance.
In conclusion, there is still work to do in order to fill in the existing knowledge gap with regard to sex, gender, and work, but there are promising initiatives and the field is progressing."