Occupational diseases: The prototype of all syndemics?

Sara  De Matteis; Emily  Mendenhall

doi:10.59400/ephr2120

Occupational diseases: The prototype of all syndemics?

Sara De Matteis Department of Health Sciences, University of Milan, Milan 20142, Italy; NHLI, Imperial College London, London SW3 6LR, UK
Emily Mendenhall Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, Washington DC, 20057, USA

Article ID: 2120

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59400/ephr2120

Keywords: syndemics; occupational health; public health; occupational diseases; socioeconomic factors; social sciences

Abstract

Labour laws play critical roles in people’s lives but rarely are they associated with health risk factors or outcomes. Yet, labour represents, directly and indirectly, the key driver of our health, as dramatically confirmed by the COVID-19 pandemic. This viewpoint discusses how syndemic thinking can explain a link between labour laws and occupational health. Syndemics are synergistic factors among epidemics, which provide a structured way to think about what conditions emerge epidemiologically, interact in the body, and are driven by shared social, structural, political, or ecological factors. Thinking syndemically about these conditions can explain the ways in which legal determinants, such as safety, work hours, wages, and leave, may be associated with poor health, particularly among those lower in social hierarchies. Workplaces can be a critical space for social and financial mobility as well as an opportunity to intervene in the major risk factors that promote poor health.

References

[1]Singer M, Bulled N, Ostrach B, et al. Syndemics and the biosocial conception of health. Lancet. 2017; 389(10072): 941-50. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30003-X

[2]Mendenhall E, Kohrt BA, Logie CH, et al. Syndemics and clinical science. Nature Medicine. 2022; 28(7): 1359-1362. doi: 10.1038/s41591-022-01888-y

[3]Marmot MG, Rose G, Shipley M, et al. Employment grade and coronary heart disease in British civil servants. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. 1978; 32(4): 244-249. doi: 10.1136/jech.32.4.244

[4]The Lancet. Syndemics: health in context. Lancet. 2017; 389(10072): 881. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30640-2

[5]Mendenhall E, Kim AW, Panasci A, et al. A mixed-methods, population-based study of a syndemic in Soweto, South Africa. Nature Human Behaviour. 2021; 6(1): 64-73. doi: 10.1038/s41562-021-01242-1

[6]Bhatia R, Gaydos M, Yu K, et al. Protecting Labor Rights: Roles for Public Health. Public Health Reports®. 2013; 128(6_suppl3): 39-47. doi: 10.1177/00333549131286s307

[7]GBD 2016 Occupational Risk Factors Collaborators. Global and regional burden of disease and injury in 2016 arising from occupational exposures: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Occup Environ Med. 2020; 77(3): 133-141. doi: 10.1136/oemed-2019-106008

[8]Ettner SL, Grzywacz JG. Workers’ perceptions of how jobs affect health: A social ecological perspective. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2001; 6(2): 101-113. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.6.2.101

[9]Rhodes S, Beale S, Daniels S, et al. Occupation and SARS-CoV-2 in Europe: a review. European Respiratory Review. 2024; 33(173): 240044. doi: 10.1183/16000617.0044-2024

[10]De Matteis S. COVID-19: are not all workers ‘essential’? Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2021; 78(5): 305-306. doi: 10.1136/oemed-2020-107272

[11]Lemogne C, Pitron V. Shedding light on the work burden of long COVID. The Lancet Regional Health - Europe. 2023; 31: 100678. doi: 10.1016/j.lanepe.2023.100678

[12]Masters R, Anwar E, Collins B, et al. Return on investment of public health interventions: a systematic review. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2017; 71(8): 827-834. doi: 10.1136/jech-2016-208141

Published

2025-03-21

How to Cite

De Matteis, S., & Mendenhall, E. (2025). Occupational diseases: The prototype of all syndemics?. Environment and Public Health Research, 3(1), 2120. https://doi.org/10.59400/ephr2120

Download Citation

Issue

Vol. 3 No. 1 (2025)

Section

Perspective

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Context/Purpose: The urban ecosystem of Akanda behind the airport of the capital city of Libreville in Gabon, harbors diverse and dense mosquito larval habitats and hotspots for malaria and arboviruses transmission. To effectively conduct vector control, it is imperative to adopt an integrated approach by adding biolarvicides to the toolbox. The main objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of a biolarvicide under laboratory and field conditions. Methods: In Gabon, this current pilot and preliminary study sought to test the efficacy of the biolarvicide VectorBac® Water dispersable Granule (WG) (VBG) during the rainy season period (March to May 2024) under field and laboratory conditions following the 2005 World Health Organisation protocol. Results: For the bioassay of VBG, in the laboratory, the required dose to kill 88% and 100% of the larvae in rearing cups was 0.001 g/mL and 0.01 g/mL respectively. Under field conditions, the percentage larval density reduction irrespective of the microhabitat type ranged from 90 to 100% and the mosquito larval density reduction between test and control groups in the field differed statistically (X2=34; p = 0.026). Conclusion: The larvae from Akanda tested under field and laboratory conditions were very sensitive to the standard dose recommended by the manufacturer after 24 hrs post-treatment with VBG. This pilot study provides baseline information that is required to conduct a longitudinal study to evaluate the residual effect of VBG in different ecological settings in Gabon.