OBJECTIVES: This study aims to assess workers' lifetime occupational pesticide exposure and examine the relationship with neurobehavioral health.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted on 158 pesticide-exposed and 176 non-exposed workers. To collect historical exposure and job tasks, a questionnaire and an occupational history interview were used. Pesticide exposure was measured in a subgroup of workers via inhalation and skin contact. The total pesticide intake of each worker was assessed using inhalation and dermal exposure models. CANTAB® computerised neurobehavioral performance assessments were used.
RESULTS: The participants' mean age was 31 (8) years. Pirimiphos-methyl (median = 0.569 mg/m3, Interquartile range [IQR] = 0.151, 0.574) and permethrin (median = 0.136 mg/m3, IQR = 0.116, 0.157) had the highest measured personal inhalation concentrations during thermal spraying. The estimated total lifetime pesticide intake for exposed workers ranged from 0.006 g to 12800 g (median = 379 g and IQR = 131, 794 g). Dermal exposure was the predominant route of pesticide intake for all workers. Compared to controls, workers with high lifetime pesticide intake had lower Match to Sample Visual (adjusted B = -1.4, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = -2.6, 0.1), Spatial Recognition Memory (adjusted B = -3.3, 95% CI = -5.8, 0.8), Spatial Span (SSP) (adjusted B = -0.6, 95% CI = -0.9, 0.3) scores. Workers with low pesticide intake performed worse than controls (adjusted B = -0.5, 95% CI = -0.8, -0.2) in the SSP test, but scored higher in the Motor Screening test (adjusted B = 0.9, 95% CI = 0.1, 1.6). Higher Paired Associates Learning test scores were observed among higher (adjusted B = 7.4, 95% CI = 2.3, 12.4) and lower (adjusted B = 8.1, 95% CI = 3, 13.2) pesticide intake groups. There was no significant difference between the Reaction Time and Pattern Recognition Memory tests with lifetime pesticide intake after adjusting for confounders.
CONCLUSION: Pesticide exposure has been linked to poorer neurobehavioral performance. As dermal exposure accounts for a major fraction of total intake, pesticide prevention should focus on limiting dermal exposure.
Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at (10.1007/s11069-021-04613-z).
METHOD: This cross-sectional study was conducted among pre-clinical medical and dental students using convenience sampling. Questions regarding sociodemographic profile and responses to the Smartphone Addiction Scale Short Version (SAS-SV) and Depression, Anxiety and Stress Score questionnaire (DASS-21) were collected. Multiple logistic regression testing was used to analyse the factors associated with smartphone addiction.
RESULTS: We invited 409 pre-clinical medical and dental students to participate voluntarily, resulting in a response rate of 80.2%. The prevalence of high-risk smartphone addiction among the participants was 47.9%. Male participants, participants who used smartphones mainly for social media, and participants with depressive symptoms were more likely to have a high risk of smartphone addiction. Medical students, participants who spent less than 3 hours per day on a smartphone, and participants who used smartphones for education-related activities were less likely to have a high risk of smartphone addiction.
CONCLUSION: Smartphone addiction prevalence among pre-clinical medical and dental students was high. Therefore, the authorities should overcome this problem by implementing early measures.
OBJECTIVE: Thus, this study aimed to evaluate their perception of face mask wearing during COVID-19 and its contributing factors.
METHODOLOGY: A total of 1024 respondents, aged ≥ 18 years, participated in this online cross-sectional survey from October 2021 to December 2021. The Face Mask Perception Scale (FMPS) was used to measure their perceptions.
RESULTS: Most of the respondents perceived wearing a face mask as uncomfortable. Our findings also revealed statistically significant differences and a small effect (f2 = 0.04) in which respondents who were concerned about being infected by the virus perceived face mask wearing appearance positively (B = - 0.09 units of log-transformed, 95% CI = - 0.15, - 0.04), whereas married respondents perceived it negatively (B = 0.07 units of log-transformed, 95% CI = 0.03, 0.09). There were no statistically significant differences in other domains of FMPS.
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, discomfort was a major complaint. Marital status and fear of COVID-19 infection affected their perceptions. The public health implications of these findings highlight the importance of addressing discomfort and societal perceptions, particularly those influenced by factors such as marital status and COVID-19 experience, to promote widespread acceptance and consistent usage of face masks, which is crucial in mitigating the spread of COVID-19.