Health care workers and hospital cleaning workers are at high risk regarding the development of occupational contact dermatitis (OCD).
Objectives
To determine the prevalence and risk factors of OCD in hospital cleaning workers.
Methods
A questionnaire was conducted in 245 cleaning workers in our cross-sectional study. The 236 cleaning workers formed the study group. In workers who were prediagnosed with dermatitis, physical examination was performed in the Dermatology Outpatient Clinic, and when necessary, patch test, skin biopsy, and investigation for total immunoglobulin E were conducted. Patients with definite contact dermatitis were diagnosed as having OCD by using the Mathias criteria.
Results
The prevalence rate of OCD was 21.6% and was significantly higher in female workers (26.4%) when compared with male workers (11.0%). Female sex; low educational level; cleaning the external surfaces of the medical equipment, monitors, and accessories; and mixing the cleaning products and use them while performing cleaning activities were determined as the independent risk factors for OCD.
Conclusions
Occupational contact dermatitis was present at a high rate in hospital cleaning workers. The risk factors should be taken into consideration for prevention of OCD and improvement of the health status of hospital cleaning workers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DiepgenTL. Occupational skin-disease data in Europe. Int Arch Occup Environ Health, 2003; 76:331–338.
2.
BirminghamDJ.Occupational skin diseases. In: DurocherLP, ed. Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety. 4th ed. Geneva: International Labor Organization; 2011. Stellman JM (editor-in-chief).
3.
CoenraadsPJ, DiepgenT, UterW, et al.Epidemiology, incidence and prevalence of notified occupational contact dermatitis. In: FroschPJ, MenneT, LepoittevinJP, eds. Contact Dermatitis. 4th ed. Germany: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidel;. 2006.
4.
SassevilleD.Occupational contact dermatitis. In: DurocherLP, ed. Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety. 4th ed. Geneva: International Labor Organization; 2011. Stellman JM (editor-in-chief).
5.
Sosyal Güvenlik Kurumu SGK İstatistik Yilliklari, 2014.
ProdiA, RuiF, FortinaAB, et al.Healthcare workers and skin sensitization: north-eastern Italian database. Occup Med, 2015; 66(1):72–74.
8.
KadivarS, BelsitoDV. Occupational dermatitis in health care workers evaluated for suspected allergic contact dermatitis. Dermatitis, 2015; 26:177–183.
9.
CarøeT, EbbehøjN, AgnerT. A survey of exposures related to recognized occupational contact dermatitis in Denmark in 2010. Contact Dermatitis, 2014; 70(1):56–62.
10.
SusitaivalP, FlyvholmM-A, MedingB, et al.Nordic Occupational Skin Questionnaire (NOSQ-2002): a new tool for surveying occupational skin diseases and exposure. Contact Dermatitis, 2003; 49:70–76.
AktaşE. Çalişan Çocuklarda Deri İle İlgili Sorunlar Ve İlişkili Faktörler, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi Sağlik Bilimleri Enstitüsü, 2012.
13.
AktasE, EsinMN. A Turkish translation of the Nordic Occupational Skin Questionnaire (NOSQ-2002/LONG) adapted for young workers in high-risk jobs. Int J Dermatol, 2016; 55(3):278–288.
14.
ZockJP. World at work: cleaners. Occup Environ Med, 2005; 62(8):581–584.
15.
BelloA, QuinnMM, PerryMJ, et al.Characterization of occupational exposures to cleaning products used for common cleaning tasks-a pilot study of hospital cleaners. Environ Health, 2009; 8(1):1–11.
16.
LyndeC, ObadiaM, LissG, et al.Cutaneous and respiratory symptoms among professional cleaners. Occup Med, 2009; 59(4):249–254.
17.
MirabelliMC, VizcayaD, MargaritAM, et al.Occupational risk factors for hand dermatitis among professional cleaners in Spain. Contact Dermatitis, 2012; 66(4):188–196.
18.
JohansenJD, Aalto-KorteK, AgnerT, et al.European Society of Contact Dermatitis guideline for diagnostic patch testing—recommendations on best practice. Contact Dermatitis, 2015; 73:195–221.
19.
De CarvalloMG, CalvoB, BenachJ, et al.Assessment of the Mathias criteria for establishing occupational causation of contact dermatitis. Actas Dermosifiliogr, 2012; 103(5):411–421.
20.
JohanssonSG, BieberT, DahlR, et al.Revised nomenclature for allergy for global use: report of the Nomenclature Review Committee of the World Allergy Organization, October 2003. J Allergy Clin Immunol, 2004; 113:832–836.
LiskowskyJ, GeierJ, BauerA. Contact allergy in the cleaning industry: analysis of contact allergy surveillance data of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology. Contact Dermatitis, 2011; 65(3):159–166.
ClemmensenOJ, MennéT, KaaberK, et al.Exposure of nickel and the relevance of nickel sensitivity among hospital cleaners. Contact Dermatitis, 1981; 7(1):14–18.
26.
RuiF, BovenziM, ProdiA, et al.Concurrent sensitization to metals and occupation. Contact Dermatitis, 2012; 67(6):359–366.
27.
DibaVC, ChowdhuryMM, AdiseshA, et al.Occupational allergic contact dermatitis in hospital workers caused by methyldibromo glutaronitrile in a work soap. Contact Dermatitis, 2003; 48:118–119.
28.
GeierJ, LessmannH, MahlerV, et al.Occupational contact allergy caused by rubber gloves—nothing has changed. Contact Dermatitis, 2012; 67:149–156.
29.
DalgardF, Svensson Å, HolmJØ, et al.Self-reported skin morbidity in Oslo. Associations with sociodemographic factors among adults in a cross-sectional study. Br J Dermatol, 2004; 151(2):452–457.
30.
BauerA. Contact dermatitis in the cleaning industry. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol, 2013; 13(5):521–524.
31.
KochP. Occupational contact dermatitis. Recognition and management. Am J Clin Dermatol, 2001; 2(6):353–365.
