Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Evaluating interventions aimed at reducing occupational exposure to latex and rubber glove allergens
  1. Susan Turner1,
  2. Roseanne McNamee2,
  3. Raymond Agius1,
  4. Stephen Mark Wilkinson3,
  5. Melanie Carder1,
  6. Susan J Stocks1
  1. 1Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  2. 2Department of Biostatistics, Health Methodology Research Group, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  3. 3Department of Dermatology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Susan Turner, Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health, 4th Floor, C Block, Ellen Wilkinson Building, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK; susan.m.turner{at}


Objective Concerns over occupational exposures to blood-borne viruses resulted in increased protective glove use; consequentially latex allergy became a hazard for some occupational groups. Interventions aimed at managing this problem included substitution measures (eg, non-powdered/non-latex gloves), but such changes may not occur simultaneously across occupational sectors. This study evaluated whether the incidence of occupational dermatoses fell after interventions aiming to reduce exposure to ‘latex and rubber glove allergens’ (‘latex’) were introduced, and whether these interventions were more effective for healthcare workers (HCWs), compared with non-HCWs.

Methods Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) comparing cases reported to EPIDERM (a UK-wide surveillance scheme) during post versus pre-intervention periods were calculated, both where ‘latex’ was cited and for cases associated with other exposures (‘controls’).

Results Among HCWs, cases of contact urticaria and allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) where ‘latex’ was cited showed significant downward trends post-intervention, with IRRs of 0.72, 95% CI; 0.52 to 1.00 and 0.47, 95% CI; 0.35 to 0.64 respectively. For HCWs, this fall in ‘latex’ associated ACD was significantly greater (p=0.02) than for other exposures (‘controls’) IRR=0.85, 95% CI; 0.57 to 1.28, and greater than that among non-HCWs (IRR 0.75, 95% CI; 0.61 to 0.93). Increases over time were seen for irritant contact dermatitis (ICD) reporting for HCWs, both for cases associated with ‘latex’ (IRR 1.47, 95% CI: 1.02 to 2.13) and for other exposures (‘controls’) IRR 1.36, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.76, but not for non-HCWs.

Conclusions A reduction in overall ACD, particularly in HCWs, coincided with interventions aimed at managing workplace contact dermatoses associated with ‘latex’ exposure. A coincidental rise in ICD reporting is also important, both for hand care and for infection control strategies.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.