You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Workplace
Original research
Comparing physical work exposures between men and women: findings from 65 281 workers in France
  1. Francesca Wuytack1,
  2. Bradley Evanoff2,
  3. Ann-Marie Dale2,
  4. Fabien Gilbert1,
  5. Marc Fadel3,
  6. Annette Leclerc4,
  7. Alexis Descatha1,5
  1. 1 Irset (Institut de recherche en santé, environnement et travail) - UMR_S 1085, IRSET-ESTER, SFR ICAT, CAPTV CD, Univ Angers, CHU Angers, Inserm, Univ Rennes, EHESP, Angers, Pays de la Loire, France
  2. 2 Division of General Medical Sciences, Washington University in St Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
  3. 3 Inserm U1085 Irset, Ester Unit, University of Angers Faculty of Health, Angers, Pays de la Loire, France
  4. 4 Unité "Cohortes en Population" UMS 011, Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale, Paris, Île-de-France, France
  5. 5 Department of Occupational Medicine, Epidemiology and Prevention, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, New York, USA
  1. Correspondence to Professor Alexis Descatha, Department of Medecine, Irset UMR_S 1085, University of Angers Faculty of Health, Angers, Pays de la Loire 49045, France; Alexis.Descatha{at}inserm.fr

Abstract

Objectives Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are a leading cause of disability and sick leave among workers. Although MSDs are associated with physical exposures, there are gender differences in the prevalence and related disability. This study aimed to compare self-reported physical work exposures by gender for people within the same occupational group.

Methods We used cross-sectional data from 65 281 asymptomatic workers aged 18–69 years from the CONSTANCES cohort study (France). We compared 27 physical exposures between men and women in the same occupational groups (‘Profession et Categorie Sociale’ group) using Mann-Whitney U tests.

Results Men and women performing the same job often reported different levels of exposure. 38 of 365 occupational groups had a gender difference in reported exposure for 10 or more of 27 physical exposures, with men reporting higher exposures in 79% of these jobs. Women reported higher exposures in nursing and other healthcare professions. The probability that a random man had an exposure value higher than a random woman varied widely, from 8% to 92%, and was highly dependent on occupational groups and the specific exposure.

Conclusions Men and women working in the same jobs reported different physical exposures for some jobs and some exposures. Further research should further define and explore these reported differences to improve prevention and research.

  • epidemiology
  • occupational health
  • environmental exposure
  • musculoskeletal system

Data availability statement

No data are available. The data of the CONSTANCES cohort are protected by our national regulatory agency (‘Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés’). However, the CONSTANCES cohort is ‘an open epidemiological laboratory’ and access to study protocols and data is available on justified request.

https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2023-108839

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    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.

    Data availability statement

    No data are available. The data of the CONSTANCES cohort are protected by our national regulatory agency (‘Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés’). However, the CONSTANCES cohort is ‘an open epidemiological laboratory’ and access to study protocols and data is available on justified request.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors AD contributed to conception, funding, acquisition and project administration and acts as the guarantor. MF, BE, A-MD and AL contributed to methodology. FG and FW contributed to analyses. FW contributed to writing—original draft. AD, MF, BE, A-MD and AL contributed to writing—review and editing. All authors approved the final draft.

    • Funding This project was part of the ‘TEC-TOP project’ which was funded by a regional public fund of the Pays-de-la-Loire Region, Angers Loire Metropole, University of Angers and CHU Angers. The CONSTANCES Cohort Study is an ‘Infrastructure nationale en Biologie et Santé’ and benefits from a grant from the French National Agency for Research (ANR-11-INBS-0002). CONSTANCES is also partly funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), AstraZeneca, Lundbeck and L’Oréal through Inserm-Transfert.

    • Competing interests Authors are paid by their institution, AD and MF is also paid as editor of the Archives des Maladies professionnelles et de l’Environnement (Elsevier). AD and FW supported by TEC-TOP Grant, AD received other funds for research outside of work (Mat-O-Covid, Soignances).

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.