Paul Rothmore

BACKGROUND: The link between heat exposure and adverse health outcomes in workers is well documented and a growing body of epidemiological evidence from various countries suggests that extreme heat may also contribute to increased risk of occupational injuries (OI). Previously, there have been no comparative reviews assessing the risk of OI due to extreme heat within a wide range of global climate zones. The present review therefore aims to summarise the existing epidemiological evidence on the impact of extreme heat (hot temperatures and heatwaves (HW)) on OI in different climate zones and to assess the individual risk factors associated with workers and workplace that contribute to heat-associated OI risks. METHODS: A systematic review of published peer-reviewed articles that assessed the effects of extreme heat on OI among non-military workers was undertaken using three databases (PubMed, Embase and Scopus) without temporal or geographical limits from database inception until July 2020. Extreme heat exposure was assessed in terms of hot temperatures and HW periods. For hot temperatures, the effect estimates were converted to relative risks (RR) associated with 1 °C increase in temperature above reference values, while for HW, effect estimates were RR comparing heatwave with non-heatwave periods. The patterns of heat associated OI risk were investigated in different climate zones (according to Köppen Geiger classification) based on the study locations and were estimated using random-effects meta-analysis models. Subgroup analyses according to workers' characteristics (e.g. gender, age group, experience), nature of work (e.g. physical demands, location of work i.e. indoor/outdoor) and workplace characteristics (e.g. industries, business size) were also conducted. RESULTS: A total of 24 studies published between 2005 and 2020 were included in the review. Among these, 22 studies met the eligibility criteria, representing almost 22 million OI across six countries (Australia, Canada, China, Italy, Spain, and USA) and were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled results suggested that the overall risk of OI increased by 1% (RR 1.010, 95% CI: 1.009-1.011) for 1 °C increase in temperature above reference values and 17.4% (RR 1.174, 95% CI: 1.057-1.291) during HW. Among different climate zones, the highest risk of OI during hot temperatures was identified in Humid Subtropical Climates (RR 1.017, 95% CI: 1.014-1.020) followed by Oceanic (RR 1.010, 95% CI: 1.008-1.012) and Hot Mediterranean Climates (RR 1.009, 95% CI: 1.008-1.011). Similarly, Oceanic (RR 1.218, 95% CI: 1.093-1.343) and Humid Subtropical Climates (RR 1.213, 95% CI: 0.995-1.431) had the highest risk of OI during HW periods. No studies assessing the risk of OI in Tropical regions were found. The effects of hot temperatures on the risk of OI were acute with a lag effect of 1-2 days in all climate zones. Young workers (age < 35 years), male workers and workers in agriculture, forestry or fishing, construction and manufacturing industries were at high risk of OI during hot temperatures. Further young workers (age < 35 years), male workers and those working in electricity, gas and water and manufacturing industries were found to be at high risk of OI during HW. CONCLUSIONS: This review strengthens the evidence on the risk of heat-associated OI in different climate zones. The risk of OI associated with extreme heat is not evenly distributed and is dependent on underlying climatic conditions, workers' attributes, the nature of work and workplace characteristics. The differences in the risk of OI across different climate zones and worker subgroups warrant further investigation along with the development of climate and work-specific intervention strategies.

INTRODUCTION: The relevance of ecosystems to physiotherapy has traditionally been overlooked, despite its potential for health impacts relevant to conditions often managed by physiotherapists. PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to introduce the concept of ecosystem services to physiotherapists, and to discuss how understanding ecosystem services may improve patient care, and population and planetary health. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Physiotherapists with an understanding of ecosystem services may improve patient care by value-adding to management through patient education, empathy, advocacy, and broader population health approaches. Physiotherapists are also well placed to promote the conservation and restoration of ecosystem through participation, advocacy, and the development of public health measures, to the benefit of global sustainability and population health. Further research is required into how physiotherapists currently use nature-based interventions, and the barriers and enablers to their use. To be adequately prepared to meet the challenges that climate change and environmental degradation pose to patient care, population health and health systems, both current and future physiotherapists need to take a broader view of their practice. By including consideration of the potential role of the environment and green space exposure in particular on their patient's health, physiotherapists can ultimately contribute more to population and planetary health.