Working with Chemotherapy Could Double Miscarriage Risk for Nurses
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
FigureExposure to antineoplastic drugs on the job increased the risk of spontaneous abortion in nurses by 94 percent, according to a new study published online ahead of print in the American Journal of Obstetrical Gynecology (doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.12.010). “We felt it was important to publish these results and again to bring up this issue that even though this is a well-known reproductive hazard, that nurses are still reporting exposure at levels that are showing effects on their pregnancies,” the study's lead author, Christina Lawson, PhD, an epidemiologist at the National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH), said in a telephone interview. Previous studies have suggested the same conclusions that the NIOSH and Harvard University research team came to, she said, but this was the first trial adequately powered to look at confounding factors, including age, other work exposures, parity, and hours worked per week. And, the increase miscarriage risk persisted. The team used data collected by the Nurses' Health Study II, which included 7,482 pregnant nurses fitting the research criteria. The group evaluated the association between the rate of spontaneous abortion and reported individual exposure to antineoplastic drugs, as well as sterilizing agents and x-rays. Pregnancies that ended involuntarily before 20 weeks of gestation were considered “spontaneous abortion.” All three exposures increased the rate of spontaneous abortion after adjusting for the factors noted above. Handling antineoplastic drugs increased risk by 94%, sterilizing agents increased risk by 39%, and x-rays increased risk by 22%, although Lawson said this last finding was considered to be only borderline significant. The link between miscarriage and handling antineoplastic drugs is not surprising. These drugs are designed to target rapidly proliferating cancer cells, Lawson explained. “They're designed to find cells that are rapidly growing and multiplying and kill those. If you think of a developing fetus, they behave the same way that a tumor cell would, as far as growing rapidly, and that's why they're particularly dangerous during pregnancy.” This research will add support to guidelines cautioning any health care workers who might be exposed to these drugs to take caution. “It's not just nurses who may be exposed, but also pharmacists and people who may be working in manufacturing of antineoplastic drugs,” she said. NIOSH published a report in 2010, listing precautionary recommendations for health care professionals on safe handling of antineoplastic and other hazardous drugs. But, Lawson said, more needs to be done to raise awareness of these hazards, so that health care workers know what they need to do to protect themselves. “Keeping an open dialogue between employers and employees about reproductive status is important so that women feel comfortable letting their supervisors know as soon as they think they might be pregnant, so they can be aware, and try to do their best to protect themselves during that vulnerable time,” she said. Catherine Coleman, Assistant Director of the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center Health Communication Core notes that the next generation of the Nurses' Health Study—NHS3—is now recruiting 100,000+ nurses and nursing students with the goal of advancing knowledge about the effects of nurses' work life on their health. Female RNs, LPNs, and nursing students age 20-46 living in the US or Canada are eligible to join. “Participation takes about one hour per year and is entirely online,” she noted in a comment on the Online-First version of this article. “NHS3 also will continue the study's research into the effects of lifestyle on health as well as important new issues like environment, fertility, hormonal preparations, and adolescent diet.” Further information is available at nhs3.org
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».