
==== Front
Occup Environ Med
Occup Environ Med
oemed
oem
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
1351-0711
1470-7926
BMJ Publishing Group BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR

39168602
oemed-2024-109451
10.1136/oemed-2024-109451
Systematic Review
1506
Gender and sex differences in occupation-specific infectious diseases: a systematic review
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0393-6280
Biswas Aviroop 12
Tiong Maggie 1
Irvin Emma 1
Zhai Glenda 3
Sinkins Maia 4
Johnston Heather 5
Yassi Annalee 6
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8286-4563
Smith Peter M 17
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5376-7489
Koehoorn Mieke 8
1 Institute for Work & Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
2 University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
3 Western University Faculty of Health Sciences, London, Ontario, Canada
4 McGill University Faculty of Science, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
5 McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
6 Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
7 Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
8 School of Population and Public Health, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Correspondence to Dr Aviroop Biswas, Institute for Work & Health, Toronto, ON M5G 1S5, Canada; abiswas@iwh.on.ca
8 2024
21 8 2024
81 8 425432
26 1 2024
27 7 2024
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Occupational infectious disease risks between men and women have often been attributed to the gendered distribution of the labour force, with limited comparative research on occupation-specific infectious disease risks. The objective of this study was to compare infectious disease risks within the same occupations by gender. A systematic review of peer-reviewed studies published between 2016 and 2021 was undertaken. To be included, studies were required to report infectious disease risks for men, women or non-binary people within the same occupation. The included studies were appraised for methodological quality. A post hoc power calculation was also conducted. 63 studies were included in the systematic review. Among high-quality studies with statistical power (9/63), there was evidence of a higher hepatitis risk for men than for women among patient-facing healthcare workers (HCWs) and a higher parasitic infection risk for men than for women among farmers (one study each). The rest of the high-quality studies (7/63) reported no difference between men and women, including for COVID-19 risk among patient-facing HCWs and physicians, hepatitis risk among swine workers, influenza risk among poultry workers, tuberculosis risk among livestock workers and toxoplasmosis risk among abattoir workers. The findings suggest that occupational infectious disease risks are similarly experienced for men and women within the same occupation with a few exceptions showing a higher risk for men. Future studies examining gender/sex differences in occupational infectious diseases need to ensure adequate sampling by gender.

Sexual and Gender Disorders
Communicable diseases
Occupational Health
Risk assessment
http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000182 WorkSafeBC 2021 Innovation at Work Grant (RS2021-IG16 Biswas) special-featureunlocked
==== Body
pmcWHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC

There is a recognition that gender/sex differences in occupational exposures are largely attributed to the gendered nature of occupational participation in the labour market, with limited comparative research on occupation-specific risks. Previous systematic reviews on gender/sex differences in occupational exposures have not focused on infectious disease risks, with the limited research suggesting that more is known about gender/sex differences in non-communicable occupational disease exposures than in infectious disease occupational exposures.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

This systematic review focuses on synthesising the evidence from studies that compared occupational infectious disease differences by gender within the same occupation to remove the effects of the gendered labour market. Furthermore, we summarise findings according to methodological study quality and post hoc statistical power to inform the strength of evidence.

HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICY

The comparison of occupation-specific infectious disease risks for men, women or non-binary people can inform the need for gender-focused or gender-neutral occupational health and safety strategies in specific occupations. More high-quality studies with adequate recruitment are required to better understand the nature and extent of occupational infectious disease risks between men and women.

Introduction

Worldwide, an estimated 320 000 workers die annually from occupational infectious diseases.1–3 Moreover, lost productivity due to sickness absenteeism caused by infectious diseases is a major workplace and societal concern.4 Historically, the risk of infectious diseases was concentrated in specific occupations, that is, healthcare workers (HCWs), workers in contact with animals, outdoor workers, laboratory workers and refuse workers who have the highest risk of infection from a variety of pathogens.1 The COVID-19 pandemic also highlighted an increased risk of infection for previously low-risk occupations, primarily those that required working with the public or working in close proximity to others (eg, retail trade, food services and processing).5 6 The COVID-19 pandemic also highlighted differences in risk experienced within the population by sociodemographic characteristics.

Sex, referring to biological differences, and gender, referring to differences shaped by social and cultural circumstances, can affect the health of men and women in different ways (hereinafter the interconnected dimensions of gender and sex will also be referred to as ‘men and women’ unless otherwise specified). Studies have reported that women are more exposed to infectious diseases through caregiving occupations (eg, nurses, home support workers) while men have greater exposure to infectious agents through outdoor occupations (eg, agriculture, fishing).7–9 Segregation of work tasks within the same occupation by gender/sex can also result in differing doses or duration of infectious pathogen exposure.10 Biological factors such as differences in immunity to infections between women and men as a consequence of immunological pathways affected by sex hormones, as well as consequences of differential expression of X-chromosome-encoded genes on immune responses to pathogens can also result in differential susceptibility of infectious disease.11 12 Furthermore, the design of personal protective equipment, for example, facepiece respirators, has typically been based on average male anthropometric data, leaving many workers with inadequate protection from infectious diseases, especially among women.13

Previous systematic reviews on gender/sex differences in occupational diseases have not focused on infectious diseases14 15 or have not adequately included infectious disease-related search terms.16 17 We know of one other systematic review of infectious disease risks associated with occupational exposures, but in this review of 242 studies, there was no examination of the differences in exposure or outcome using a gender/sex lens.1 The limited research suggests that more is known about gender/sex differences in non-communicable occupational exposures to physical and psychosocial working conditions than in infectious disease occupational exposures.16 However, there has been a large swell in recent occupational health research related to the COVID-19 pandemic, which necessitates an update of the evidence to include COVID-19 studies with a focus on infectious disease. Focusing on studies that compare exposure differences for men, women or non-binary people within the same occupation is important from a primary prevention standpoint as it removes the effects of the gendered nature of occupational participation in the labour market in general as an explanation.18 However, task-based differences within occupations may still persist.10

The objective of this systematic review was to synthesise evidence from research studies to compare risks of occupation-specific infectious disease by gender.

Methods

This systematic review used a process developed by the Cochrane Collaboration that was adopted by the Institute for Work & Health (IWH) Systematic Review Programme19 and IWH’s stakeholder collaboration model.20 The review adheres to the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.21 The protocol was not preregistered.

Identifying the research question

A meeting was held with a committee of stakeholder advisors comprised of eight individuals with diverse and knowledgeable perspectives on occupational health and safety and gender/sex-based health research (union representatives at the national level and representing municipal services, nurses and agricultural workers; the president of an industry association and a representative from the review funder: the Workers’ Compensation Board of British Columbia). Stakeholder advisors provided input on the research question to ensure it was relevant and answerable within the project time frame, helped refine the search strategy and recommended studies relevant to the review.

Identifying relevant studies

The MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase+Embase Classic (Ovid) and APA PsycINFO (Ovid) electronic databases were searched for peer-reviewed studies published from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2021 (the date when the article retrieval was completed). The inclusion of studies was not limited by language. The search strategies were created by a research librarian (MT). After the initial search strategy was developed, the reviewers consulted with the stakeholder advisors to discuss the relevance of the terms and identify any missing terms. As controlled vocabularies differ significantly in the electronic databases, search terms were customised to each database as needed. The search terms used for the MEDLINE database are provided in online supplemental table 1. In addition to the formal search strategy, the reviewers and stakeholders were also solicited for studies that were at the preprint stage, in-press (accepted by a journal but not yet published) or articles that were not captured by the formal search strategy but could be important for the review. Reference lists of included studies and relevant review articles were also scanned for references not previously captured. EndNote was used to store references from all literature searches. Duplicates were removed and references were loaded into DistillerSR, an online systematic review management software designed specifically for the screening, quality appraisal and data extraction phases of a systematic review.

10.1136/oemed-2024-109451.supp1 Supplementary data

Study selection

The following criteria were applied at the title/abstract and full-review stages: Using a P.I.C.O. structure (population, intervention/exposure, context and outcome), the population of interest were workers aged 18 years to retirement, and who were described as employed at a workplace at the time occupational exposure was assessed. The intervention/exposure of interest was exposure for men, women and non-binary people, the context was the same/similar occupation and outcomes were occupational infectious diseases. Original studies using case–control, cross-sectional, and retrospective and prospective cohort study designs were accepted. Studies also had to provide estimates of risk by men and women within an occupation to be included. Exclusion criteria included the general populations or where there is no clarity as to if a working population is sampled, non-primary studies, an infectious disease not attributed to occupational exposure and no sex/gender comparison provided. The search returned only studies treating gender as a simplistic binary definition, and therefore, an exploration of differences between non-binary people was not possible.

Regular meetings were held between the core review team to monitor the review process, address questions and troubleshoot difficulties in assessing the studies. Non-English language studies were examined by the reviewers and individuals who were fluent in the language. Reviewers were not blinded to the authors of the studies and did not appraise studies that they consulted on, authored or coauthored. Standardised relevance screening forms were created and piloted in DistillerSR software to ensure that the reviewers uniformly applied the inclusion/exclusion criteria.

The selection of relevant studies took place in two stages. In the first stage, the titles and abstracts of identified references were reviewed based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria. In the second stage, full-text articles were retrieved for those studies that (1) were assessed by two reviewers as meeting the inclusion criteria or (2) there was insufficient information based on the title and abstract to determine relevance. Many studies included both patient-facing HCWs (eg, physicians, clinical nurses and medical technicians) and non-patient-facing HCWs (eg, janitorial custodians and clerical staff). The review team made the decision to exclude studies that combined both patient-facing and non-patient-facing HCWs in their analysis as this was not helpful to the investigation of occupational task-specific gender/sex differences.

Due to the large number of studies retrieved by the search, the artificial intelligence (AI) feature of the DistillerSR software was used, pairing a human reviewer with the AI feature to double-review each reference at the title/abstract stage of relevance screening. This required ‘training’ the AI on a portion of studies reviewed by two humans at both stages so that the AI ‘learnt’ which types of studies were relevant to the review before ‘running’ the AI as a second reviewer to the single human reviewer. Disagreements between the human and AI features were reviewed by a third (human) reviewer until consensus was achieved.

Quality appraisal

Studies were appraised for methodological quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies, cross-sectional and case–control studies.22 The scale assesses studies from three broad perspectives: the selection of the study groups; the comparability of the groups and the determination of either the exposure or outcome of interest. The instrument is scored by awarding a point for each answer. Possible points are 4 points for selection (5 points for cross-sectional studies), 2 points for comparability and 3 points for outcomes. With the NOS tool, each of the study components was summed for a score ranging from 0 to 9, and up to 10 for cross-sectional studies, with those studies rating 0–2 appraised as low quality, 3–5 as fair quality and 6–9/10 as high quality. A pilot test of the NOS quality assessment forms was completed to ensure reviewers consistently interpreted them. A 10% sample of eligible studies was double reviewed by the review team to ensure good agreement23; conflicts were resolved by discussion. Once consensus was reached on the reviewing process, the remaining studies were reviewed by individual reviewers for quality appraisal. Review team members did not appraise studies that they consulted on, authored or coauthored.

Data extraction

A data extraction form was created in the DistillerSR software based on input from review team members. The following information was extracted from studies: the last name of the lead author and year the study was published, study location, study design, main occupation of participants, main occupational disease outcome/exposure, the data source, the sample size and proportion of women, the main findings and statistics relevant to outcome/exposure differences between men/males and women/females, and the study’s interpretation of the findings.

The data extraction form also incorporated the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines to examine the extent to which sex and gender were considered by study authors.24 The form adapted SAGER criteria on whether the research question(s) or hypothesis/es make reference to gender and/or sex, or relevant groups or understand a gendered phenomenon such as masculinity; whether the literature review cites prior studies that support the existence (or lack) of significant differences between women and men or males and females; and, if the literature review points to the extent to which past research has taken gender or sex into account.

Evidence synthesis

Effect estimates were extracted from studies that stratified or matched their results for men and women by occupation, prioritising estimates from statistical models adjusted for confounders if multiple estimates were available. If studies reported separate effect estimates for men and women, the research team compared whether the effect estimates indicated a greater risk in one group compared with the other, or if there was no statistically significant risk difference, based on the difference in means estimated at the 5% level.25 26 This approach has the advantage of specifically comparing if estimates for men and women are different from each other—consistent with the objectives of the review—rather than qualitatively assessing if an estimate is statistically significant in one group but not the other, which can be due to a variety of reasons (eg, low power in one group but not the other) and does not indicate if differences are present between men and women per se.27 28 Studies that did not reach statistically significant differences but that reported meaningful practical differences (ie, Cohen’s d≥0.2 or ≥60% higher or lower odds),14 were identified as having no comparative difference between men and women. Studies that provided a qualitative reporting of differences for men and women by occupation were also included and narratively reported.

The review team conducted a post hoc power analysis to determine if each study was adequately powered to detect a difference between men and women using equations described by Rosner29 where the number of men and women, the baseline incidence of infectious disease for each group and an alpha equal to 0.05 were used in calculations.29 As described elsewhere, a statistical power of 80% or higher was considered acceptable to detect a difference even if the results show statistical significance.30

Results

Study characteristics

Figure 1 outlines the number of articles identified, included and excluded, and the reasons for exclusions. The search strategy identified 26 220 records from electronic databases, of which 1525 full texts were screened. Full-text articles that did not meet eligibility criteria were excluded in two rounds of screening (1322 articles excluded), and data were extracted from 203 studies, of which 105 studies were reviewed for methodological quality assessment. A further 42 studies were excluded after data extraction by the investigators because of ineligible estimates (eg, combined both patient-facing and non-patient-facing HCWs in their analysis and thereby it was not possible to compare occupation-specific risk differences). A total of 63 studies were included in the final review of evidence of gender/sex differences in occupation-specific infectious disease risk.

Figure 1 Flow chart of article selection process. **Articles screened and removed after title/abstract review.

One study fulfilled the SAGER criteria of having a research question(s) or hypothesis/es that made reference to gender and/or sex, or relevant groups or phenomena. Five studies (5/63) provided a literature review citing studies in support of the existence (or lack) of significant differences between women and men or males and females, and one study (1/63) provided a literature review pointing to the extent to which past research has taken gender or sex into account. No studies fulfilled all SAGER criteria.

Patient-facing HCWs were the most frequently studied occupations (23/63), followed by workers occupationally exposed to raw meat (eg, slaughterhouse workers, butchers and meat handlers) (12/63), farm workers (8/63), first responders (eg, paramedics, firefighters and police officers) (5/63) and veterinarians (4/63). The most frequent occupational infection studied was SaRS-CoV-2/COVID-19 infection or seroprevalence (22/63), followed by infection from the hepatitis family of viruses (14/63), tuberculosis (7/63), Staphylococcus aureus infection (3/63) and influenza infection (3/63). Women made up more than half of the study sample in the included studies (32/63 studies). The proportion of women in the study samples ranged from 4%31 to 99%.32 Most studies originated from the USA (seven studies), China, Italy and Nigeria (six studies each) and France (four studies). Most studies used cross-sectional study designs (52/63), followed by retrospective cohort (5/63), prospective cohort (3/63), mixed methods involving a combination of retrospective and prospective designs (2/63), and one case–control study.

Online supplemental table 2 describes the comparison of risk of occupational infectious disease for men and women in the same occupations, with information on the study and reviewer’s interpretation of risks.

10.1136/oemed-2024-109451.supp2 Supplementary data

20 out of 63 studies (32%) did not explicitly interpret the differences between men and women within the article, although estimates from these studies were retrievable from tables or could be calculated by the reviewers (ie, through difference in means estimates). Most studies (47/63) were inadequately statistically powered (<80%) to detect meaningful gender/sex differences. There was disagreement between study author and reviewer’s interpretations for six studies: two examining hepatitis risk,33 34 two examining brucellosis risk35 36 and one examining Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) risk.37 The following sections describe the reviewers’ interpretation of infectious disease risks for men and women in the same occupations.

COVID-19 risk

Nine high-quality studies examined the risk of occupational COVID-19 exposure.32 38–58 All nine of these studies found no differences in risk between men and women in the same occupation, although only three of these studies had statistical power to detect meaningful differences.49 53 56 Among the three studies powered to detect differences, Jacobson et al 49 and Ran et al 56 found no difference in COVID-19 risk for men and women employed as patient-facing HCWs,49 56 and Morcuendee et al found no difference in risk for men and women employed as physicians.53 The six other high-quality studies, but with <80% statistical power, all reported no difference in COVID-19 risk between men and women in healthcare, daycare, retail and gold mining occupations.32 47 48 50 51 54 Among 11 studies rated fair quality,38 40–46 52 55 58 2 studies observed a higher risk of COVID-19 among men employed as patient-facing HCWs,41 44 with 1 study adequately powered to detect differences.41 The nine remaining fair-quality-rated studies reported no difference in risk.38 40 42 43 45 46 52 55 58 Two low-quality and low statistically powered studies also reported no difference in COVID-19 risk between men and women working in fruit and vegetable packing39 and as dental workers.57

Hepatitis risk

Gender/sex differences in hepatitis risk were variable across studies regardless of quality, statistical power or occupation. Three high-quality studies examined the risk of hepatitis infection34 59 60 and two of these studies had statistical power to detect gender/sex differences.34 59 Shu et al 59 reported no difference in hepatitis risk between men and women employed as swine workers,59 while Taus et al reported a higher hepatitis risk for men employed as patient-facing HCWs.34 Four studies were fair quality and all with low statistical power.61–64 Oluremi et al reported a higher risk of hepatitis infection among men in animal handling occupations64 while the other three studies reported no difference in risk between men and women working as farm workers, veterinarians, animal handlers and patient-facing HCWs.61–63 Seven low-quality studies examined hepatitis risk.33 65–70 Of the seven, one study had statistical power and reported no difference in risk between men and women among patient-facing HCWs.70 Among the remaining low-quality studies with low statistical power, Karadeniz et al reported a higher risk of hepatitis among women employed as patient-facing HCWs,67 and Rachiotis et al reported a higher risk for hepatitis among men employed as waste collectors.33 The remaining low-quality studies reported no difference in risk among slaughterhouse workers, veterinarians and university staff.65 66 68 69

Influenza risk

Two high-quality studies examined the risk of influenza infection.31 71 One of these two studies with statistical power reported no difference in risk between men and women employed as poultry workers31 while the other study with low statistical power reported no difference in risk between men and women employed as patient-facing HCWs.71 One fair-quality study with low statistical power reported that men employed as poultry workers were at higher risk of influenza infection compared with women.72

Tuberculosis risk

Three high-quality studies examined tuberculosis risk.73–75 One of these three studies with statistical power reported no difference in risk between men and women employed as livestock workers.73 The remaining two studies with low statistical power reported higher tuberculosis risk among men75 and no difference in risk between men and women64 employed as patient-facing HCWs. Two fair-quality studies with low statistical power reported no difference in tuberculosis risk between men and women among police officers76 and patient-facing HCWs.77 Two low-quality studies with low statistical power reported no difference in tuberculosis risk between men and women employed as patient-facing HCWs78 including among medical students.79

Query (Q) fever risk

One high-quality study reported a higher risk of Q fever among men compared with women working as cattle farmers, although a post hoc statistical power calculation was not possible for this study.80 Two fair-quality studies with low statistical power reported no difference in the risk of Q fever for men and women employed as farm workers.81 82 One low-quality study with statistical power reported a higher risk of Q fever for men compared with women employed as veterinarians.83

Other infectious disease risks

Two fair-quality studies with low statistical power reported no difference in risk of staphylococcal infection between men and women employed as gold mine workers84 or as patient-facing HCWs.85

One high-quality study with statistical power reported no difference in the risk of toxoplasmosis between men and women employed as abattoir workers,86 although one fair-quality study with low statistical power reported a higher risk of toxoplasmosis among women compared with men working in gold mines.87

Two studies reported no differences between men and women in the risk of brucellosis among abattoir workers, one of high quality36 and the other of low quality,35 and both with low statistical power.

Two high-quality studies examined the risk of parasitic infection (malaria-causing parasites and intestinal parasites).88 89 One study with statistical power reported a higher risk for men than women employed as farmers89 while the other study with low statistical power reported a higher risk for men than women among food handlers.88

One fair-quality study with no statistical power available reported no gender/sex difference in the risk of MERS-CoV infection among patient-facing HCWs.37

One fair-quality study with low statistical power reported no gender/sex difference in the risk of tickborne encephalitis among nature management workers.90

One low-quality study with statistical power reported a higher risk of parasitic infection for men compared with women among farmers.91

One low-quality study with statistical power reported no difference in onychomycosis risk between men and women working at swimming pools.92

One low-quality study with low statistical power reported no difference in the risk of leptospirosis among men and women employed as butchers.93

Discussion

This systematic review examined the evidence on occupational infectious disease risks for men and women in the same occupations. Most studies (n=47/63) were inadequately powered to detect meaningful differences between men and women, and most did not observe differences in occupational infectious disease risk. Among the few high-quality studies with adequate statistical power (9/63 studies), there was evidence of a higher hepatitis risk for men than women among patients facing HCWs and parasitic infection among farmers. The rest of these studies reported no difference between men and women in COVID-19 risk among patients facing HCWs and physicians, hepatitis risk among swine workers, influenza risk among poultry workers, tuberculosis risk among livestock workers and risk of toxoplasmosis among abattoir workers. One study (1/63) was rated fair quality and with statistical power and reported a higher risk of COVID-19 for men than women among patient-facing HCWs.

Previous studies have highlighted a higher risk of infectious disease in men compared with women due to their greater representation in high-risk occupations and industries.16 94 95 This review’s focus on occupation-specific differences highlights other potential gender/sex influences on infectious disease risk. For example, while few within the context of all studies, a risk difference was reported in the direction of a higher risk for men, including in occupations with a greater representation of women (eg, patient-facing healthcare work). Conversely, a higher risk of toxoplasmosis was reported in women in the male-dominated gold mining sector. Evidence suggests that women HCWs were more likely than men to practice hand hygiene and wear personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 outbreak,96 which may explain the evidence of a higher risk of COVID-19 infection among men employed in patient-facing healthcare work. Furthermore, innate biological factors, for example, genetic, epigenetic and hormonal factors, can help females exhibit a stronger immunity response against these infections.12 97 Women may also have protection from infection by social, professional and clothing practices related to conservative, religious and traditional norms in some countries (eg, men’s beards and facial hair can compromise the seal of P2/N95-standard filtering respirators and surgical masks).98 The personal protective equipment of miners may be designed and sized for men leaving women at greater risk of virus transfer from equipment and infected sources to skin and clothing.99 100 The higher risk of infectious disease for men than women in animal handling occupations may be due to women being more cautious when in contact with animals, thus receiving a lower exposure to infectious bacteria particles.7 101

It is possible that gender/sex differences are not evident in some studies due to gendered differences in the self‐reporting of health conditions, especially if reporting is influenced by the experience with, as well as the anxiety about, a risk factor.102 Furthermore, the unpaid caregiving that disproportionally falls on women may expose more women to higher overall infection risk than men if accounting for daily contact at work and outside of work hours.103 104 This review also uncovered an inadequate focus on gender/sex differences in the recent occupational infectious disease literature, which suggests that potential differences between men and women may be underestimated. Only one study fulfilled all SAGER criteria of reporting sex and gender information while most studies were inadequately powered (<80%) to detect important differences if they were present. It is important that researchers aim for adequate recruitment through stratified sampling approaches to detect a priori defined important differences in occupational infectious disease risks between genders.

Most studies in the current review reported that the risks of occupation-specific infectious diseases were similar for men and women. Gender‐neutral occupational health and safety strategies and standards may apply in situations where there appear to be no differences in infectious disease risks between men and women. However, not acknowledging gender/sex differences in biological makeup and exposure due to disproportionate representation in the labour force, task differences in the same occupations and inadequate protective equipment, may mean that apparently neutral policies may impact people of different genders differently and reinforce existing inequalities.

The strengths of this review include a comprehensive and systematic evidence synthesis, and a focus on fair-to-high-quality studies adequately powered to assess differences between men and women in occupational infectious disease risks. There are also limitations that should be considered. First, given the breadth of the occupational health research literature, it is possible that the search strategy did not capture all relevant studies that have been published in the field over the search period of 2016–2021. Thereby, some studies that provide evidence of differences, but were not a focus of this paper, are not captured by search terms. To mitigate missing important studies, we involved a research librarian and stakeholders knowledgeable about sex and gender differences in occupational health and occupational infectious diseases in the development of the search strategy. We also included studies in several different languages to the best of our ability. Also, this systematic review was not registered at inception which would have countered the potential for publication and reporting bias by enabling comparison of the completed review with what was planned in the protocol. Lastly, while we compared risks within an occupation, there may be gender-specific task differences within an occupation that are unreported or unmeasured in the reviewed studies.

In conclusion, this systematic review found that most fair to high-quality studies reported no difference in the risk of occupational infectious diseases between men and women, suggesting that these risks are similarly experienced by sex/gender. A small number of high to fair-quality studies reported a higher risk of infectious diseases in men working in patient-facing healthcare, occupations requiring a proximity to animals and one study reporting a higher risk of toxoplasmosis for women in mining which points to the need for gender/sex-specific design of personal protective equipment. These differences might be explained by occupation-specific task differences. There was a lack of comprehensive sex and gender information in the design and interpretation of study findings, highlighting the need to better understand the role gender/sex play in occupational infectious diseases as part of well-designed studies with a priori research questions.

10.1136/oemed-2024-109451.supp3 Supplementary data

We would like to acknowledge the contributions of Tarnbir Aulakh (Queen’s University) in the review steps, the translation services of various people connected to the Institute for Work & Health and feedback from our Stakeholder Advisory Committee.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval

The study did not receive ethics approval as human participants were not required.

Contributors: AB, EI, PMS, HJ and MK conceived the study idea and received grant funding. AB, EI and MT performed the study selection and analysis with assistance from HJ, GZ and MS. All authors were involved in the interpretation of the study findings. AB wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors provided substantive comments and suggestions. All authors have received the final version of the manuscript and have approved it for submission. We used the AI/machine learning feature of DistillerSR, the software we used to conduct our systematic review. The AI feature served as a second reviewer in the screening step of the systematic review process. The use of AI in the systematic review process is detailed clearly in the manuscript. AI was not used for the writing or preparation of the manuscript.

Funding: This study was funded by a 2021 Innovation at Work Grant from WorkSafeBC (RS2021-IG16 Biswas). The Institute for Work & Health operates with the support of the Province of Ontario.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this review are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Canadian Provinces of British Columbia or Ontario.

Competing interests: None declared.

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.
==== Refs
References

1 Haagsma JA , Tariq L , Heederik DJ , et al . Infectious disease risks associated with occupational exposure: a systematic review of the literature. Occup Environ Med 2012;69 :140–6. 10.1136/oemed-2011-100068 22006935
2 Steenland K , Burnett C , Lalich N , et al . Dying for work: The magnitude of US mortality from selected causes of death associated with occupation. Am J Ind Med 2003;43 :461–82. 10.1002/ajim.10216 12704620
3 Driscoll T , Takala J , Steenland K , et al . Review of estimates of the global burden of injury and illness due to occupational exposures. Am J Ind Med 2005;48 :491–502. 10.1002/ajim.20194 16299705
4 World Health Organization . WHO global plan of action on workers health (2008-2017). 2013.
5 Rhodes S , Beale S , Wilkinson J , et al . Exploring the relationship between job characteristics and infection: Application of a COVID-19 job exposure matrix to SARS-CoV-2 infection data in the United Kingdom. Scand J Work Environ Health 2023;49 :171–81. 10.5271/sjweh.4076 36537299
6 Cox-Ganser JM , Henneberger PK . Occupations by Proximity and Indoor/Outdoor Work: Relevance to COVID-19 in All Workers and Black/Hispanic Workers. Am J Prev Med 2021;60 :621–8. 10.1016/j.amepre.2020.12.016 33745817
7 World Health . Addressing sex and gender in epidemic-prone infectious diseases. 2007.
8 Suwantarat N , Apisarnthanarak A . Risks to healthcare workers with emerging diseases: lessons from MERS-CoV, Ebola, SARS, and avian flu. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2015;28 :349–61. 10.1097/QCO.0000000000000183 26098498
9 Xiao J , Fang M , Chen Q , et al . SARS, MERS and COVID-19 among healthcare workers: A narrative review. J Infect Public Health 2020;13 :843–8. 10.1016/j.jiph.2020.05.019 32493671
10 Messing K , Punnett L , Bond M , et al . Be the fairest of them all: challenges and recommendations for the treatment of gender in occupational health research. Am J Ind Med 2003;43 :618–29. 10.1002/ajim.10225 12768612
11 van Lunzen J , Altfeld M . Sex differences in infectious diseases-common but neglected. J Infect Dis 2014;209 Suppl 3 :S79–80. 10.1093/infdis/jiu159 24966193
12 Klein SL , Flanagan KL . Sex differences in immune responses. Nat Rev Immunol 2016;16 :626–38. 10.1038/nri.2016.90 27546235
13 Regli A , Sommerfield A , von Ungern-Sternberg BS . The role of fit testing N95/FFP2/FFP3 masks: a narrative review. Anaesthesia 2021;76 :91–100. 10.1111/anae.15261 32932556
14 Campos-Serna J , Ronda-Pérez E , Artazcoz L , et al . Gender inequalities in occupational health related to the unequal distribution of working and employment conditions: a systematic review. Int J Equity Health 2013;12 :57–74. 10.1186/1475-9276-12-57 23915121
15 Milner A , Scovelle AJ , King T , et al . Gendered working environments as a determinant of mental health inequalities: a systematic review of 27 studies. Occup Environ Med 2021;78 :147–52. 10.1136/oemed-2019-106281
16 Biswas A , Harbin S , Irvin E , et al . Sex and Gender Differences in Occupational Hazard Exposures: a Scoping Review of the Recent Literature. Curr Environ Health Rep 2021;8 :267–80. 10.1007/s40572-021-00330-8 34839446
17 Biswas A , Harbin S , Irvin E , et al . Differences between men and women in their risk of work injury and disability: A systematic review. Am J Ind Med 2022;65 :576–88. 10.1002/ajim.23364 35578160
18 Quinn EK , Harper A , Rydz E , et al . Men and women at work in Canada, 1991–2016. Lab & Ind 2020;30 :401–12. 10.1080/10301763.2021.1872841
19 Irvin E , Van Eerd D , Amick BC , et al . Introduction to special section: systematic reviews for prevention and management of musculoskeletal disorders. J Occup Rehabil 2010;20 :123–6. 10.1007/s10926-010-9245-5 20524048
20 Keown K , Van Eerd D , Irvin E . Stakeholder engagement opportunities in systematic reviews: knowledge transfer for policy and practice. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2008;28 :67–72. 10.1002/chp.159 18521874
21 Page MJ , McKenzie JE , Bossuyt PM , et al . The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372 :n71. 10.1136/bmj.n71 33782057
22 Wells GA , Shea B , O’Connell D , et al . Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale cohort studies. Ottawa, ON: Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 2014. Available: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp
23 Shea BJ , Reeves BC , Wells G , et al . AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 2017;358 :j4008. 10.1136/bmj.j4008 28935701
24 Heidari S , Babor TF , De Castro P , et al . Sex and Gender Equity in Research: rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use. Res Integr Peer Rev 2016;1 :2. 10.1186/s41073-016-0007-6 29451543
25 Austin PC , Hux JE . A brief note on overlapping confidence intervals. J Vasc Surg 2002;36 :194–5. 10.1067/mva.2002.125015 12096281
26 Allison PD . Comparing logit and probit coefficients across groups. Sociol Methods Res 1999;28 :186–208. 10.1177/0049124199028002003
27 Rich-Edwards JW , Kaiser UB , Chen GL , et al . Sex and Gender Differences Research Design for Basic, Clinical, and Population Studies: Essentials for Investigators. Endocr Rev 2018;39 :424–39. 10.1210/er.2017-00246 29668873
28 Brookes ST , Whitely E , Egger M , et al . Subgroup analyses in randomized trials: risks of subgroup-specific analyses; power and sample size for the interaction test. J Clin Epidemiol 2004;57 :229–36. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2003.08.009 15066682
29 Rosner B . Fundamentals of biostatistics. 7th edn. Boston: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning, 2011.
30 Pejtersen JH , Burr H , Hannerz H , et al . Update on work-related psychosocial factors and the development of ischemic heart disease: a systematic review. Cardiol Rev 2015;23 :94–8. 10.1097/CRD.0000000000000033 24979202
31 Ryu S , Lim J-S , Cowling BJ , et al . Low risk of avian influenza A (H5N6) transmission to depopulation workers in Korea. Influenza Other Respir Viruses 2018;12 :412–5. 10.1111/irv.12530 29236360
32 Lachassinne E , de Pontual L , Caseris M , et al . SARS-CoV-2 transmission among children and staff in daycare centres during a nationwide lockdown in France: a cross-sectional, multicentre, seroprevalence study. Lancet Child Adolesc Health 2021;5 :256–64. 10.1016/S2352-4642(21)00024-9 33571450
33 Rachiotis G , Tsovili E , Papagiannis D , et al . Are municipal solid waste collectors at increased risk of Hepatitis A Virus infection? A Greek cross-sectional study. Infez Med 2016;24 :299–303.28011965
34 Taus K , Schmoll F , El-Khatib Z , et al . Occupational swine exposure and Hepatitis E virus, Leptospira, Ascaris suum seropositivity and MRSA colonization in Austrian veterinarians, 2017-2018-A cross-sectional study. Zoonoses Public Health 2019;66 :842–51. 10.1111/zph.12633 31419070
35 Awah-Ndukum J , Mouiche MMM , Kouonmo-Ngnoyum L , et al . Seroprevalence and risk factors of brucellosis among slaughtered indigenous cattle, abattoir personnel and pregnant women in Ngaoundéré, Cameroon. BMC Infect Dis 2018;18 :611. 10.1186/s12879-018-3522-x 30509193
36 Tsegay A , Tuli G , Kassa T , et al . Seroprevalence and risk factors of brucellosis in abattoir workers at Debre Zeit and Modjo export abattoir, Central Ethiopia. BMC Infect Dis 2017;17 :101. 10.1186/s12879-017-2208-0 28125966
37 Alenazi TH , Al Arbash H , El-Saed A , et al . Identified Transmission Dynamics of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Infection During an Outbreak: Implications of an Overcrowded Emergency Department. Clin Infect Dis 2017;65 :675–9. 10.1093/cid/cix352 28575307
38 Ashinyo ME , Dubik SD , Duti V , et al . Healthcare Workers Exposure Risk Assessment: A Survey among Frontline Workers in Designated COVID-19 Treatment Centers in Ghana. J Prim Care Community Health 2020;11 :2150132720969483. 10.1177/2150132720969483 33213266
39 Boogaard LH , Sikkema RS , van Beek JHGM , et al . A mixed-methods approach to elucidate SARS-CoV-2 transmission routes and clustering in outbreaks in native workers and labour migrants in the fruit and vegetable packaging industry in South Holland, the Netherlands, May to July 2020. Int J Infect Dis 2021;109 :24–32. 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.06.021 34139369
40 Borges LP , Nascimento LC , Heimfarth L , et al . Estimated SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Seroprevalence in Firefighters from a Northeastern Brazilian State: A Cross-Sectional Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021;18 :8148. 10.3390/ijerph18158148 34360442
41 Buonafine CP , Paiatto BNM , Leal FB , et al . High prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among symptomatic healthcare workers in a large university tertiary hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. BMC Infect Dis 2020;20 :917. 10.1186/s12879-020-05662-8 33267836
42 Caban-Martinez AJ , Schaefer-Solle N , Santiago K , et al . Epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among firefighters/paramedics of a US fire department: a cross-sectional study. Occup Environ Med 2020;77 :857–61. 10.1136/oemed-2020-106676 32764107
43 Chas J , Nadal M , Siguier M , et al . Broad-based SARS-CoV-2 testing program for healthcare workers in a primary care hospital in France. Infect Dis Now 2021;51 :556–9. 10.1016/j.idnow.2020.11.016 34000458
44 Consonni D , Bordini L , Nava C , et al . COVID-19: What happened to the healthcare workers of a research and teaching hospital in Milan, Italy? Acta Biomed 2020;91 :e2020016. 10.23750/abm.v91i3.10361
45 Davido B , Gautier S , Riom I , et al . The first wave of COVID-19 in hospital staff members of a tertiary care hospital in the greater Paris area: A surveillance and risk factors study. Int J Infect Dis 2021;105 :172–9. 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.02.055 33607301
46 Esposito S , Neglia C , Affanni P , et al . Epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 Infection Evaluated by Immunochromatographic Rapid Testing for the Determination of IgM and IgG Against SARS-CoV-2 in a Cohort of Mask Wearing Workers in the Metal-Mechanical Sector in an Area With a High Incidence of COVID-19. Front Public Health 2021;9 :628098. 10.3389/fpubh.2021.628098 34249830
47 Farsi SH , Alandijany TA , Radwi M , et al . Prevalence of COVID-19 antibodies among operating room and critical care staff at a tertiary teaching hospital: A cross-sectional study. Saudi Med J 2021;42 :742–9. 10.15537/smj.2021.42.7.20210348 34187918
48 Gilliam WS , Malik AA , Shafiq M , et al . COVID-19 Transmission in US Child Care Programs. Pediatrics 2021;147 :e2020031971. 10.1542/peds.2020-031971 33055228
49 Jacobson KB , Pinsky BA , Montez Rath ME , et al . Post-Vaccination Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infections and Incidence of the Presumptive B.1.427/B.1.429 Variant Among Healthcare Personnel at a Northern California Academic Medical Center. Clin Infect Dis 2022;74 :821–8. 10.1093/cid/ciab554 34137815
50 Lan F-Y , Suharlim C , Kales SN , et al . Association between SARS-CoV-2 infection, exposure risk and mental health among a cohort of essential retail workers in the USA. Occup Environ Med 2021;78 :237–43. 10.1136/oemed-2020-106774 33127659
51 Milleliri JM , Coulibaly D , Nyobe B , et al . SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Ivory Coast: A Serosurveillance Survey among Gold Mine Workers. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2021;104 :1709–12. 10.4269/ajtmh.21-0081 33735104
52 Mora AM , Lewnard JA , Kogut K , et al . Risk Factors Associated With SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Farmworkers in Monterey County, California. JAMA Netw Open 2021;4 :e2124116. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.24116 34524438
53 Morcuende M , Guglielminotti J , Landau R . Anesthesiologists’ and Intensive Care Providers’ Exposure to COVID-19 Infection in a New York City Academic Center: A Prospective Cohort Study Assessing Symptoms and COVID-19 Antibody Testing. Anesth Analg 2020;131 :669–76. 10.1213/ANE.0000000000005056 32520728
54 Prato’ S , Paladino ME , Riva MA , et al . COVID-19 Vaccination and Asymptomatic Infection: Effect of BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccine on the Incidence of COVID-19 and Duration of Sick Leave Among Healthcare Workers. J Occup Environ Med 2021;63 :e868–70. 10.1097/JOM.0000000000002389 34538839
55 Ramamurthy BD , Raja V , Radhakrishnan B , et al . COVID-19 seroprevalence study in asymptomatic healthcare workers at a tertiary healthcare centre, India. J C D R 2021;15 :EC29–32. 10.7860/JCDR/2021/50235.15422
56 Ran L , Chen X , Wang Y , et al . Risk Factors of Healthcare Workers With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Retrospective Cohort Study in A Designated Hospital of Wuhan in China. Clin Infect Dis 2020;71 :2218–21. 10.1093/cid/ciaa287 32179890
57 Sarapultseva M , Hu D , Sarapultsev A . SARS-CoV-2 Seropositivity among Dental Staff and the Role of Aspirating Systems. JDR Clin Trans Res 2021;6 :132–8. 10.1177/2380084421993099 33543682
58 Shukla V , Lau CSM , Towns M , et al . COVID-19 Exposure Among First Responders in Arizona. J Occup Environ Med 2020;62 :981–5. 10.1097/JOM.0000000000002027 32956235
59 Shu Y , Chen Y , Zhou S , et al . Cross-sectional Seroprevalence and Genotype of Hepatitis E Virus in Humans and Swine in a High-density Pig-farming Area in Central China. Virol Sin 2019;34 :367–76. 10.1007/s12250-019-00136-x 31264049
60 Tufon KA , Meriki HD , Kwenti TE , et al . HBV Transmission Risk Assessment in Healthcare Workers, Household and Sexual Contacts of HBV Infected Patients in the Southwest Region of Cameroon. Oman Med J 2019;34 :313–21. 10.5001/omj.2019.62 31360320
61 W Akazong E , Tume C , Ayong L , et al . Cross-sectional hospital-based study on the seroprevalence of hepatitis B virus markers among healthcare workers, NWR, Cameroon. BMJ Open 2021;11 :e045716. 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045716
62 Amsalu A , Worku M , Tadesse E , et al . The exposure rate to hepatitis B and C viruses among medical waste handlers in three government hospitals, southern Ethiopia. Epidemiol Health 2016;38 :e2016001. 10.4178/epih/e2016001 26797221
63 Lange H , Øverbø J , Borgen K , et al . Hepatitis E in Norway: seroprevalence in humans and swine. Epidemiol Infect 2017;145 :181–6. 10.1017/S0950268816002144 27671461
64 Oluremi AS , Ajadi TA , Opaleye OO , et al . High seroprevalence of viral hepatitis among animal handlers in Abeokuta, Ogun State, Nigeria. J Immunoassay Immunochem 2021;42 :34–47. 10.1080/15321819.2020.1814810 33044898
65 Aydin H , Uyanik MH , Karamese M , et al . Seroprevalence of hepatitis E Virus in animal workers in nonporcine consumption region of Turkey. Fut Virol 2016;11 :691–7. 10.2217/fvl-2016-0075
66 Geng Y , Zhao C , Geng K , et al . High seroprevalence of hepatitis E virus in rabbit slaughterhouse workers. Transbound Emerg Dis 2019;66 :1085–9. 10.1111/tbed.13130 30661292
67 Karadeniz A , Akduman Alaşehir E . Seroepidemiology of hepatitis viruses, measles, mumps, rubella and varicella among healthcare workers and students: Should we screen before vaccination? J Infect Public Health 2020;13 :480–4. 10.1016/j.jiph.2020.01.309 32113699
68 Lassen B , Janson M , Neare K , et al . Prevalence of Antibodies Against Hepatitis E Virus in Veterinarians in Estonia. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 2017;17 :773–6. 10.1089/vbz.2017.2122 28933680
69 Nworie A , Nwadi LC , Boniface UN , et al . Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection amongst staff of a Nigerian university. Afr J Biomed Res 2018;21 :263–6.
70 Taishete S , Chowdhary A . Seroepidemiological survey of health care workers in Maharashtra. Indian J Med Microbiol 2016;34 :237–40. 10.4103/0255-0857.180355 27080782
71 Kushwaha AS , Kotwal A , Biradar CI , et al . Seroprevalence of influenza A H1N1 (swine) infection in the human population in a cantonment. Med J Armed Forces India 2019;75 :312–7. 10.1016/j.mjafi.2018.08.003 31388236
72 Li S , Zhou Y , Song W , et al . Avian influenza virus H9N2 seroprevalence and risk factors for infection in occupational poultry-exposed workers in Tai’an of China. J Med Virol 2016;88 :1453–6. 10.1002/jmv.24483 26816053
73 Cadmus S , Akinseye V , Adegbulu A , et al . Isolation of Mycobacterium tuberculosis from livestock workers and implications for zooanthroponotic transmission in Ibadan, South-western Nigeria. J Prev Med Hyg 2018;59 :E212–8. 10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2018.59.3.882 30397677
74 Guo LP , Jiang Y , Liu YM , et al . First assessment of interferon gamma release assay results among healthcare workers at a general hospital in China. Clin Respir J 2018;12 :2581–9. 10.1111/crj.12960 30232836
75 Yoon CG , Oh SY , Lee JB , et al . Occupational Risk of Latent Tuberculosis Infection in Health Workers of 14 Military Hospitals. J Korean Med Sci 2017;32 :1251–7. 10.3346/jkms.2017.32.8.1251 28665059
76 Durando P , Garbarino S , Orsi A , et al . Prevalence and predictors of latent tuberculosis infection among Italian State Policemen engaged in assistance to migrants: a national cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 2016;6 :e012011. 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012011
77 Hsieh M-J , Hu H-C , Kao K-C , et al . The Risk of Latent Tuberculosis Infection in Respiratory Therapists in a Country with Intermediate Incidence. Respir Care 2019;64 :313–20. 10.4187/respcare.06316 30425168
78 Shi C-L , Zhang J-P , Xu P , et al . Upregulation of PD-1 expression on circulating CD8+ but not CD4+ T cells is associated with tuberculosis infection in health care workers. BMC Immunol 2021;22 :39. 10.1186/s12865-021-00433-9 34172011
79 Verso MG , Serra N , Ciccarello A , et al . Latent Tuberculosis Infection among Healthcare Students and Postgraduates in a Mediterranean Italian Area: What Correlation with Work Exposure? Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019;17 :137. 10.3390/ijerph17010137 31878124
80 Beaudeau F , Pouquet M , Guatteo R , et al . Risk of seropositivity to Coxiella burnetii in humans living in areas with endemically infected cattle: No way for specific prevention. Zoonoses Public Health 2021;68 :144–52. 10.1111/zph.12803 33428296
81 Bond KA , Vincent G , Wilks CR , et al . One Health approach to controlling a Q fever outbreak on an Australian goat farm. Epidemiol Infect 2016;144 :1129–41. 10.1017/S0950268815002368 26493615
82 Verso MG , Vesco G , Villari S , et al . Analysis of seroprevalence against Coxiella burnetii in a sample of farm workers in Western Sicily. Ann Agric Environ Med 2016;23 :71–4. 10.5604/12321966.1196855 27007520
83 Dal Pozzo F , Martinelle L , Léonard P , et al . Q Fever Serological Survey and Associated Risk Factors in Veterinarians, Southern Belgium, 2013. Transbound Emerg Dis 2017;64 :959–66. 10.1111/tbed.12465 26749554
84 Ismail H , Govender NP , Singh-Moodley A , et al . An outbreak of cutaneous abscesses caused by Panton-Valentine leukocidin-producing methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus among gold mine workers, South Africa, November 2017 to March 2018. BMC Infect Dis 2020;20 :621. 10.1186/s12879-020-05352-5 32831057
85 Pourramezan N , Ohadian Moghadam S , Pourmand MR . Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus tracking spread among health-care workers and hospitalized patients in critical wards at a university hospital, Tehran, Iran. New Microbes New Infect 2019;27 :29–35. 10.1016/j.nmni.2018.11.003 30534385
86 Ekanem US , Moses AE , Abraham EG , et al . Seroprevalence of anti-Toxoplasma gondii IgG antibody and risk factors among abattoir workers in Uyo, Southern Nigeria. Niger J Clin Pract 2018;21 :1662–9. 10.4103/njcp.njcp_44_18 30560833
87 Abraham EG , Moses AE , Motilewa USOO , et al . Ocular Toxoplasmosis among Livestock Farmers and Raw Meat Handlers in Uyo, Nigeria. Ethiop J Health Sci 2021;31 :257–66. 10.4314/ejhs.v31i2.8 34158777
88 Abera B , Yitayew G , Amare H . Salmonella serotypeTyphi, Shigella, and intestinal parasites among food handlers at Bahir Dar University, Ethiopia. J Infect Dev Ctries 2016;10 :121–6. 10.3855/jidc.6890 26927451
89 Babamale OA , Opeyemi OA , Bukky AA , et al . Association Between Farming Activities and Plasmodium falciparum Transmission in Rural Communities in Nigeria. Malays J Med Sci 2020;27 :105–16. 10.21315/mjms2020.27.3.11 32684811
90 Hofhuis A , van den Berg OE , Meerstadt-Rombach FS , et al . Exposure to tick-borne encephalitis virus among nature management workers in the Netherlands. Ticks Tick Borne Dis 2021;12 :101762. 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2021.101762 34147921
91 Khan W , Nisa N , Khan A . Soil transmitted helminthiasis in different occupational groups in Swat, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Pak J Pharm Sci 2017;30 :1345–50.29039336
92 Shemer A , Gupta AK , Amichai B , et al . Increased Risk of Tinea Pedis and Onychomycosis Among Swimming Pool Employees in Netanya Area, Israel. Mycopathologia 2016;181 :851–6. 10.1007/s11046-016-0040-5 27435974
93 Alvarado-Esquivel C , Hernandez-Tinoco J , Sanchez-Anguiano LF , et al . High Seroprevalence of Leptospira Exposure in Meat Workers in Northern Mexico: A Case-Control Study. J Clin Med Res 2016;8 :231–6. 10.14740/jocmr2463w 26858797
94 Allotey P , Gyapong M , UNICEF . The gender agenda in the control of tropical diseases: a review of current evidence. 2005.
95 Wu C , Qian Y . The gender peak effect: Women are most vulnerable to infections during COVID-19 peaks. Front Public Health 2022;10 :937179. 10.3389/fpubh.2022.937179 36016899
96 Suen LKP , So ZYY , Yeung SKW , et al . Epidemiological investigation on hand hygiene knowledge and behaviour: a cross-sectional study on gender disparity. BMC Public Health 2019;19 :401. 10.1186/s12889-019-6705-5 30975130
97 Klein SL , Hodgson A , Robinson DP . Mechanisms of sex disparities in influenza pathogenesis. J Leukoc Biol 2012;92 :67–73. 10.1189/jlb.0811427 22131346
98 Sandaradura I , Goeman E , Pontivivo G , et al . A close shave? Performance of P2/N95 respirators in healthcare workers with facial hair: results of the BEARDS (BEnchmarking Adequate Respiratory DefenceS) study. J Hosp Infect 2020;104 :529–33. 10.1016/j.jhin.2020.01.006 31978416
99 Arthur-Holmes F , Abrefa Busia K . Safety concerns and occupational health hazards of women in artisanal and small-scale mining in Ghana. The Extr Ind Soc 2022;10 :101079. 10.1016/j.exis.2022.101079
100 Eiter BM , Dugdale ZJ , Robinson T , et al . Occupational Safety and Health of Women in Mining. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2023;32 :388–95. 10.1089/jwh.2023.0034 36888958
101 Lipton BA , Hopkins SG , Koehler JE , et al . A survey of veterinarian involvement in zoonotic disease prevention practices. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2008;233 :1242–9. 10.2460/javma.233.8.1242 19180714
102 Kennedy SM , Koehoorn M . Exposure assessment in epidemiology: does gender matter? Am J Ind Med 2003;44 :576–83. 10.1002/ajim.10297 14635234
103 Parry BR , Gordon E . The shadow pandemic: Inequitable gendered impacts of COVID-19 in South Africa. Gend Work Organ 2021;28 :795–806. 10.1111/gwao.12565 33230376
104 Díaz A , Beleña Á , Zueco J . The Role of Age and Gender in Perceived Vulnerability to Infectious Diseases. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17 :485. 10.3390/ijerph17020485 31940870
