You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 81, Issue 3
  • Notification of hand eczema as an occupational disease among Danish hairdressers: a national survey on patients’ perception

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Workplace
Original research
Notification of hand eczema as an occupational disease among Danish hairdressers: a national survey on patients’ perception
  1. Christoffer Kursawe Larsen1,2,
  2. Martin S Havmose1,3,
  3. Jeanne Duus Johansen1,2,3,4
  1. 1 National Allergy Research Center, Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Hellerup, Denmark
  2. 2 Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
  3. 3 Research Centre for Beauticians and Hairdressers, Hellerup, Denmark
  4. 4 Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Hellerup, Denmark
  1. Correspondence to Dr Christoffer Kursawe Larsen, National Allergy Research Center, Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Hellerup, Denmark; christoffer.kursawe.larsen.01{at}regionh.dk

Abstract

Objectives Self-reported hand eczema was previously found under-reported as an occupational disease to the authorities among Danish hairdressers graduating from 1985 to 2007. This study investigates whether self-reported hand eczema among Danish hairdressers graduating from 2008 to 2018 is under-reported as an occupational disease to the authorities.

Methods A cross-sectional study on all Danish hairdressers graduating from 2008 to 2018 was conducted. The participants were identified using information from the Danish Hairdressers’ and Beauticians’ Union. In May 2020, a self-administered survey on hand eczema was sent to all hairdressers.

Results A response rate of 30.7% (1485/4830) was obtained. The lifetime prevalence of self-reported hand eczema was 40.1%, and 84.1% of hairdressers with hand eczema believed it to be occupational of whom 27.0% answered it was reported as an occupational disease to the authorities. Of hairdressers believing their hand eczema was occupational, consulting a doctor and answering it was reported as an occupational disease, 94.4% had consulted a dermatologist. The main reason for not reporting was ‘I would probably not gain anything from it anyway’ (40.0%).

Conclusions Based on hairdressers’ perception, occupational hand eczema still seems to be an under-reported disease which may lead to underestimation of the problem and impair prevention, diagnosis and treatment.

  • dermatology
  • occupational health
  • dermatitis, contact
  • epidemiology

Data availability statement

No data are available. Data are not available on request due to Danish data protection legislation.

https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2023-109188

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. Data are not available on request due to Danish data protection legislation.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @C_KursaweLarsen

    • Contributors CKL: writing original draft, formal analysis, conceptualisation and guarantor. MSH: critical review and editing and conceptualisation. JDJ: critical review and editing and conceptualisation.

    • Funding Unrestricted research grant from The Danish Hairdressers’ and Beauticians’ Union.

    • 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.