The relationship of work characteristics to dermatologic symptoms in hairdressers

Abstract

Objective: In Korea there are 126,358 professional hairdressers and they perform various tasks such as hair washing, hair cutting, blow-drying, permanent waving, dying or tinting. The objective of this study is to provide descriptive statistics on general and work characteristics of hairdressers in Korea and to identify work related risk factors of irritant contact dermatitis in hairdressers. Methods: Data was obtained from the Survey on Exposure Risks, Injury Experiences and Health Problems of hairdressing Industry Workers conducted in 2012. A self-reported questionnaire survey was conducted from May 1st to September 31st and total of 1,500 questionnaires were sent to the study subjects and 1,209 questionnaire were returned thus showing response rate of 80.6%. Work characteristics considered in this study were business type, shop size, training status, work tenure, working hour, experience of exposure to chemicals, use of personal protective equipments and type of personal protective equipments used. The total subjects included in the analysis consists of 1,054 hairdressers who have answered the relevant questions. Other than the descriptive statistics t-test and chi-square test for continuos and categorical variables were performed respectively and analysis for correlation between variables were conducted. The subject were classified into subgroups according to their exposure to chemicals, training status and main tasks and then risk of the dermatologic symptoms was evaluated. Result: The overall mean age of the study subjects was 36.9±10.4 years, the majority were females(894 hairdressers, 85.6%). Among the study subjects 212 hairdressers(20.1%) complained of dermatologic symptoms. According to the training status of the study subjects, 388 hairdressers(36.8%) were masters, 380 hairdressers(36.1%) were designers and 286 hairdressers(27.1%) were staffs. Dermatologic symptoms were more prevalent in younger, unmarried or highly educated hairdresser groups. Hairdressers with bad perceived state of health also showed higher prevalence of dermatologic symptoms. Hairdressers with bad perceived state of health also showed higher prevalence of dermatologic symptoms. Regarding work characteristics of hairdressers, dermatologic symptoms were more prevalent in the hairdressers who worked in a chain of hair shops of large size. Staff hairdressers and who’s work tenure is less than 3 years also showed higher prevalence of dermatologic symptoms. According to the main tasks, dying/tinting and washing showed higher prevalence of dermatologic symptoms than cutting or permanent wave work. Most commonly affected body parts were forearms or fingers regardless of the training status. To the question for specific dermatologic symptoms experienced, 37.7%(370 hairdressers) have answered as redness and itching and 28.9%(276 hairdressers) have answered as redness and swelling. Designer hairdressers showed statistically higher dermatologic symptom prevalence regardless of the specific symptoms except for blister formation but staff hairdressers showed the highest prevalence for symptoms lasting for more than 3 weeks. Proportions of the hairdressers with the experience of hospital visits due to dermatologic symptoms in the past year was significantly higher in master hairdressers, and dermatologic disease diagnosed by doctors were also higher in master hairdressers. For the last, who experienced dermatologic symptoms that were relieved in the weekends were more prevalent in master hairdressers. Logistic regression analysis for odds ratios of dermatologic symptoms according to exposure to chemicals, training status and main tasks in three different models was performed and in case of exposure to chemicals, no statistically significant result were observed. According to the training status, compared to master hairdressers, designer and staff hairdressers showed higher odds ratios of 1.62(95% CI: 1.10-2.38) and 2.69(95% CI: 1.82-3.96) in the crude model, respectively. In case of Model I, both designer(OR: 1.31, 95% CI 0.77-2.22) and staff hairdressers(OR: 2.83, 95% CI: 1.47-2.43) showed higher odds ratios than master hairdressers but the results were statistically significant only in the staff hairdressers. In Model II designer hairdressers showed higher odds ratios without statistical significance(OR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.68-2.19) but staff hairdressers showed statistically higher odd ratios(OR: 2.70, 95% CI: 1.32-5.51) than master hairdressers. According to the main tasks, compared to cutting work group dying/tinting and washing group showed higher odds ratios of 2.16(95% CI: 1.03-4.52) and 2.36(95% CI: 1.64-3.39) in the crude model, respectively. In case of Model I only washing group(OR: 2.14, 95% CI: 1.32-3.47) showed higher odds ratio than cutting work group and in case of Model II Dying/tinting group(OR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.38-3.07) and washing group(OR: 2.03, 95% CI: 1.22-3.37) showed higher odds ratios than cutting work group but the results were statistically significant only in the washing group. Conclusion: The present study suggested that training status and main tasks of the hairdressers were significantly correlated to each other. In addition, dermatologic symptoms were more prevalent in staff hairdressers or hairdressers who chose washing as their main tasks thus suggesting that the dermatologic symptoms of hairdressers are related to work characteristics such as training status or main tasks.