This paper reports on the first cohort study undertaken in Germany to examine the mortality of fire fighters with its typical, quasi lifelong employment of professional fire fighters. We are confident that the cohort of fire fighters is complete for the time period after 1950. It constitutes the largest cohort study of fire fighters' mortality in a European country.
The study was limited by the fact that we could not collect a detailed exposure history of fire fighters and data on causes of death.
Taking runs as a proxy parameter for exposure is not established as standard in the research on fire fighter risks. The differences in job tasks, wind direction or protective equipment on jobs at the same fire do not allow taking number of runs as proxy. The exposure matrix of fire fighters is highly complex as time at fire does not indicate that for example protective equipment was worn or not [28].
Neither the evaluation of causes of deaths nor the inclusion a control group such as officers from the Hamburg Police Department was funded by the Fire Department. We tried to account for this limitation by using the Cox regression model with internal comparison groups to make the effects of different risk factors inherent to the occupation visible.
Overall mortality
Our results show that the mortality of the fire fighter cohort of Hamburg is about 20% lower than the mortality of the reference population. They confirm findings from most of the other published studies from different countries (Table 1). However, our findings are in the lower range of previously published studies. It might indicate that the selection processes and the intensive medical surveillance programs in Germany have a greater effect than the programs in other countries with lower standards (see discussion below).
The lower mortality of fire fighters in comparison to the general population is probably influenced by the healthy worker effect in several aspects. The question how much the healthy worker effect masks a potentially negative effect of occupation on mortality arises in all occupational cohort mortality studies [4, 5]. The reference to 'general population' is convenient and – as it was the case here – often the only financially feasible way. Unfortunately it is not the best comparison group to determine the occupation-induced mortality risks because of the selection of cohort members based on health status and risk factors at the beginning of work.
Using definitions according to Choi [6], several components of the healthy worker effect (HWE), e.g. the healthy hired, low-risk hired, worker healthier and the healthy worker survivor effect probably led the observed low mortality. In general the magnitude of the healthy worker effect is estimated to be around 20% advantage in mortality (see [4] for further discussion). Our result (SMR of 0.78) is very similar to that.
We observed a decline of the healthy worker effect with increasing time since first employment. This effect was more pronounced for the subgroups with a total duration of employment of less than ten years. This observation is consistent with the assumption that the "healthy hired" component disappears within this time frame from date of first employment. For fire fighters with longer duration of employment (10–29 years) the mortality advantage is also declining, but the SMR does not increase to 1. This may probably reflect a levelling off of the "low-risk-hiring" component. Finally, the SMR for the subgroup with working time durations of more than 30 years was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.43–0.69), i.e. lower than those for the other subgroups with shorter duration but the same time since first employment. This indicates a pronounced long term effect of the "work healthier" and the "healthy survivor" component of the healthy worker effect.
Physical and medical fitness for professional and voluntary fire fighters is required nationwide in Germany using common standards. This constitutes a major difference to the US American system where regular physical performance tests are suggested by National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)/USA [7] but not regularly required on national level [8]. However, on state and/or community level in the USA regular physical performance tests are sometimes mandatory.
The stringent selection process in Germany demands physical and psychological health and fitness. After joining there are regular and intensive medical examinations: until the age of 50 every 3 years, beyond 50 every year. These tests include stress-ECG to evaluate standardized physical fitness and a fitness test with heavy respiratory protection gear on the obstacle course. In the stress-ECG fire fighters below 30 years of age have to perform at an energy level of three Watt per kilogram of bodyweight. Fire fighters above 30 years of age have to show the same level of performance reduced by one percent per year of age above 30 years. The capacity to perform at an energy level of 200 Watt minimum has to be proven at all occasions. In addition to the fitness test, other medical criteria for vision test, audiometry, lung function test and acceptable blood pressure response and heart rates at stress-ECG have to be met.
The clearance to wear protective gear i.e. the permission to serve in the brigade is cancelled once the fitness tests are failed. Also fire fighters in mostly administrative duty keep themselves fit and pass the medical endurance tests as they might have to go out on the scene in major emergencies. Only these were included in the comparison between 'fire fighting' vs. 'administrative duty' and show a definite impact of fire fighting tasks on mortality.
The professional fire fighters in Hamburg and mostly all over Germany are civil servants (German: 'Beamte'). This includes remarkable social benefits. Very few leave the department once they joined; almost all have lifelong careers in the fire departments. Hence, fire fighters over 55 years are still in active duty at the scenes. Hence the passion, when the political discussion to raise the retirement age to 65 years started.
The lower overall mortality does not indicate, however, that there were no other specific causes of death which increased the risk of death of fire fighters. A case-control study in the USA on on-duty deaths of active fire fighters has shown increased risks of death by coronary heart disease during fire suppression (OR = 64.1, 95% CI 7.4–556); training (OR = 7.6, 95% CI 1.8–31.3) and alarm response (OR = 5.6, 95% CI 1.1–28.8). The rate of on-duty deaths caused by coronary heart disease is reportedly higher than in other comparable occupational groups such as police or emergency services [8]. Other specific causes of deaths with higher than normal mortality in fire fighters are reported such as certain kinds of brain or colon cancer, leukemia, kidney and urethra cancer, prostate and bladder cancer [9–12].
Mortality of early retirees
Our study confirms findings that showed an elevated SMR for persons who retire early. We observed a SMR of 1.35 (95% CI, 1.13–1.60) in reference to the general German population and a SMR of 1.71 (95% CI, 1.18–2.50) in the Cox-Regression in reference to all others. We did not observe any beneficial effect of early retirement as documented in a Danish study [13] and the Whitehall II study on effects of normal retirement. [14].
In a Danish population-based study the disability benefit recipients showed were markedly elevated mortality [15]. Retirement in itself seems to be a risk factor for early death. In a British study men who were unemployed had a RR of 2.13 (95% CI, 1.71–2.65, men who retired early for reasons other than illness had still a significantly higher mortality compared with employed men (RR 1.87, 95% CI, 1.35–2.60) [16].
A study of past employees of Shell Oil, USA, showed a significantly higher mortality of employees who retired early at 55 and who were still alive at 65 (n = 839) had a significantly higher mortality than those who retired at 65 (n = 900) (hazard ratio 1.37; 95% CI, 1.09–1.73). Mortality was significantly higher for subjects in the first ten years after retirement at 55 compared with those who continued working (1.89; 95% CI, 1.58–2.27). The significant difference, however, showed only after adjusting to sex, calendar year of entry to the study, and socioeconomic status. Retired employees in the low socioeconomic category had a higher mortality than retirees in the high category (1.17, 95% CI, 1.01–1.36) [17].
Results from the British Regional Heart Study indicated that men who retired early for reasons other than illness had a significantly increased risk of mortality compared with men who remained continuously employed (relative risk 1.87 (95% CI, 1.35–2.60)). [18] Early retirement was associated with higher mortality in a construction workers cohort in Germany (RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.20–1.88) [19].
Reasons for retirement, reasons for non-fitness and possible risk factors for higher mortality of retirees
Our study was limited by the fact that we could not include common risk factors for elevated mortality such as cardiovascular risk factors (e.g. blood pressure, lipid profile [20]), psychosocial risk factors (e.g. stress, life event impact, traumatic experiences, depressive disorders [21–23]) or exposure factors to toxic gases (e.g. carbon monoxide). The social medicine department which handles the retirement cases of the City of Hamburg does neither publish nor hand out detailed statistics on reasons for retirement of public employees despite multiple requests.
However, we can presume that 'reasons for early retirement' were almost identical to 'reasons for restriction of fitness' because of medical problems during active duty. From studies of the occupational health service of the Fire Department we know that the reasons for restricted fitness because of medical problems, both temporary or permanent, were cardio-vascular diseases in 39% of all cases (N = 230) and 44% in fire fighters over 50 years (N = 132), musculoskeletal diseases (25% and. 21%), respiratory disorders (5% and 6%), injuries & surgeries (9% and 5%), metabolic disorders (3% and 5%) and psychiatric disorders including addiction and abuse (6% and 5%) [24]. High blood pressure accounted only for 5% of the medical fitness restrictions but was prevalent in 20% and 23% of the unfit fire fighters.
This pattern of diseases in events of non-fitness is distinctly different from reasons for retirement because of ill health in an analysis of retirees from the National Health Service, United Kingdom, which listed musculoskeletal (49%), psychiatric (20%), and cardiovascular conditions (11%) as most common reasons [25].
The rate of high blood pressure in Hamburg fire fighters is consistent with findings from other studies which reported a prevalence of high blood pressure between 20% and 23%, the majority of the men were untreated [26].
Unspecified risk factors
Despite the pronounced healthy worker effect, our study yields several results of subgroup SMR and Cox-regression analyses which support the assumption that occupational hazards in fire fighting, which are not specified here such as stress, raised the mortality.
First, the SMR of fire fighters who worked more than 50% of their time in administrative units 0.53 (95% CI, 0.35–0.78) is lower than the mortality of persons who worked more than 50% in active fire fighting with 0.79 (95% CI, 0.74–0.84). Second, we observed a striking difference in mortality between rank groups. This confirms results of studies which show a reduced mortality in higher socioeconomic groups [27]. However, this difference could also reflect different tasks and job exposure profiles. Higher ranks are usually not part of the attack or rescue teams. Third, causes for early retirement are partly diseases often caused or triggered by the job. The elevated SMR for those persons may reflect individual susceptibility in combination with or reaction to special hazards from the job.
We are unable to forward any explanation for the rise of SMR in the group 5 to 10 years of duration of employment. As causes and circumstances of death could not be included in this study, a discussion of reasons for this finding was considered speculative by the authors.
The decreasing mortality with later date of entry is indicative of major changes in the work environment during the study period. Tactics and safety equipment for fire fighters were improved. Accident rates fell due to better techniques and safety equipment. Especially the widespread introduction of heavy respiratory protection equipment in the 80'ties lowered the exposure to fumes and gases drastically. In Hamburg respiratory protective gear was already used end of the 70'ties. [28] On the other hand, during the study period changes have occurred which may have influenced mortality negatively e.g. plastics were introduced en mass into the household environment and hence became part of structural fires resulting in toxic and carcinogenic burn products.
The multivariate analysis showed a considerably higher relative risk for fire fighters who joined the department after 30 years of age (SMR, 2.38). For this result we are also unable to provide any reasonable explanation as it is in contrast to findings of other studies [29]. In the absence of other explanations and due to the low numbers it could be a chance finding.
