Factors that may affect the prognosis of occupational contact dermatitis include atopy, job change, the age of the patient, the nature of irritants and allergens, and the nature of the occupation.
Epidemiology studies in the 1970s and 1980s generally reported the persistence of dermatitis among patients who develop occupational contact dermatitis, but recent reports appear to indicate that the prognosis is better than previously thought.
Most studies indicated that there is no significant sex difference in the prognosis of occupational contact dermatitis.
Patients younger than 25 years fared clearly better than older groups.
Most reports indicate that irritant contact dermatitis tends to have a poorer prognosis than allergic contact dermatitis. Some occupational irritants – for example, cutting fluids – are more likely to lead to chronicity than others.
Workers who change their job tend to have better outcomes than those who do not change jobs.
A personal history of atopy appears to have poorer prognosis.
The causes of chronicity from occupational contact dermatitis are usually multifactorial.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Agrup G (1969) Hand eczema and other hand dermatoses in South Sweden. Acta Derm Venereol Suppl (Stockh) 49:61Google Scholar
Apfelbacher CJ, Radulescu M, Diepgen TL, Funke U (2008) Occurrence and prognosis of hand eczema in the car industry: results from the PACO follow-up study (PACO II). Contact Dermatitis 58:322–329CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Apfelbacher CJ, Soder S, Diepgen TL, Weisshaar E (2009) The impact of measures for secondary individual prevention of work-related skin diseases in health care workers: 1-year follow-up study. Contact Dermatitis 60:144–149CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Avnstorp C (1989) Follow-up of workers from the prefabricated concrete industry after the addition of ferrous sulphate to Danish cement. Contact Dermatitis 20:365–371CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Brans R, Skudlik C, Weisshaar E, Gediga K, Scheidt R, Wulfhorst B, Elsner P, Schönfeld M, John SM, Diepgen TL (2014) Association between tobacco smoking and prognosis of occupational hand eczema: a prospective cohort study. Br J Dermatol 171:1108–1115CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Brans R, Skudlik C, Weisshaar E, Scheidt R, Orenloch R, Elsner P, Wulfhorst B, Schönfeld M, John SM, Diepgen TL (2016) Multicentre cohort study ‘rehabilitation of occupational skin diseases – optimization and quality Assurance of Inpatient Management (ROQ)’: results from a 3-year follow-up. Contact Dermatitis 75:205–212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Clemmensen KBB, Carøe TK, Thomsen SF, Ebbehøj NE, Agner T (2014) Two-year follow-up survey of patients with allergic contact dermatitis from an occupational cohort: is the prognosis dependent on the omnipresence of the allergen? Br J Dermatol 170:1100–1105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Coenraads PJ (1983) Prevalence of hand eczema. Association with occupational exposure, especially in construction workers, M.D. thesis. University of Groningen, GroningenGoogle Scholar
Cvetkovski RS, Zachariae R, Jensen H, Olsen J, Johansen JD, Agner T (2006) Prognosis of occupational hand eczema: a follow-up study. Arch Dermatol 142:305–311CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Kütting B, Baumeister T, Weistenhöfer W, Pfahlberg A, Uter W, Drexler H (2010) Effectiveness of skin protection measures in prevention of occupational hand eczema: results of a prospective randomized controlled trial over a follow-up period of 1 year. Br J Dermatol 162:362–370CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Lips R, Rast H, Eisner P (1996) Outcome of job change in patients with occupational chromate dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 34:268–271CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Mälkönen T, Jolanki R, Alanko K, Luukkonen R, Aalto-Korte K, Lauerma A, Susitaival P (2009) A 6-month follow-up study of 1048 patients diagnosed with an occupational skin disease. Contact Dermatitis 61:261–268CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Mälkönen T, Alanko K, Jolanki R, Luukkonen R, Aalto-Korte K, Lauerma A, Susitaival P (2010) Long-term follow-up study of occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 163:999–1006CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Matsunaga K, Hosokawa K, Suzuki M, Arima Y, Hayakawa R (1998) Occupational allergic contact dermatitis in beautician. Contact Dermatitis 18:94–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meding B, Wrangsjö K, Järvholm B (2005) Fifteen-year follow-up of hand eczema: persistence and consequences. Br J Dermatol 152:975–980CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Nethercott J, Holness L (1994) Disease outcome in workers with occupational skin disease. J Am Acad Dermatol 30:569–574CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Pryce DW, Irvine D, English JSC et al (1989) Soluble oil dermatitis: a follow-up study. Contact Dermatitis 21:28–35CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Rosen RH, Freeman S (1993) Prognosis of occupational contact dermatitis in New South Wales, Australia. Contact Dermatitis 29:88–93CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Rystedt I (1985) Hand eczema and long-term prognosis in atopic dermatitis. Acta Derm Venereol Suppl (Stockh) 117:1–59Google Scholar
Schubert H, Berova N, Czernielewski A et al (1987) Epidemiology of nickel allergy. Contact Dermatitis 16:122–128CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Shah M, Lewis FM, Gawkrodger DJ (1996) Prognosis of occupational hand dermatitis in metalworkers. Contact Dermatitis 34:27–30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Skog E, Tottie M (1961) Occupational eczema causing disablement. Acta Derm Venereol 41:205–212Google Scholar
Weisshaar E, Skudlik C, Scheidt R, Matterne U, Wulfhorst B, Schönfeld M, Elsner P, Diepgen TL, John SM (2013) Multicentre study ‘rehabilitation of occupational skin diseases – optimization and quality assurance of inpatient management (ROQ)’ – results from 12-month follow-up. Contact Dermatitis 68:169–174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar