Search

Occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2 varies by profession, but "essential workers" are often considered in aggregate in COVID-19 models. This aggregation complicates efforts to understand risks to specific types of workers or industries and target interventions, specifically towards non-healthcare workers. We used census tract-resolution American Community Survey data to develop novel essential worker categories among the occupations designated as COVID-19 Essential Services in Massachusetts. Census tract-resolution COVID-19 cases and deaths were provided by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. We evaluated the association between essential worker categories and cases and deaths over two phases of the pandemic from March 2020 to February 2021 using adjusted mixed-effects negative binomial regression, controlling for other sociodemographic risk factors. We observed elevated COVID-19 case incidence in census tracts in the highest tertile of workers in construction/transportation/buildings maintenance (Phase 1: IRR 1.32 [95% CI 1.22, 1.42]; Phase 2: IRR: 1.19 [1.13, 1.25]), production (Phase 1: IRR: 1.23 [1.15, 1.33]; Phase 2: 1.18 [1.12, 1.24]), and public-facing sales and services occupations (Phase 1: IRR: 1.14 [1.07, 1.21]; Phase 2: IRR: 1.10 [1.06, 1.15]). We found reduced case incidence associated with greater percentage of essential workers able to work from home (Phase 1: IRR: 0.85 [0.78, 0.94]; Phase 2: IRR: 0.83 [0.77, 0.88]). Similar trends exist in the associations between essential worker categories and deaths, though attenuated. Estimating industry-specific risk for essential workers is important in targeting interventions for COVID-19 and other diseases and our categories provide a reproducible and straightforward way to support such efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID‐19 pandemic has highlighted the need for targeted local interventions given substantial heterogeneity within cities and counties. Publicly available case data are typically aggregated to the city or county level to protect patient privacy, but more granular data are necessary to identify and act upon community‐level risk factors that can change over time. Methods: Individual COVID‐19 case and mortality data from Massachusetts were geocoded to residential addresses and aggregated into two time periods: "Phase 1" (March–June 2020) and "Phase 2" (September 2020 to February 2021). Institutional cases associated with long‐term care facilities, prisons, or homeless shelters were identified using address data and modeled separately. Census tract sociodemographic and occupational predictors were drawn from the 2015–2019 American Community Survey. We used mixed‐effects negative binomial regression to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs), accounting for town‐level spatial autocorrelation. Results: Case incidence was elevated in census tracts with higher proportions of Black and Latinx residents, with larger associations in Phase 1 than Phase 2. Case incidence associated with proportion of essential workers was similarly elevated in both Phases. Mortality IRRs had differing patterns from case IRRs, decreasing less substantially between Phases for Black and Latinx populations and increasing between Phases for proportion of essential workers. Mortality models excluding institutional cases yielded stronger associations for age, race/ethnicity, and essential worker status. Conclusions: Geocoded home address data can allow for nuanced analyses of community disease patterns, identification of high‐risk subgroups, and exclusion of institutional cases to comprehensively reflect community risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]