Search

Objective This study aimed to assess whether workplace exposures as estimated via a COVID-19 job exposure matrix (JEM) are associated with SARS-CoV-2 in the UK. Methods Data on 244 470 participants were available from the Office for National Statistics Coronavirus Infection Survey (CIS) and 16 801 participants from the Virus Watch Cohort, restricted to workers aged 20–64 years. Analysis used logistic regression models with SARS-CoV-2 as the dependent variable for eight individual JEM domains (number of workers, nature of contacts, contact via surfaces, indoor or outdoor location, ability to social distance, use of face covering, job insecurity, and migrant workers) with adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, index of multiple deprivation (IMD), region, household size, urban versus rural area, and health conditions. Analyses were repeated for three time periods (i) February 2020 (Virus Watch)/April 2020 (CIS) to May 2021), (ii) June 2021 to November 2021, and (iii) December 2021 to January 2022. Results Overall, higher risk classifications for the first six domains tended to be associated with an increased risk of infection, with little evidence of a relationship for domains relating to proportion of workers with job insecurity or migrant workers. By time there was a clear exposure–response relationship for these domains in the first period only. Results were largely consistent across the two UK cohorts. Conclusions An exposure–response relationship exists in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic for number of contacts, nature of contacts, contacts via surfaces, indoor or outdoor location, ability to social distance and use of face coverings. These associations appear to have diminished over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives The aim was to identify, appraise, and synthesize the scientific evidence of the relationship between potential occupational sensitizing exposures and the development of asthma based on systematic reviews. Methods The study was conducted as an overview of systematic reviews. A systematic literature search was conducted for systematic reviews published up to 9 February 2020. Eligibility study criteria included persons in or above the working age, potential occupational sensitizing exposures, and outcomes defined as asthma. Potential occupational sensitizing exposures were divided into 23 main groups comprising both subgroups and specific exposures. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted study data, assessed study quality, and evaluated confidence in study results and level of evidence of the relationship between potential occupational sensitizing exposures and asthma. Results Twenty-seven systematic reviews were included covering 1242 studies and 486 potential occupational sensitizing exposures. Overall confidence in study results was rated high in three systematic reviews, moderate in seven reviews, and low in 17 reviews. Strong evidence for the main group of wood dusts and moderate evidence for main groups of mites and fish was found. For subgroups/specific exposures, strong evidence was found for toluene diisocyanates, Aspergillus, Cladosporium , Penicillium, and work tasks involving exposure to laboratory animals, whereas moderate evidence was found for 52 subgroups/specific exposures. Conclusions This overview identified hundreds of potential occupational sensitizing exposures suspected to cause asthma and evaluated the level of evidence for each exposure. Strong evidence was found for wood dust in general and for toluene diisocyanates, Aspergillus, Cladosporium , Penicillium, and work tasks involving exposure to laboratory animals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Night and evening work is associated with risk of sickness absence, but little is known about the acute effects of these types of shifts on sickness absence. The aim of the current study is therefore to examine the risk of calling in sick within two days after a night or an evening shift. Methods By use of a case-crossover design, odds of calling in sick within two days after a night or an evening shift compared to day shifts were analyzed within the same person. Day-to-day information on shifts and sickness absence were derived from the Danish Working Hour Database on 44 767 cases. Data were analyzed using conditional logistic regression. The analyses were supplemented by extensive testing of methodological choices. Results Analyses showed higher odds of calling in sick after a night shift [odds ratio (OR) 1.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14-1.30] and lower odds after an evening shift (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84-0.93) compared to day shifts within the same person. Testing of methodological choices suggested that in particular the duration of case and control periods, time between these periods along with the number of control periods affected the results. Conclusion This large and unique within-person study among Danish hospital employees indicate that the risk of calling in sick is affected by the types of shifts, independently of sex, age, and time-invariant confounding. Extensive testing identified important methodological choices eg, length and number of included periods to consider when choosing the case-crossover design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background There is strong observational evidence that respirators are highly effective in protecting the users from being infected with Middle East respiratory syndrome and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), but the evidence for SARS-CoV-2 during daily work is limited. This study utilized a subset of healthcare workers' temporary use of a new brand respirator with frequent defects when caring for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients to assess the protective effect of regular respirators against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods We retrospectively followed 463 participants wearing a regular respirator and 168 wearing the new brand respirator day-by-day when caring for COVID-19 patients until testing polymerase chain reaction positive for SARS-CoV-2 between 27th December 2020 and 14th January 2021. Results We observed seven and eight incident SARS-CoV-2-infected cases. This corresponded with daily infection rates of 0.2 and 0.5%, an incidence rate ratio of 0.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.1; 1.0], and an incidence rate difference of 0.3% (95% CI −0.1; 0.8) when comparing a regular with the new brand respirator. Discussion We regard the new brand respirator a sham intervention, and this study thus provides further evidence for the protective effect of respirators when exposed to SARS-CoV-2 virus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction To treat and properly care for COVID-19 patients it is vital to have healthy healthcare workers to ensure the continued function of the healthcare system and to prevent transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) to patients, co-workers, and the community. Personal protective equipment (PPE) can prevent healthcare workers from being infected with and transmitting SARS-CoV-2. Experience and training are pivotal to ensure optimal protection. This study aims to examine the use and failure of PPE and compliance with PPE guidelines during the first and the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic among Danish healthcare workers. Methods Healthcare workers from the Central Denmark Region and the Capital Region of Denmark were invited to participate April–June 2020 during the first wave and November 2020–April 2021 during the second wave. Day-by-day, participants reported work procedures, use and failure of PPE, and compliance with PPE guidelines. Register-based information on sex, age, department, and profession was available for all participants. Results In total, 21 684 and 10 097 healthcare workers participated during the first and the second wave, respectively. During the first wave, 1.7% used filtering face piece-2 or -3 (FFP2 or FFP3) respirators and 8.2% used face masks [fluid resistant (type IIR) masks, masks with visor (typically type IIR), and other unspecified face masks] during physical contact with patients. During the second wave, the corresponding figures increased to 17.8% and 80.7%. During respiratory procedures, the use of FFP2 or FFP3 respirators increased from 5.6 to 24.3%, and the use of face masks from 14.7 to 77.8%. The no PPE use decreased from 21.3% during the first wave to 0.4% in the second wave, during respiratory procedures. Total PPE failures decreased from 0.7 to 0.4% from the first to second wave. The proportion not complying with PPE guidelines declined from 3.6 to 2.2% during physical contact with patients and from 6.5 to 4.6% during respiratory procedures. PPE failure and non-compliance varied by age, sex and type of department. Frequent reasons for non-compliance were forgetfulness and lack of time , and during the first but not during the second wave, limited availability of PPE. Conclusion We found a substantial increase in the use of PPE and a substantial decrease in PPE failures from the first to the second wave of COVID-19 in Denmark. However, there is still a need for continuous focus on compliance in use of PPE among healthcare workers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives A COVID-19 Job Exposure Matrix (COVID-19-JEM) has been developed, consisting of four dimensions on transmission, two on mitigation measures, and two on precarious work. This study aims to validate the COVID-19-JEM by (i) comparing risk scores assigned by the COVID-19-JEM with self-reported data, and (ii) estimating the associations between the COVID-19-JEM risk scores and self-reported COVID-19. Methods Data from measurements 2 (July 2020, n = 7690) and 4 (March 2021, n = 6794) of the Netherlands Working Conditions Survey-COVID-19 (NWCS-COVID-19) cohort study were used. Responses to questions related to the transmission risks and mitigation measures of Measurement 2 were used to calculate self-reported risk scores. These scores were compared with the COVID-19-JEM attributed risk scores, by assessing the percentage agreement and weighted kappa (κ). Based on Measurement 4, logistic regression analyses were conducted to estimate the associations between all COVID-19-JEM risk scores and self-reported COVID-19 (infection in general and infected at work). Results The agreement between the COVID-19-JEM and questionnaire-based risk scores was good (κ ≥ 0.70) for most dimensions, except work location (κ = 0.56), and face covering (κ = 0.41). Apart from the precarious work dimensions, higher COVID-19-JEM assigned risk scores had higher odds ratios (ORs; ranging between 1.28 and 1.80) on having had COVID-19. Associations were stronger when the infection were thought to have happened at work (ORs between 2.33 and 11.62). Conclusions Generally, the COVID-19-JEM showed a good agreement with self-reported infection risks and infection rates at work. The next step is to validate the COVID-19-JEM with objective data in the Netherlands and beyond. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Mounting evidence indicates increased risk of COVID-19 among healthcare personnel, but the evidence on risks in other occupations is limited. In this study, we quantify the occupational risk of COVID-19-related hospital admission in Denmark during 2020-2021. Methods The source population included 2.4 million employees age 20-69 years. All information was retrieved from public registers. The risk of COVID-19 related hospital admission was examined in 155 occupations with at least 2000 employees (at-risk, N=1 620 231) referenced to a group of mainly office workers defined by a COVID-19 job exposure matrix (N=369 341). Incidence rate ratios (IRR) were computed by Poisson regression. Results During 186 million person-weeks of follow-up, we observed 2944 COVID-19 related hospital admissions in at-risk occupations and 559 in referents. Adjusted risk of such admission was elevated in several occupations within healthcare (including health care assistants, nurses, medical practitioners and laboratory technicians but not physiotherapists or midwives), social care (daycare assistants for children aged 4-7, and nursing aides in institutions and private homes, but not family daycare workers) and transportation (bus drivers, but not lorry drivers). Most IRR in these at-risk occupations were in the range of 1.5-3. Employees in education, retail sales and various service occupations seemed not to be at risk. Conclusion Employees in several occupations within and outside healthcare are at substantially increased risk of COVID-19. There is a need to revisit safety measures and precautions to mitigate viral transmission in the workplace during the current and forthcoming pandemics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]