Search

OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 mitigations have had a profound impact on workplaces, however, multisectoral comparisons of how work-related mitigations were applied are limited. This study aimed to investigate (i) occupational differences in the usage of key work-related mitigations over time and (ii) workers’ perceptions of these mitigations.METHODS: Employed/self-employed Virus Watch study participants (N=6279) responded to a mitigation-related online survey covering the periods of December 2020–February 2022. Logistic regression was used to investigate occupation- and time-related differences in the usage of work-related mitigation methods. Participants’ perceptions of mitigation methods were investigated descriptively using proportions.RESULTS: Usage of work-related mitigation methods differed between occupations and over time, likely reflecting variation in job roles, workplace environments, legislation and guidance. Healthcare workers had the highest predicted probabilities for several mitigations, including reporting frequent hand hygiene [predicted probability across all survey periods 0.61 (95% CI 0.56–0.66)] and always wearing face coverings [predicted probability range 0.71 (95% CI 0.66–0.75) – 0.80 (95% CI 0.76–0.84) across survey periods]. There were significant cross-occupational trends towards reduced mitigations during periods of less stringent national restrictions. The majority of participants across occupations (55–88%) agreed that most mitigations were reasonable and worthwhile even after the relaxation of national restrictions; agreement was lower for physical distancing (39–44%).CONCLUSIONS: While usage of work-related mitigations appeared to vary alongside stringency of national restrictions, agreement that most mitigations were reasonable and worthwhile remained substantial. Further investigation into the factors underlying between-occupational differences could assist pandemic planning and prevention of workplace COVID-19 transmission.

Background: Despite growing scientific knowledge of Zika virus (ZIKV) infection, questions remain regarding ZIKV infection in pregnancy and congenital ZIKV syndrome (CZS). Methods: The ZIKAction Paediatric Registry is an international registry of children with documented ZIKV exposure in utero and/or with confirmed or suspected CZS. Its aim is to characterize these children (i.e., clinical, radiological, neurodevelopmental features) and describe outcomes, longer-term sequelae and management through retrospective case note review. This analysis described the maternal and perinatal characteristics of children in the Registry’s Bahia arm, assessed their neuroimaging, ophthalmic, hearing and electroencephalography abnormalities by microcephaly classification and reported on hospitalisations. Children born in 2015-2018 and enrolled 2020-2021 in three public health facilities in Salvador were included. Results: Of 129 (57% female) children, 15 (11·6%) had laboratory-confirmed congenital ZIKV infection and 114 (88·4%) suspected CZS. At delivery, 15 (11·6%) were normocephalic, 30 (23·3%) moderately microcephalic, and 84 (65·1%) severely microcephalic. Median birth head circumference z-score was -3·51 [IQR, -4·69,-2·73]. During follow-up, all children had abnormal neuroimaging, 80·3% (94/117) abnormal electroencephalogram, 62·2% (77/120) ophthalmic abnormalities, and 27·4% (34/124) hearing impairment. Microcephaly classification was significantly associated with gestational age, and ophthalmological and electroencephalography abnormalities. Of 125 children with hospitalisation data, 52 (41·6%) had been hospitalised by most recent follow-up, at median age of 15·8 [4·0, 34·4] months; infections were the leading cause. Conclusion: Congenital ZIKV infection is an emerging disease with a varied and incompletely understood spectrum. Continued long-term follow-up is essential to understand longer-term prognosis and to inform future health and educational needs.

Background Understanding how non-household activities contributed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections under different levels of national health restrictions is vital. Methods Among adult Virus Watch participants in England and Wales, we used multivariable logistic regressions and adjusted-weighted population attributable fractions (aPAF) assessing the contribution of work, public transport, shopping, and hospitality and leisure activities to infections. Results Under restrictions, among 17,256 participants (502 infections), work [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.01 (1.65–2.44), (aPAF) 30% (22–38%)] and transport [(aOR 1.15 (0.94–1.40), aPAF 5% (-3–12%)], were risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 but shopping, hospitality and leisure were not. Following the lifting of restrictions, among 11,413 participants (493 infections), work [(aOR 1.35 (1.11–1.64), aPAF 17% (6–26%)] and transport [(aOR 1.27 (1.04–1.57), aPAF 12% (2–22%)] contributed most, with indoor hospitality [(aOR 1.21 (0.98–1.48), aPAF 7% (-1–15%)] and leisure [(aOR 1.24 (1.02–1.51), aPAF 10% (1–18%)] increasing. During the Omicron variant, with individuals more socially engaged, among 11,964 participants (2335 infections), work [(aOR 1.28 (1.16–1.41), aPAF (11% (7–15%)] and transport [(aOR 1.16 (1.04–1.28), aPAF 6% (2–9%)] remained important but indoor hospitality [(aOR 1.43 (1.26–1.62), aPAF 20% (13–26%)] and leisure [(aOR 1.35 (1.22–1.48), aPAF 10% (7–14%)] dominated. Conclusions Work and public transport were important to transmissions throughout the pandemic with hospitality and leisure’s contribution increasing as restrictions were lifted, highlighting the importance of restricting leisure and hospitality alongside advising working from home, when facing a highly infectious and virulent respiratory infection.

Abstract Background Workers across different occupations vary in their risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, but the direct contribution of occupation to this relationship is unclear. This study aimed to investigate how infection risk differed across occupational groups in England and Wales up to April 2022, after adjustment for potential confounding and stratification by pandemic phase. Methods Data from 15,190 employed/self-employed participants in the Virus Watch prospective cohort study were used to generate risk ratios for virologically- or serologically-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection using robust Poisson regression, adjusting for socio-demographic and health-related factors and non-work public activities. We calculated attributable fractions (AF) amongst the exposed for belonging to each occupational group based on adjusted risk ratios (aRR). Results Increased risk was seen in nurses (aRR = 1.44, 1.25–1.65; AF = 30%, 20–39%), doctors (aRR = 1.33, 1.08–1.65; AF = 25%, 7–39%), carers (1.45, 1.19–1.76; AF = 31%, 16–43%), primary school teachers (aRR = 1.67, 1.42- 1.96; AF = 40%, 30–49%), secondary school teachers (aRR = 1.48, 1.26–1.72; AF = 32%, 21–42%), and teaching support occupations (aRR = 1.42, 1.23–1.64; AF = 29%, 18–39%) compared to office-based professional occupations. Differential risk was apparent in the earlier phases (Feb 2020—May 2021) and attenuated later (June—October 2021) for most groups, although teachers and teaching support workers demonstrated persistently elevated risk across waves. Conclusions Occupational differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection risk vary over time and are robust to adjustment for socio-demographic, health-related, and non-workplace activity-related potential confounders. Direct investigation into workplace factors underlying elevated risk and how these change over time is needed to inform occupational health interventions.