Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 10 de 10
Filter
1.
Clinics in Chest Medicine ; 2023.
Article in English | ScienceDirect | ID: covidwho-2321031
2.
Am J Ind Med ; 66(3): 233-242, 2023 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2237046

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Higher incidences of COVID-19 mortality and outbreaks have been found in certain industries and occupations. Workplace factors, including working in close proximity to others and contact with the public can facilitate SARS-CoV-2 transmission, especially without appropriate protective measures. Limited information is available about workers at highest risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: A phone-based, nonprobability study was conducted between November 2020 and May 2021 among California workers who were tested for SARS-CoV-2. Participants were asked about demographics and workplace factors, including industry, occupation, and implementation of COVID-19 mitigation measures. Using the SARS-CoV-2 occupational exposure matrix, three exposure metrics and a combination index were used to categorize occupations. We assessed the association between workplace risks and SARS-CoV-2 test positivity using adjusted logistic regression. RESULTS: We enrolled 451 (13%) of 3475 potentially eligible workers in the study: 212 with positive and 239 with negative SARS-CoV-2 test results. Those working very close to others and with the highest combined exposure index had a positive association with SARS-CoV-2 positivity. Primarily indoor workers had a lower odds of test positivity compared to those with any outdoor work. There was no association between public-facing occupations and test positivity. Participants with employers who implemented mitigation measures in all three control categories-engineering, administrative, and personal protective equipment-had lower odds of test positivity than those with fewer mitigation measures. CONCLUSIONS: Worker groups with higher risk factors should be prioritized for outreach. Assessment of occupational risk factors collectively can provide insight to inform preventative actions for workers, employers, and public health entities.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Occupations , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Workplace , California/epidemiology , Occupational Health
3.
Am J Ind Med ; 66(3): 222-232, 2023 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2172363

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Recent studies have evaluated COVID-19 outbreaks and excess mortality by occupation sectors. Studies on SARS-CoV-2 infection across occupation and occupation-related factors remain lacking. In this study, we estimate the effect of in-person work on SARS-CoV-2 infection risk and describe SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among working adults. METHODS: We used Wave 1 data (May to June 2021) from CalScope, a population-based seroprevalence study in California. Occupation data were coded using the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Industry and Occupation Computerized Coding System. Dried blood spot specimens were tested for antibodies to establish evidence of prior infection. We estimated the causal effect of in-person work on SARS-CoV-2 infection risk using the g-formula and describe SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence across occupation-related factors. RESULTS: Among 4335 working adults, 53% worked in person. In-person work was associated with increased risk of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (risk difference: 0.03; [95% CI: 0.02-0.04]) compared with working remotely. Workers that reported job loss or who were without medical insurance had higher evidence of prior infection. Amongst in-person workers, evidence of prior infection was highest within farming, fishing, and forestry (55%; [95% CI: 26%-81%]); installation, maintenance, and repair (23%; [12%-39%]); building and grounds cleaning and maintenance (23%; [13%-36%]); food preparation and serving related (22% [13%-35%]); and healthcare support (22%; [13%-34%]) occupations. Workers who identified as Latino, reported a household income of <$25K, or who were without a bachelor's degree also had higher evidence of prior infection. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 infection risk varies by occupation. Future vaccination strategies may consider prioritizing in-person workers.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Industry , Agriculture , Health Personnel
4.
Clin Infect Dis ; 75(Supplement_2): S216-S224, 2022 Oct 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2051345

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Surveillance systems lack detailed occupational exposure information from workers with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health partnered with 6 states to collect information from adults diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection who worked in person (outside the home) in non-healthcare settings during the 2 weeks prior to illness onset. METHODS: The survey captured demographic, medical, and occupational characteristics and work- and non-work-related risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Reported close contact with a person known or suspected to have SARS-CoV-2 infection was categorized by setting as exposure at work, exposure outside of work only, or no known exposure/did not know. Frequencies and percentages of exposure types are compared by respondent characteristics and risk factors. RESULTS: Of 1111 respondents, 19.4% reported exposure at work, 23.4% reported exposure outside of work only, and 57.2% reported no known exposure/did not know. Workers in protective service occupations (48.8%) and public administration industries (35.6%) reported exposure at work most often. More than one third (33.7%) of respondents who experienced close contact with ≥10 coworkers per day and 28.8% of respondents who experienced close contact with ≥10 customers/clients per day reported exposures at work. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to occupational SARS-CoV-2 was common among respondents. Examining differences in exposures among different worker groups can help identify populations with the greatest need for prevention interventions. The benefits of recording employment characteristics as standard demographic information will remain relevant as new and reemerging public health issues occur.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Occupational Exposure , Occupational Health , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Personnel , Humans , Occupational Exposure/adverse effects , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , United States/epidemiology
5.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 71(33): 1052-1056, 2022 Aug 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1994636

ABSTRACT

Work-related factors can contribute to risk for exposure to and infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and subsequent COVID-19-attributable outcomes, including death. Comparing COVID-19 metrics across industries can help identify workers at highest risk. Elevated COVID-19 mortality rates have been reported among all transportation workers, as well as specifically in public transportation industries (1-3). The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) calculated public transportation industry-specific COVID-19 outbreak incidence during January 2020-May 2022 and analyzed all laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 deaths among working-age adults in California to calculate public transportation industry-specific mortality rates during the same period. Overall, 340 confirmed COVID-19 outbreaks, 5,641 outbreak-associated cases, and 537 COVID-19-associated deaths were identified among California public transportation industries. Outbreak incidence was 5.2 times as high (129.1 outbreaks per 1,000 establishments) in the bus and urban transit industry and 3.6 times as high in the air transportation industry (87.7) as in all California industries combined (24.7). Mortality rates were 2.1 times as high (237.4 deaths per 100,000 workers) in transportation support services and 1.8 times as high (211.5) in the bus and urban transit industry as in all industries combined (114.4). Workers in public transportation industries are at higher risk for COVID-19 workplace outbreaks and mortality than the general worker population in California and should be prioritized for COVID-19 prevention strategies, including vaccination and enhanced workplace protection measures.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , California/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control , Humans , Industry , SARS-CoV-2
6.
Front Public Health ; 9: 705225, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1775819

ABSTRACT

Coffee production is a global industry with roasteries throughout the world. Workers in this industry are exposed to complex mixtures of gases, dusts, and vapors including carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, coffee dust, allergens, alpha-diketones, and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Adverse respiratory health outcomes such as respiratory symptoms, reduced pulmonary function, asthma, and obliterative bronchiolitis can occur among exposed workers. In response to health hazard evaluations requests received from 17 small- to medium-sized coffee facilities across the United States, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health conducted investigations during 2016-2017 to understand the burden of respiratory abnormalities, exposure characteristics, relationships between exposures and respiratory effects, and opportunities for exposure mitigation. Full-shift, task-based, and instantaneous personal and area air samples for diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione and other VOCs were collected, and engineering controls were evaluated. Medical evaluations included questionnaire, spirometry, impulse oscillometry, and fractional exhaled nitric oxide. Exposure and health assessments were conducted using standardized tools and approaches, which enabled pooling data for aggregate analysis. The pooled data provided a larger population to better address the requestors' concern of the effect of exposure to alpha-diketones on the respiratory heath of coffee workers. This paper describes the rationale for the exposure and health assessment strategy, the approach used to achieve the study objectives, and its advantages and limitations.


Subject(s)
Bronchiolitis Obliterans , Occupational Exposure , Bronchiolitis Obliterans/etiology , Coffee/adverse effects , Diacetyl/adverse effects , Diacetyl/analysis , Food Industry , Humans , Occupational Exposure/adverse effects , Occupational Exposure/analysis , United States
7.
PLoS One ; 17(3): e0266058, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1765542

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Information on U.S. COVID-19 mortality rates by occupation is limited. We aimed to characterize 2020 COVID-19 fatalities among working Californians to inform preventive strategies. METHODS: We identified laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 fatalities with dates of death in 2020 by matching death certificates to the state's COVID-19 case registry. Working status for decedents aged 18-64 years was determined from state employment records, death certificates, and case registry data and classified as "confirmed working," "likely working," or "not working." We calculated age-adjusted overall and occupation-specific COVID-19 mortality rates using 2019 American Community Survey denominators. RESULTS: COVID-19 accounted for 8,050 (9.9%) of 81,468 fatalities among Californians 18-64 years old. Of these decedents, 2,486 (30.9%) were matched to state employment records and classified as "confirmed working." The remainder were classified as "likely working" (n = 4,121 [51.2%]) or "not working" (n = 1,443 [17.9%]) using death certificate and case registry data. Confirmed and likely working COVID-19 decedents were predominantly male (76.3%), Latino (68.7%), and foreign-born (59.6%), with high school or less education (67.9%); 7.8% were Black. The overall age-adjusted COVID-19 mortality rate was 30.0 per 100,000 workers (95% confidence interval [CI], 29.3-30.8). Workers in nine occupational groups had age-adjusted mortality rates higher than this overall rate, including those in farming (78.0; 95% CI, 68.7-88.2); material moving (77.8; 95% CI, 70.2-85.9); construction (62.4; 95% CI, 57.7-67.4); production (60.2; 95% CI, 55.7-65.0); and transportation (57.2; 95% CI, 52.2-62.5) occupations. While occupational differences in mortality were evident across demographic groups, mortality rates were three-fold higher for male compared with female workers and three- to seven-fold higher for Latino and Black workers compared with Asian and White workers. CONCLUSION: Californians in manual labor and in-person service occupations experienced disproportionate COVID-19 mortality, with the highest rates observed among male, Latino, and Black workers; these occupational group should be prioritized for prevention.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adolescent , Adult , Educational Status , Employment , Female , Hispanic or Latino , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Occupations , Young Adult
8.
9.
Emerg Infect Dis ; 28(1): 9-19, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1581410

ABSTRACT

State and local health departments established the California Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and Respiratory Virus Sentinel Surveillance System to conduct enhanced surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory pathogens at sentinel outpatient testing sites in 10 counties throughout California, USA. We describe results obtained during May 10, 2020‒June 12, 2021, and compare persons with positive and negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR results by using Poisson regression. We detected SARS-CoV-2 in 1,696 (19.6%) of 8,662 specimens. Among 7,851 specimens tested by respiratory panel, rhinovirus/enterovirus was detected in 906 (11.5%) specimens and other respiratory pathogens in 136 (1.7%) specimens. We also detected 23 co-infections with SARS-CoV-2 and another pathogen. SARS-CoV-2 positivity was associated with male participants, an age of 35-49 years, Latino race/ethnicity, obesity, and work in transportation occupations. Sentinel surveillance can provide useful virologic and epidemiologic data to supplement other disease monitoring activities and might become increasingly useful as routine testing decreases.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Coinfection , Adult , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Polymerase Chain Reaction , SARS-CoV-2 , Sentinel Surveillance
10.
Emerg Infect Dis ; 27(11): 2761-2767, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1381378

ABSTRACT

The Abbott BinaxNOW rapid antigen test is cheaper and faster than real-time reverse transcription PCR (rRT-PCR) for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. We compared BinaxNOW with rRT-PCR in 769 paired specimens from 342 persons during a coronavirus disease outbreak among horse racetrack workers in California, USA. We found positive percent agreement was 43.3% (95% CI 34.6%-52.4%), negative percent agreement 100% (95% CI 99.4%-100%), positive predictive value 100% (95% CI 93.5%-100%), and negative predictive value 89.9% (95% CI 87.5%-92.0%). Among 127 rRT-PCR-positive specimens, the 55 with paired BinaxNOW-positive results had a lower mean cycle threshold than the 72 with paired BinaxNOW-negative results (17.8 vs. 28.5; p<0.001). Of 100 specimens with cycle threshold <30, a total of 51 resulted in positive virus isolation; 45 (88.2%) of those were BinaxNOW-positive. Our comparison supports immediate isolation for BinaxNOW-positive persons and confirmatory testing for negative persons.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Animals , Antigens, Viral , California/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks , Horses , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL