The Race to Retain Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review on Factors that Impact Retention of Nurses and Physicians in Hospitals.

The shortage of healthcare workers is a growing problem across the globe. Nurses and physicians, in particular, are vulnerable as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding why they might leave is imperative for improving retention. This systematic review explores both the prevalence of nurses and physicians who are intent on leaving their position at hospitals in European countries and the main determinants influencing job retention among nurses and physicians of their respective position in a hospital setting in both European and non-European countries. A comprehensive search was fulfilled within 3 electronic databases on June 3rd 2021. In total 345 articles met the inclusion criteria. The determinants were categorized into 6 themes: personal characteristics, job demands, employment services, working conditions, work relationships, and organizational culture. The main determinants for job retention were job satisfaction, career development and work-life balance. European and non-European countries showed similarities and differences in determinants influencing retention. Identifying these factors supports the development of multifactorial interventions, which can aid the formulation of medical strategies and help to maximize retention.

Development of Harmonized COVID-19 Occupational Questionnaires.

Harmonized tools and approaches for data collection can help to detect similarities and differences within and between countries and support the development, implementation, and assessment of effective and consistent preventive strategies. We developed open source occupational questionnaires on COVID-19 within COVID-19 working groups in the OMEGA-NET COST action (Network on the Coordination and Harmonisation of European Occupational Cohorts, omeganetcohorts.eu), and the EU funded EPHOR project (Exposome project for health and occupational research, ephor-project.eu). We defined domains to be included in order to cover key working life aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Where possible, we selected questionnaire items and instruments from existing questionnaire resources. Both a general occupational COVID-19 questionnaire and a specific occupational COVID-19 questionnaire are available. The general occupational COVID-19 questionnaire covers key working life aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic, including the domains: COVID-19 diagnosis and prevention, Health and demographics, Use of personal protective equipment and face covering, Health effects, Work-related effects (e.g. change in work schedule and work-life balance), Financial effects, Work-based risk factors (e.g. physical distancing, contact with COVID-19-infected persons), Psychosocial risk factors, Lifestyle risk factors, and Personal evaluation of the impact of COVID-19. For each domain, additional questions are available. The specific occupational COVID-19 questionnaire focusses on occupational risk factors and mitigating factors for SARS-CoV2 infection and COVID-19 disease and includes questions about the type of job, amount of home working, social distancing, human contact (colleagues, patients, and members of the public), commuting, and use of personal protective equipment and face coverings. The strength of this initiative is the broad working life approach to various important issues related to SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 disease, and potentially future pandemics. It requires further work to validate the questionnaires, and we welcome collaboration with researchers willing to do this. A limitation is the moderate number of questions for each of the domains in the general questionnaire. Only few questions on general core information like ethnicity, demographics, lifestyle factors, and general health status are included, but the OMEGA-NET questionnaires can be integrated in existing questionnaires about sociodemographic and health-related aspects. The questionnaires are freely accessible from the OMEGA-NET and the EPHOR homepages.

Lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic-what Occupational Safety and Health can bring to Public Health.

We strive to increase public (PH) and occupational health (OSH) inter-linkages by building a collaborative framework. Besides Covid-19 pandemic, recent approaches such as Human Exposome and Total Worker Health TM, have led to a shift to improving health of working population and consequently the total population. These health objectives can be best realised through primary care actors in specific contexts. Work, school, home and leisure are the four multi-stakeholder contexts in which health and healthcare (goal-oriented care) objectives needs to be set and defined. PH policy makers need to establish a shared decision-making process involving employees, employers and OSH representatives to set PH goals and align with OSH goals. The policy making process in OSH can serve as a potential way forward, as the decisions and policies are being decided centrally in consultation with social partners and governments. This process can then be mirrored on company level to adopt and implement.

Corrigendum: IgG anti-spike antibodies and surrogate neutralizing antibody levels decline faster 3 to 10 months after BNT162b2 vaccination than after SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.909910.].

IgG Anti-Spike Antibodies and Surrogate Neutralizing Antibody Levels Decline Faster 3 to 10 Months After BNT162b2 Vaccination Than After SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Healthcare Workers.

Background: IgG anti-spike (S) antibodies arise after SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as vaccination. Levels of IgG anti-S are linked to neutralizing antibody titers and protection against (re)infection. Methods: We measured IgG anti-S and surrogate neutralizing antibody kinetics against Wild Type (WT) and 4 Variants of Concern (VOC) in health care workers (HCW) 3 and 10 months after natural infection ("infection", n=83) or vaccination (2 doses of BNT162b2) with ("hybrid immunity", n=17) or without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection ("vaccination", n=97). Results: The humoral immune response in the "vaccination" cohort was higher at 3 months, but lower at 10 months, compared to the "infection" cohort due to a faster decline. The "hybrid immunity" cohort had the highest antibody levels at 3 and 10 months with a slower decline compared to the "vaccination" cohort. Surrogate neutralizing antibody levels (expressed as %inhibition of ACE-2 binding) showed a linear relation with log10 of IgG anti-S against WT and four VOC. IgG anti-S corresponding to 90% inhibition ranged from 489 BAU/mL for WT to 1756 BAU/mL for Beta variant. Broad pseudoneutralization predicted live virus neutralization of Omicron BA.1 in 20 randomly selected high titer samples. Conclusions: Hybrid immunity resulted in the strongest humoral immune response. Antibodies induced by natural infection decreased more slowly than after vaccination, resulting in higher antibody levels at 10 months compared to vaccinated HCW without prior infection. There was a linear relationship between surrogate neutralizing activity and log10 IgG anti-S for WT and 4 VOC, although some VOC showed reduced sensitivity to pseudoneutralization.

IgG Anti-Spike Antibodies and Surrogate Neutralizing Antibody Levels Decline Faster 3 to 10 Months After BNT162b2 Vaccination Than After SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Healthcare Workers

Background IgG anti-spike (S) antibodies arise after SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as vaccination. Levels of IgG anti-S are linked to neutralizing antibody titers and protection against (re)infection. Methods We measured IgG anti-S and surrogate neutralizing antibody kinetics against Wild Type (WT) and 4 Variants of Concern (VOC) in health care workers (HCW) 3 and 10 months after natural infection (“infection”, n=83) or vaccination (2 doses of BNT162b2) with (“hybrid immunity”, n=17) or without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (“vaccination”, n=97). Results The humoral immune response in the “vaccination” cohort was higher at 3 months, but lower at 10 months, compared to the “infection” cohort due to a faster decline. The “hybrid immunity” cohort had the highest antibody levels at 3 and 10 months with a slower decline compared to the “vaccination” cohort. Surrogate neutralizing antibody levels (expressed as %inhibition of ACE-2 binding) showed a linear relation with log10 of IgG anti-S against WT and four VOC. IgG anti-S corresponding to 90% inhibition ranged from 489 BAU/mL for WT to 1756 BAU/mL for Beta variant. Broad pseudoneutralization predicted live virus neutralization of Omicron BA.1 in 20 randomly selected high titer samples. Conclusions Hybrid immunity resulted in the strongest humoral immune response. Antibodies induced by natural infection decreased more slowly than after vaccination, resulting in higher antibody levels at 10 months compared to vaccinated HCW without prior infection. There was a linear relationship between surrogate neutralizing activity and log10 IgG anti-S for WT and 4 VOC, although some VOC showed reduced sensitivity to pseudoneutralization.

Evaluation of Screening Program and Phylogenetic Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Infections among Hospital Healthcare Workers in Liège, Belgium.

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are known to be at higher risk of developing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections although whether these risks are equal across all occupational roles is uncertain. Identifying these risk factors and understand SARS-CoV-2 transmission pathways in healthcare settings are of high importance to achieve optimal protection measures. We aimed to investigate the implementation of a voluntary screening program for SARS-CoV-2 infections among hospital HCWs and to elucidate potential transmission pathways though phylogenetic analysis before the vaccination era. HCWs of the University Hospital of Liège, Belgium, were invited to participate in voluntary reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays performed every week from April to December 2020. Phylogenetic analysis of SARS-CoV-2 genomes were performed for a subgroup of 45 HCWs. 5095 samples were collected from 703 HCWs. 212 test results were positive, 15 were indeterminate, and 4868 returned negative. 156 HCWs (22.2%) tested positive at least once during the study period. All SARS-CoV-2 test results returned negative for 547 HCWs (77.8%). Nurses (p < 0.05), paramedics (p < 0.05), and laboratory staff handling respiratory samples (p < 0.01) were at higher risk for being infected compared to the control non-patient facing group. Our phylogenetic analysis revealed that most positive samples corresponded to independent introduction events into the hospital. Our findings add to the growing evidence of differential risks of being infected among HCWs and support the need to implement appropriate protection measures based on each individual's risk profile to guarantee the protection of both HCWs and patients. Furthermore, our phylogenetic investigations highlight that most positive samples correspond to distinct introduction events into the hospital.

Assessing the quality of evidence in studies estimating prevalence of exposure to occupational risk factors: The QoE-SPEO approach applied in the systematic reviews from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related burden of disease and Injury.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) have produced the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates). For these, systematic reviews of studies estimating the prevalence of exposure to selected occupational risk factors have been conducted to provide input data for estimations of the number of exposed workers. A critical part of systematic review methodology is to assess the quality of evidence across studies. In this article, we present the approach applied in these WHO/ILO systematic reviews for performing such assessments on studies of prevalence of exposure. It is called the Quality of Evidence in Studies estimating Prevalence of Exposure to Occupational risk factors (QoE-SPEO) approach. We describe QoE-SPEO's development to date, demonstrate its feasibility reporting results from pilot testing and case studies, note its strengths and limitations, and suggest how QoE-SPEO should be tested and developed further. METHODS: Following a comprehensive literature review, and using expert opinion, selected existing quality of evidence assessment approaches used in environmental and occupational health were reviewed and analysed for their relevance to prevalence studies. Relevant steps and components from the existing approaches were adopted or adapted for QoE-SPEO. New steps and components were developed. We elicited feedback from other systematic review methodologists and exposure scientists and reached consensus on the QoE-SPEO approach. Ten individual experts pilot-tested QoE-SPEO. To assess inter-rater agreement, we counted ratings of expected (actual and non-spurious) heterogeneity and quality of evidence and calculated a raw measure of agreement (Pi) between individual raters and rater teams for the downgrade domains. Pi ranged between 0.00 (no two pilot testers selected the same rating) and 1.00 (all pilot testers selected the same rating). Case studies were conducted of experiences of QoE-SPEO's use in two WHO/ILO systematic reviews. RESULTS: We found no existing quality of evidence assessment approach for occupational exposure prevalence studies. We identified three relevant, existing approaches for environmental and occupational health studies of the effect of exposures. Assessments using QoE-SPEO comprise three steps: (1) judge the level of expected heterogeneity (defined as non-spurious variability that can be expected in exposure prevalence, within or between individual persons, because exposure may change over space and/or time), (2) assess downgrade domains, and (3) reach a final rating on the quality of evidence. Assessments are conducted using the same five downgrade domains as the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach: (a) risk of bias, (b) indirectness, (c) inconsistency, (d) imprecision, and (e) publication bias. For downgrade domains (c) and (d), the assessment varies depending on the level of expected heterogeneity. There are no upgrade domains. The QoE-SPEO's ratings are "very low", "low", "moderate", and "high". To arrive at a final decision on the overall quality of evidence, the assessor starts at "high" quality of evidence and for each domain downgrades by one or two levels for serious concerns or very serious concerns, respectively. In pilot tests, there was reasonable agreement in ratings for expected heterogeneity; 70% of raters selected the same rating. Inter-rater agreement ranged considerably between downgrade domains, both for individual rater pairs (range Pi: 0.36-1.00) and rater teams (0.20-1.00). Sparse data prevented rigorous assessment of inter-rater agreement in quality of evidence ratings. CONCLUSIONS: We present QoE-SPEO as an approach for assessing quality of evidence in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors. It has been developed to its current version (as presented here), has undergone pilot testing, and was applied in the systematic reviews for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. While the approach requires further testing and development, it makes steps towards filling an identified gap, and progress made so far can be used to inform future work in this area.

Factors Associated with COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance in Morocco: Applying the Health Belief Model.

To identify factors that influenced Moroccans' intention to get a COVID-19 vaccine, a cross-sectional survey among a Moroccan sample was conducted based on Health Belief Model constructs. Participants' sociodemographic characteristics, perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, perceived barriers, perceived benefits, self-efficacy, cues to action, and intention to receive vaccine data were collected and analyzed using a structural equation model (SEM). The survey was completed by 3800 individuals; 57.2% were men, 44.5% were aged 30 to 44, and 44.6% were married. After controlling for confounders, being a woman and having a chronic disease were associated with higher acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine. The strongest predictor for the intention of receiving a vaccine was participants who were married. Most of the HBM constructs were shown to be significantly associated with vaccine acceptance. Susceptibility and Benefits were the strongest predictors of acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine (standardized path coefficient, SPC = 0.23), followed by Severity (SPC = 0.22). Conversely, given the negative correlation between barriers and intention (SPC = -0.08), it is necessary to maintain a high level of transparency regarding the vaccines' safety. Our study provides guidance for an implementation of vaccination strategies, intending to bolster the overall COVID-19 immunization program.

Lower persistence of anti-nucleocapsid compared to anti-spike antibodies up to one year after SARS-CoV-2 infection.

We retrospectively compared the long-term evolution of IgG anti-spike (S) and anti-nucleocapsid (N) levels (Abbott immunoassays) in 116 non-severe and 115 severe SARS-CoV-2 infected patients from 2 university hospitals up to 365 days post positive RT-PCR. IgG anti-S and anti-N antibody levels decayed exponentially up to 365 days after a peak 0 to 59 days after positive RT-PCR. Peak antibody level/cut-off ratio 0 to 59 days after positive RT-PCR was more than 70 for anti-S compared to less than 6 for anti-N (P < 0.01). Anti-S and anti-N were significantly higher in severe compared to non-severe patients up to 180 to 239 days and 300 to 365 days, respectively (P < 0.05). Despite similar half-lives, the estimated time to 50% seronegativity was more than 2 years for anti-S compared to less than 1 year for anti-N in non-severe and severe COVID-19 patients, due to the significantly higher peak antibody level/cut-off ratio for anti-S compared to anti-N.

Short-term effectiveness of face-to-face periodic occupational health screening versus electronic screening with targeted follow-up: results from a quasi-randomized controlled trial in four Belgian hospitals.

OBJECTIVES: In many countries, organisations are legally obliged to have occupational physicians screen employees regularly. However, this system is time-intensive, and there may be more cost-effective alternatives. Our objective is to compare the short-term effectiveness of periodic occupational health screening of hospital employees by an occupational physician with a system of electronic screening with targeted follow-up. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was set up among personnel of four Belgian hospitals, with three measurement moments between June 2019 and December 2020, to compare differences in self-assessed health, healthcare use, productivity and intermediate outcomes over 19 months. Mixed effects models were used to assess differences in effectiveness. Superiority and non-inferiority post-hoc tests were used as a robustness check. The experiment coincided with the first two COVID-19 waves during which hospital employees were exposed to an exceptional period of occupational stress. RESULTS: In total, 1077 employees (34% of the target population) participated. Although we observed some immediate effects of the intervention (less trust in the physician, absenteeism, and healthcare use), all these effects disappeared over time. After 19 months, including two waves of COVID-19 hospitalizations, no significant differences were observed between employees screened through face-to-face contact and those screened electronically. CONCLUSIONS: Our study finds no indication that, in the short-term, substituting physician screening of the workforce with a quicker survey-based screening with targeted follow-up has different effects on the studied endpoints. However, as health and disease are often the result of a long-term process, more evidence is needed to determine long-term effects.

Safety Profile of GSK's Inactivated Quadrivalent Seasonal Influenza Vaccine in Belgium, Germany and Spain: Passive Enhanced Safety Surveillance Study for the 2019/2020 Influenza Season.

INTRODUCTION: Seasonal influenza infects millions annually in Europe. Annual influenza vaccination is the most effective measure to reduce the risk of infection and its complications, especially among young children and older adults. OBJECTIVE: We assessed adverse event (AE) frequency after receiving GSK's inactivated quadrivalent seasonal influenza vaccine (IIV4). METHODS: A passive enhanced safety surveillance study was conducted in Belgium, Germany, and Spain. Adults who had received GSK's IIV4 or the parent(s)/guardian(s)/legally acceptable representative(s) of children given the vaccine were invited to complete an adverse drug reaction (ADR) card to document AEs experienced within 7 days post vaccination. RESULTS: A total of 1082 participants (51.6% females) received GSK's IIV4, including 115 children < 9 years of age who received two doses. The ADR card return rate was 97.0% (n = 1049) after dose 1 and 100% (n = 115) after dose 2. All participants in Belgium and Germany were adults. In Spain, 71.2% were children. After dose 1, 39.2% reported one or more AE. The most frequent AEs category was "general disorders and administration site conditions" (GDASC). AEs were most frequently reported in adults aged 18-65 years (47.2%), followed by children aged 6 months-17 years (38.1%), and adults aged > 65 years (31.6%). After dose 2, 7.8% reported one or more AE, and GDASC was again the most frequent AE category. There were no serious AEs related to GSK's IIV4 within 7 days post vaccination. CONCLUSION: No serious AEs related to GSK's IIV4 within 7 days post vaccination were reported. This study supports the favourable risk-benefit safety profile of GSK's IIV4.

Seasonal influenza infects millions annually in Europe, especially young children and older adults. Annual influenza vaccination is the most effective measure to reduce the risk of infection and its complications. As the wild influenza virus strains change every year, the composition of the influenza vaccine changes as well. Since the vaccine is produced in the same way over the years, extensive safety studies are no longer required by regulatory authorities. Instead, monitoring of any unwanted medical incidents (adverse events) after vaccination is required. For the 2019/2020 season, we monitored the adverse events reported by a representative sample of people in Belgium, Germany, and Spain within 7 days after receiving GSK's seasonal influenza vaccine.Of the 1082 people who received the first dose of the vaccine, 39% reported at least one adverse event, such as pain and swelling at the injection site, tiredness, fever, headache, or dizziness. A total of 115 children under 9 years of age received two doses 4 weeks apart. After their second dose, few of these children (8%) reported adverse events. The most frequent adverse events were fever, swelling and pain at the injection site, runny nose, or irritability. No serious adverse events were reported after either the first or second dose.No serious adverse events related to GSK's seasonal influenza vaccine within the 7 days after vaccination were reported. This study supports the favourable risk­benefit safety profile of GSK's seasonal influenza vaccine.

Confirmed COVID-19 Cases per Economic Activity during Autumn Wave in Belgium.

Some occupational sectors, such as human health and care, food service, cultural and sport activities, have been associated with a higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection than other sectors. To curb the spread of SARS-CoV-2, it is preferable to apply targeted non-pharmaceutical interventions on selected economic sectors, rather than a full lockdown. However, the effect of these general and sector-specific interventions on the virus circulation has only been sparsely studied. We assess the COVID-19 incidence under different levels of non-pharmaceutical interventions per economic activity during the autumn 2020 wave in Belgium. The 14-day incidence of confirmed COVID-19 cases per the Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community (NACE-BEL) sector is modelled by a longitudinal Gaussian-Gaussian two-stage approach. This is based on exhaustive data on all employees in all sectors. In the presence of sanitary protocols and minimal non-pharmaceutical interventions, many sectors with close contact with others show considerably higher COVID-19 14-day incidences than other sectors. The effect of stricter non-pharmaceutical interventions in the general population and non-essential sectors is seen in the timing of the peak incidence and the width and height of the post-peak incidence. In most sectors incidences returned to higher levels after the peak than before and this decrease took longer for the health and care sector. Sanitary protocols for close proximity occupations may be sufficient during periods of low-level virus circulation, but progressively less with increasing circulation. Stricter general and sector-specific non-pharmaceutical interventions adequately decrease COVID-19 incidences, even in close proximity in essential sectors under solely sanitary protocols.

Strategies for monitoring of the internal exposome using self-sampling methods in the context of EU EPHOR project

IntroductionWorking life exposures contribute significantly to non-communicable disease development. However, the challenge remains on how to map occupational exposures during the entire career and link exposures with health outcomes. In this context, the EU EPHOR project aims to characterize the internal exposome, by characterizing exposure biomarkers and biological pathways to link external exposure and health effects. While there is a range of strategies available to monitor the internal exposome, these conventional methods often require invasive collection of biological samples and/or high volumes. However, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic forces us to look also at other approaches to obtain biological samples.ObjectiveWe aimed to explore the use of self-sampling techniques in an occupational exposome context.MethodsWe have conducted a semi-systematic literature review to identify self-sampling techniques used to generate high quality data on several biomarkers of exposure and effect. We are exploring the possibility of using these self-sampling techniques through a pilot study. A tiered analytical approach along with a biological sequence will be followed to efficiently analyze the samples (i.e. blood, urine, saliva, exhaled breath, exhaled breath aerosols and exhaled breath condensate) for a broad spectrum of biomarkers and omics. Additionally, non-invasive targeted and non-targeted exposome markers of acute lung function decline and inflammation will be developed through proteomic analysis of exhaled breath condensate (EBC), and exhaled breath VOCs using the ReCIVA Breath Sampler. These data will be integrated to generate signatures or ‘fingerprints’ of exposomes, at individual and group levels.Results and ConclusionThe developed methodology will be applied in 2 cohorts within the EPHOR project: shift-workers and workers with asthma or allergic rhinitis to assess the internal exposure and elucidate biological pathways in disease development.

Incidence of COVID-19 by sector

IntroductionThe workplace is among the main activities for a large proportion of the population, and consequently a source of potential Sars-Cov2 infection. In this study we investigated longitudinally the incidence of COVID-19 by sectorMethodsThe 14-day incidence of confirmed COVID-19 cases per NACE-BEL code is calculated cross-sectionally in periods immediately preceding the Belgian soft lock-down of October 19, 2020, and is evaluated longitudinally by a Gaussian-Gaussian modelling two-stage approach. Additionally, we are analysing contact tracing data for companies affiliated with occupational health service IDEWE.ResultsThe peak of COVID-19 14-day incidence was reached in the period October 20-November 2, 2020 and was considerably higher than average in human health activities, residential care activities, fitness facilities, human resource provision, hairdressing and other beauty treatment and some public service activities. During the course of the study, we observed large outbreaks in processing, production and preserving of meat, poultry. Similarly, higher incidences was shown in some manufacturing sectors that are not able to telework (manufacturing of metals and textile). Employees in wholesale and retail daily confronted with multiple close contacts, resulting in higher incidences of COVID-19. Finally, the incidence of COVID-19 in the non-medical contact professions remained in general above the working population incidence. Finally, it is encouraging that 3 to 4 weeks after vaccination that the 14-day incidences in health care workers, in- and out-hospital, and residential care in elderly employees are the lowest of all sectors,ConclusionThis analysis can help us to better understand causes of increased infection rates and it can offer us ways to reduce infections without jeopardizing the continuity of these sectors/companies for the benefit of all. These data can also support the epidemiological evidence for the recognition of COVID-19 as occupational disease.

Migrant workers occupational health research: an OMEGA-NET working group position paper.

OBJECTIVE: The aims of the study were: (1) to clarify the definitions of "migrant" used in occupational health research; (2) to summarize migrant workers' industry sectors, occupations and employment conditions; (3) to identify the occupational health and safety services available to migrant workers; (4) to summarize work-related health problems found among migrant workers; (5) to identify the methodological challenges to research into occupational health of migrant workers; and (6) to recommend improvements in migrant occupational health research. METHODS: This position paper was prepared by researchers from several European countries and Australia, working within the EU COST Action OMEGA-NET. The paper drew on two recent systematic reviews on the occupational health of international migrant workers and other literature, and also identified uncertainties and gaps in the research literature. Migrants may, for example, be temporary or permanent, moving for specific jobs migrants or other reasons. Their ethnicity and language capabilities will affect their work opportunities. RESULTS: The occupational health literature seldom adequately identifies the heterogeneity or characteristics of the migrant group being studied. Migrants tend to work in more physically and mentally demanding environments with higher exposures than native workers. Migrants tend to have an increased risk of physical and mental ill health, but less access to health care services. This has been demonstrated recently by high rates of COVID-19 and less access to health care. There have been a number of cross-sectional studies of migrant health but few long-term cohort studies were identified. Other study designs, such as registry-based studies, surveys and qualitative studies may complement cross-sectional studies. Mixed-methodology studies would be valuable in research on migrants' occupational health. Language and lack of trust are barriers to migrant research participation. CONCLUSION: Targeted research, especially longitudinal, identifying how these economically important but often-vulnerable workers can be best assisted is needed. Researchers should identify the characteristics of the migrant workers that they are studying including visa/migration circumstances (temporary, permanent, undocumented), racial and ethnic characteristics, existing skills and language abilities.

MAROCOVID: Snapshot Monitoring of Knowledge and Perceptions of Safety Behaviors during the COVID-19 Outbreak in Morocco.

To assess whether knowledge, attitude, and perceptions of the COVID-19 pandemic predicted changes in behaviors among the general Moroccan population, a cross-sectional online survey was conducted between 30 March and 20 April involving a total of 14,157 participants. The statistical analysis of the data included univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. Our results suggest that less than ten days after the Moroccan government announced "Health state of Emergency" response to the COVID-19 outbreak, public knowledge, attitude and responses to the pandemic were relatively high. More than half the respondents (63.2%) reported that they complied with more than five of nine recommended safety measures, including avoiding going out (93.2%), and frequent handwashing with soap and water (78.2%). Factors associated with an increased likelihood to adopt safety measures included perceptions that COVID-19 was a human health risk, the pandemic will continue for a long time, availability of clear information, and a lack of medicine. The largest predictor of safety behavior change was age; participants older than 55 were more likely to adopt recommended safety behaviors. Although knowledge and perception among the general public was reasonable, more encouragement from government via health education programs is needed to maintain appropriate behaviors.