ABSTRACT
IntroductionThis study aimed to investigate the role of occupational exposure in the risk to be infected with Sars-Cov-2, and whether this differ across waves, while correcting for non-work related factors.MethodsData from 207 034 workers from the Netherlands with test data on Sars-Cov-2 from June 2020 until August 2021 were available. Personal characteristics and living conditions were derived from Statistics Netherlands. Occupational exposure was estimated by using the COVID-19 JEM. A test-negative design was applied in which the risk for a positive test was analyzed in a conditional logit model for the entire study period and three separate waves.ResultsNine percent of tests were positive during the entire study period, and being exposed at work was related to a higher risk for a positive test. The multiple regression models showed that contaminated work spaces, (lack of) face covering and income insecurity are the most important risk factors for a positive test result. Differences were found across waves. Some occupations were at higher risk to be infected at the worksite than others, and this differed across waves.ConclusionsEven after correcting for non-work related factors, exposure to Sars-Cov-2 at work is still related with higher risk for a positive test. The type of jobs differed across the waves and depends largely on the measures taken by the government.
ABSTRACT
IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the physical and mental functioning of healthcare professionals, especially those working on the ‘frontline’, and other hospital workers. At the onset of the crisis, various interventions were introduced to promote resilience and offer mental support to these professionals. However, it is unknown whether the interventions will meet the needs of professionals as the COVID-19 pandemic continues.The goal of this exploratory study is to gain insight in factors that protect the vitality and resilience of Dutch hospital employees during the so-called ‘second wave’ of the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper describes the study protocol.Methods and analysisThis exploratory study applies a mixed-methods design, using both quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection and analysis. The first part of the study (substudy I) consists of surveys among doctors and nurses in COVID-19 departments and non-COVID-19 departments, and other professionals in the hospital (ie, managers and homeworkers) in 2020 and 2021. The second part of the study (substudy II) consists of focus groups and interviews among professionals of the intensive care unit, COVID-19 departments and infection prevention units.Ethics and disseminationThe research protocol for this study has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee (MEC-2020-0705). The outcomes of this study will be used to develop and implement interventions to support hospital employees maintaining their vitality and resilience during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Employees with vitality experience less work-related stress and make a positive contribution to healthcare quality.
ABSTRACT
IntroductionAs workplaces may be one of the key settings in the spread of SARS-COV-2 infections, among both essential and non-essential workers, it is important to assess the occupations at increased risk of exposure to SARS-COV-2 in large study populations.ObjectivesThis study aimed to construct a job-exposure matrix (JEM) for the risk of becoming infected with SARS-COV-2 in an occupational setting.MethodsExperts in occupational epidemiology from three European countries (Denmark, the Netherlands and United Kingdom) defined relevant exposure and workplace characteristics with regard to possible exposure to SARS-COV-2. Within an iterative qualitative process, experts rated the different dimensions of the COVID-19-JEM for each job title within the International Standard Classification of Occupations 2008 (ISCO-08). The agreement scores including confidence intervals, weighted kappas, and explained variances were estimated.ResultsThe COVID-19-JEM contains four determinants of transmission risk (number of people, type of contacts, indirect contact and location), two mitigation measures (social distancing and face covering), and two social factors (income insecurity and migrant workers). Agreement scores ranged from 0.58 (95%CI 0.55;0.61) for ‘number of people’ to 0.76 (95%CI 0.74;0.78) for ‘type of contacts’. Agreement scores ranged from 0.58 (95%CI 0.55;0.61) for ‘number of people’ to 0.76 (95%CI 0.74;0.78) for ‘type of contacts. Weighted kappas ranged from 0.60 for ‘face covering’ to 0.80 for ‘indirect contact’. Due to some between-country differences, COVID-19-JEMs are separately presented for Denmark, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.ConclusionsThe COVID-19-JEM provides risk estimates at population level of the eight dimensions related to a SARS-COV-2 infection at the workplace, and is a valuable tool for epidemiological studies. Additionally, the eight dimensions of the COVID-19-JEM could also be used for other communicable diseases at worksites.