ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: This study investigates the associations between the Danish version of a job exposure matrix for COVID-19 (COVID-19-JEM) and Danish register-based SARS-CoV-2 infection information across three waves of the pandemic. The COVID-19-JEM consists of four dimensions on transmission: two on mitigation measures, and two on precarious work characteristics. METHODS: The study comprised 2 021 309 persons from the Danish working population between 26 February 2020 and 15 December 2021. Logistic regression models were applied to assess the associations between the JEM dimensions and overall score and SARS-CoV-2 infection across three infection waves, with peaks in March-April 2020, December-January 2021, and February-March 2022. Sex, age, household income, country of birth, wave, residential region and during wave 3 vaccination status were accounted for. RESULTS: Higher risk scores within the transmission and mitigation dimensions and the overall JEM score resulted in higher odds ratios (OR) of a SARS-CoV-2 infection. OR attenuated across the three waves with ranges of 1.08-5.09 in wave 1, 1.06-1.60 in wave 2, and 1.05-1.45 in those not (fully) vaccinated in wave 3. In wave 3, no associations were found for those fully vaccinated. In all waves, the two precarious work dimensions showed weaker or inversed associations. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19-JEM is a promising tool for assessing occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and other airborne infectious agents that mainly spread between people who are in close contact with each other. However, its usefulness depends on applied restrictions and the vaccination status in the population of interest.
ABSTRACT
During spring 2021, AZD1222 and BNT162b2 were used as prime and BNT162b2 as booster COVID-19 vaccines in Denmark. We obtained self-reported information on systemic reactogenicity day-by-day during two weeks for 2862 healthcare workers vaccinated with heterologous AZD1222+BNT162b2 or homologous BNT162b2+BNT162b2 regimens and compared prevalences of symptoms with unvaccinated healthcare workers. We found comparable systemic reactogenicity during the first week in the two vaccine regimens and no reactogenicity during the second week. Most of the symptoms returned to a level equal to the control population four days after booster vaccination.
ABSTRACT
During spring 2021, AZD1222 and BNT162b2 were used as prime and BNT162b2 as booster COVID-19 vaccines in Denmark. We obtained self-reported information on systemic reactogenicity day-by-day during two weeks for 2862 healthcare workers vaccinated with heterologous AZD1222 + BNT162b2 or homologous BNT162b2 + BNT162b2 regimens and compared prevalences of symptoms with unvaccinated healthcare workers. We found comparable systemic reactogenicity during the first week in the two vaccine regimens and no reactogenicity during the second week. Most of the symptoms returned to a level equal to the control population four days after booster vaccination.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Most earlier studies on occupational risk of COVID-19 covering the entire workforce are based on relatively rare outcomes such as hospital admission and mortality. This study examines the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection by occupational group based on real-time PCR (RT-PCR) tests. METHODS: The cohort includes 2.4 million Danish employees, 20-69 years of age. All data were retrieved from public registries. The incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of first-occurring positive RT-PCR test from week 8 of 2020 to week 50 of 2021 were computed by Poisson regression for each four-digit Danish Version of the International Standard Classification of Occupations job code with more than 100 male and 100 female employees (n=205). Occupational groups with low risk of workplace infection according to a job exposure matrix constituted the reference group. Risk estimates were adjusted by demographic, social and health characteristics including household size, completed COVID-19 vaccination, pandemic wave and occupation-specific frequency of testing. RESULTS: IRRs of SARS-CoV-2 infection were elevated in seven healthcare occupations and 42 occupations in other sectors, mainly social work activities, residential care, education, defence and security, accommodation and transportation. No IRRs exceeded 2.0. The relative risk in healthcare, residential care and defence/security declined across pandemic waves. Decreased IRRs were observed in 12 occupations. DISCUSSION: We observed a modestly increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among employees in numerous occupations, indicating a large potential for preventive actions. Cautious interpretation of observed risk in specific occupations is needed because of methodological issues inherent in analyses of RT-PCR test results and because of multiple statistical tests.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Male , Female , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19 Vaccines , Workforce , Denmark/epidemiologyABSTRACT
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
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
AIM: One-fifth of the Danish population smoke and exposure to second-hand smoke has well-documented adverse health effects. The smoking policy at hospital level prohibits hospital staff from smoking on the hospital grounds while patients and visitors may smoke in outdoor smoking cabins. This study aimed to quantify smoking at a Danish hospital and document any policy breaches. METHODS: In April 2020, we collected cigarette butts and observed smokers at the outdoor grounds to document smoking behaviour. RESULTS: In total, 7152 cigarette butts were collected during one week and 368 people were observed smoking at the outdoor grounds during four observation days. Of all collected cigarette butts, 55% were collected outside the smoking cabins and 62% of all smokers were observed smoking outside the smoking cabins. In addition, 31 staff were observed smoking. CONCLUSIONS: This study documents that smoking is prevalent at a smoke-free hospital and that the smoking policy is frequently violated. The frequency of smoking outside the cabins may at least partly be influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic. Smoking at a hospital can expose patients, visitors and staff to second-hand smoke with subsequent adverse health effects. Hospitals could play an exemplary role towards a smoke-free society (and not the exception), but the opportunity is not always seized.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to construct a job exposure matrix (JEM) for risk of becoming infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus in an occupational setting. METHODS: Experts in occupational epidemiology from three European countries (Denmark, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom) defined the relevant exposure and workplace characteristics with regard to possible exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. In an iterative process, experts rated the different dimensions of the COVID-19-JEM for each job title within the International Standard Classification of Occupations system 2008 (ISCO-08). Agreement scores, weighted kappas, and variances were estimated. RESULTS: The COVID-19-JEM contains four determinants of transmission risk [number of people, nature of contacts, contaminated workspaces and location (indoors or outdoors)], two mitigation measures (social distancing and face covering), and two factors for precarious work (income insecurity and proportion of migrants). Agreement scores ranged from 0.27 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25-0.29] for 'migrants' to 0.76 (95% CI 0.74-0.78) for 'nature of contacts'. Weighted kappas indicated moderate-to-good agreement for all dimensions [ranging from 0.60 (95% CI 0.60-0.60) for 'face covering' to 0.80 (95% CI 0.80-0.80) for 'contaminated workspaces'], except for 'migrants' (0.14 (95% CI -0.07-0.36). As country differences remained after several consensus exercises, the COVID-19-JEM also has a country-axis. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19-JEM assesses the risk at population level using eight dimensions related to SARS-COV-2 infections at work and will improve our ability to investigate work-related risk factors in epidemiological studies. The dimensions of the COVID-19-JEM could also be valuable for other future communicable diseases in the workplace.