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.

Workplace interventions to reduce the risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection outside of healthcare settings

Objectives This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the benefits and harms of interventions in non‐healthcare‐related workplaces to reduce the risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection relative to other interventions or no intervention.

Workplace interventions to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection outside of healthcare settings.

BACKGROUND: Although many people infected with SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2) experience no or mild symptoms, some individuals can develop severe illness and may die, particularly older people and those with underlying medical problems. Providing evidence-based interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection has become more urgent with the spread of more infectious SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VoC), and the potential psychological toll imposed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.   Controlling exposures to occupational hazards is the fundamental method of protecting workers. When it comes to the transmission of viruses, such as SARS-CoV-2, workplaces should first consider control measures that can potentially have the most significant impact. According to the hierarchy of controls, one should first consider elimination (and substitution), then engineering controls, administrative controls, and lastly, personal protective equipment (PPE). OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of interventions in non-healthcare-related workplaces to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection relative to other interventions, or no intervention. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS), Clinicaltrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to 14 September 2021. We will conduct an update of this review in six months. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised control trials (RCT) and planned to include non-randomised studies of interventions. We included adult workers, both those who come into close contact with clients or customers (e.g. public-facing employees, such as cashiers or taxi drivers), and those who do not, but who could be infected by co-workers. We excluded studies involving healthcare workers. We included any intervention to prevent or reduce workers' exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in the workplace, defining categories of intervention according to the hierarchy of hazard controls, i.e. elimination; engineering controls; administrative controls; personal protective equipment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection (or other respiratory viruses), SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, and absenteeism from work. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, quality of life, hospitalisation, and uptake, acceptability, or adherence to strategies. We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess the risk of bias, and GRADE methods to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: Elimination of exposure interventions We included one study examining an intervention that focused on elimination of hazards. This study is an open-label, cluster-randomised, non-inferiority trial, conducted in England in 2021. The study compared standard 10-day self-isolation after contact with an infected person to a new strategy of daily rapid antigen testing and staying at work if the test is negative (test-based attendance). The trialists hypothesised that this would lead to a similar rate of infections, but lower COVID-related absence. Staff (N = 11,798) working at 76 schools were assigned to standard isolation, and staff (N = 12,229) at 86 schools to the test-based attendance strategy.  The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of symptomatic PCR-positive SARS-COV-2 infection rate ratio ((RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 2.21; 1 study, very low-certainty evidence)). The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of any PCR-positive SARS-COV-2 infection (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.21; 1 study, very low-certainty evidence). COVID-related absenteeism rates were 3704 absence days in 566,502 days-at-risk (6.5 per 1000 days at risk) in the control group and 2932 per 539,805 days-at-risk (5.4 per 1000 days at risk) in the intervention group (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25). The certainty of the evidence was downgraded to low, due to imprecision. Uptake of the intervention was 71 % in the intervention group, but not reported for the control intervention.  The trial did not measure other outcomes, SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, all-cause mortality, quality of life, and hospitalisation. We found one ongoing RCT about screening in schools, using elimination of hazard strategies. Personal protective equipment We found one ongoing non-randomised study on the effects of closed face shields to prevent COVID-19 transmission. Other intervention categories We did not find studies in the other intervention categories. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain whether a test-based attendance policy affects rates of PCR-postive SARS-CoV-2 infection (any infection; symptomatic infection) compared to standard 10-day self-isolation amongst school and college staff. Test-based attendance policy may result in little to no difference in absence rates compared to standard 10-day self-isolation. As a large part of the population is exposed in the case of a pandemic, an apparently small relative effect that would not be worthwhile from the individual perspective may still affect many people, and thus, become an important absolute effect from the enterprise or societal perspective.  The included study did not report on any other primary outcomes of our review, i.e. SARS-CoV-2-related mortality and adverse events. No completed studies were identified on any other interventions specified in this review, but two eligible studies are ongoing. More controlled studies are needed on testing and isolation strategies, and working from home, as these have important implications for work organisations.

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.

Editor's Choice - Role of Compression After Radiofrequency Ablation of Varicose Veins: A Randomised Controlled Trial☆.

OBJECTIVE: Post-procedure limb compression, hitherto routine following open varicose vein surgery, has been extended to endovenous procedures. However, no robust evidence exists to support this practice. Most of the previous studies have focused on the ideal duration of compression. This study evaluates the clinical and patient reported outcomes with and without post-procedure leg compression following radiofrequency ablation (RFA). METHODS: This single centre, prospective, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial recruited adult patients, into two groups (A: RFA with compression stocking for two weeks, B: RFA alone). The primary outcome was ultrasound determined target vein obliteration at 12 weeks. Secondary outcome measures included a Quality of Life (QoL) score [Aberdeen Varicose Vein Severity Score (AVSS) and Revised Venous Clinical Severity Score (RVCSS)], patient satisfaction, pain score, and complications. RESULTS: In total, 100 consecutive patients were recruited (A: 51; B: 49) classified as clinical class C2-C6 of the Clinical-Etiological-Anatomical-Pathophysiological (CEAP) classification. At 12 weeks the occlusion rate of the target vein was similar in both groups at 98% (n = 47) and 98% (n = 45), respectively (p = 1.0). There was no statistically significant difference in mean AVSS 6 vs. 5.0 (mean difference -1, 95% CI -2 - 3, p = .57) and mean RVCSS 3 vs. 4 (mean difference 1, 95% CI -1 - 2, p = .46) scores at 12 weeks. Comparable patient satisfaction scores were observed (p = .72) and pain score 2.0 vs. 2.0 (p = .92) were achieved in both groups. Two patients in each group developed deep vein thrombosis at two weeks follow up (p = 1.0 for above the knee and p = 1.0 for below the knee). CONCLUSION: The clinical and patient reported outcomes following RFA without compression are no worse than with compression. This trial supports the conclusion that the widely practised use of compression after RFA adds no clinical benefit for the patients. However, a much larger study, preferably a multicentre trial, may be required to confirm this conclusion.

Feasibility study of assessing the Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite (PACC) score via videoconferencing.

BACKGROUND: The Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite (PACC) is a composite score which can detect the first signs of cognitive impairment, which can be of importance for research and clinical practice. It is designed to be administered in person; however, in-person assessments are costly, and are difficult during the current COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of performing the PACC assessment with videoconferencing, and to compare the validity of this remote PACC with the in-person PACC obtained previously. METHODS: Participants from the HEalth and Ageing Data IN the Game of football (HEADING) Study who had already undergone an in-person assessment were re-contacted and re-assessed remotely. The correlation between the two PACC scores was estimated. The difference between the two PACC scores was calculated and used in multiple linear regression to assess which variables were associated with a difference in PACC scores. FINDINGS: Of the 43 participants who were invited to this external study, 28 were re-assessed. The median duration in days between the in-person and the remote assessments was 236.5 days (7.9 months) (IQR 62.5). There was a strong positive correlation between the two assessments for the PACC score, with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0·82 (95% CI 0·66, 0·98). The multiple linear regression found that the only predictor of the PACC difference was the time between assessments. INTERPRETATION: This study provides evidence on the feasibility of performing cognitive tests online, with the PACC tests being successfully administered through videoconferencing. This is relevant, especially during times when face-to-face assessments cannot be performed.