Workplace aggression against healthcare workers in a Spanish healthcare institution between 2019 and 2021: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objectives: Describe the incidence of first aggressions among healthcare workers (HCWs) before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in a Spanish healthcare institution, according to workers' socio-occupational characteristics and analyze the impact of the pandemic on it. Methods: A cohort involving HCWs who worked in the institution for at least 1 week each year from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2021. Adjusted relative risks (aRR) were estimated using generalized estimating equations and negative binomial models to calculate the differences in WPA between the different time periods. All analyses were stratified by gender. Results: Among women, the incidence was 6.8% (6.0; 7.8) during the pre-COVID-19 period, 6.0% (5.2; 7.0) during the COVID-19 baseline and 5.1% (4.3; 5.9) during the COVID-19 endline; and 4.6% (3.4; 6.1), 5.3% (4.1; 6.8) and 4.4% (3.5; 5.8), respectively, among men. Among men, the incidence of WPA was 4.6 (3.4; 6.1), 5.3 (4.1; 6.8), and 4.4% (3.5; 5.8), respectively. These incidences were significantly higher among male nurses and aides [11.1 (8.0; 15.4), 12.3 (8.9; 16.6), and 9.3% (6.5; 13.3) during each period] and psychiatric center workers [women: 14.7 (11.2; 19.0), 15.4 (11.8; 19.8), and 12.4% (9.2; 16.6); men: 12.3 (7.2; 20.0), 17.8 (11.6; 26.2), and 14.3% (8.8; 22.4)]. Among women, the risk of WPA was 23% lower in the post-COVID-19 period compared to before the pandemic [aRR = 0.77 (0.64; 0.93)], while the risk during the COVID-19 baseline was not significantly different [aRR = 0.89 (0.74; 1.06)]. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic led to an unexpected decrease in first-time WPA against HCWs. However, ~5% of HCWs experienced at least one incidence of aggression in the last follow-up year. Healthcare managers should continue to increase the prevention of aggression against HCWs, especially among vulnerable groups with a higher level of incidence.

Non-Pharmacological Preventive Measures Had an Impact on COVID-19 in Healthcare Workers before the Vaccination Effect: A Cohort Study.

Healthcare workers have been and still are at the forefront of COVID-19 patient care. Their infection had direct implications and caused important challenges for healthcare performance. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of non-pharmacological preventive measures against COVID-19 among healthcare workers. This study is based on a dynamic cohort of healthcare workers (n = 5543) who had been hired by a Spanish hospital for at least one week during 2020. Negative binomial regression models were used to estimate the incidence rate and the rate ratio (RR) between the two waves (defined from 15 March to 21 June and from 22 June to 31 December), considering natural immunity during the first wave and contextual variables. All models were stratified by socio-occupational variables. The average COVID-19 incidence rate per 1000 worker-days showed a significant reduction between the two waves, dropping from 0.82 (CI95%: 0.73-0.91) to 0.39 (0.35-0.44). The adjusted RR was 0.54 (0.48-0.87) when natural immunity was acquired during the first wave, and contextual variables were considered. The significant reduction of the COVID-19 incidence rate could be explained mainly by improvement in the non-pharmacological preventive interventions. It is needed to identify which measures were more effective. Young workers and those with a replacement contract were identified as vulnerable groups that need greater preventive efforts. Future preparedness plans would benefit from these results.

Occupational health, frontline workers and COVID-19 lockdown: new gender-related inequalities?

INTRODUCTION: The abrupt onset of COVID-19, with its rapid spread, has had brutal consequences in all areas of society, including the workplace. In this paper, we report the working conditions, health, and tranquilisers and opioid analgesics use of workers during the first months of the ensuing pandemic, according to whether they were frontline workers or not and also according to sex. METHODS: Our analysis is based on cross-sectional survey data (collected during April and May 2020) from the wage-earning population in Spain (n=15 070). We estimate prevalences, adjusted prevalence differences and adjusted prevalence ratios by sex and according to whether the worker is a frontline worker or not. RESULTS: Employment and working conditions, exposure to psychosocial risks, as well as health status and the consumption of tranquilisers and opioid analgesics all showed sex and sectoral (frontline vs non-frontline) inequalities, which placed essential women workers in a particularly vulnerable position. Moreover, the consumption of tranquilisers and opioid analgesics increased during the pandemic and health worsened significantly among frontline women workers. CONCLUSIONS: The exceptional situation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic provides an opportunity to revalue essential sectors and to dignify such employment and working conditions, especially among women. There is an urgent need to improve working conditions and reduce occupational risk, particularly among frontline workers. In addition, this study highlights the public health problem posed by tranquilisers and opioid analgesics consumption, especially among frontline women.

SARS-CoV-2 transmission in students of public schools of Catalonia (Spain) after a month of reopening.

INTRODUCTION: SARS-CoV-2 transmission within schools and its contribution to community transmission are still a matter of debate. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study in all public schools in Catalonia was conducted using publicly available data assessing the association between the number of reported SARS-CoV-2 cases among students and staff in weeks 1-2 (Sept 14-27th, 2020) of the academic year with school SARS-CoV-2 incidence among students in weeks 4-5. A multilevel Poisson regression model adjusted for the community incidence in the corresponding basic health area (BHA) and the type of school (primary or secondary), with random effects at the sanitary region and BHA levels, was performed. RESULTS: A total of 2184 public schools opened on September 14th with 778,715 students. Multivariate analysis showed a significant association between the total number of SARS-CoV-2 cases in a centre in weeks 1-2 and the SARS-CoV-2 school incidence among students in weeks 4-5 (Risk Ratio (RR) 1.074, 95% CI 1.044-1.105, p-value <0.001). The adjusted BHA incidence in the first two weeks was associated with school incidence in weeks 4-5 (RR 1.002, 95% CI 1.002-1.003, p-value <0.001). Secondary schools showed an increased incidence in weeks 4 and 5 (RR primary vs secondary 1.709 95% CI 1.599-1.897, p-value <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Safety measures adopted by schools were not enough to stop related-to-school transmission in students and could be improved. The safest way to keep schools open is to reduce community transmission down to a minimum.