ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Objectives. To ascertain whether and how working as a partnership of two World Health Organization collaborating centres (WHOCCs), based respectively in the Global North and Global South, can add insights on "what works to protect healthcare workers (HCWs) during a pandemic, in what contexts, using what mechanism, to achieve what outcome”. Methods. A realist synthesis of seven projects in this research program was carried out to characterize context (C) (including researcher positionality), mechanism (M) (including service relationships) and outcome (O) in each project. An assessment was then conducted of the role of the WHOCC partnership in each study and overall. Results. The research found that lower-resourced countries with higher economic disparity, including South Africa, incurred greater occupational health risk and had less acceptable measures to protect HCWs at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic than higher-income more-equal counterpart countries. It showed that rigorously adopting occupational health measures can indeed protect the healthcare workforce;training and preventive initiatives can reduce workplace stress;information systems are valued;and HCWs most at-risk (including care aides in the Canadian setting) can be readily identified to trigger adoption of protective actions. The C-M-O analysis showed that various ways of working through a WHOCC partnership not only enabled knowledge sharing, but allowed for triangulating results and, ultimately, initiatives for worker protection. Conclusions. The value of an international partnership on a North-South axis especially lies in providing contextualized global evidence regarding protecting HCWs as a pandemic emerges, particularly with bi-directional cross-jurisdiction participation by researchers working with practitioners.
ABSTRACT
Objectives: To ascertain whether and how working as a partnership of two World Health Organization collaborating centres (WHOCCs), based respectively in the Global North and Global South, can add insights on "what works to protect healthcare workers (HCWs) during a pandemic, in what contexts, using what mechanism, to achieve what outcome". Methods: A realist synthesis of seven projects in this research program was carried out to characterize context (C) (including researcher positionality), mechanism (M) (including service relationships) and outcome (O) in each project. An assessment was then conducted of the role of the WHOCC partnership in each study and overall. Results: The research found that lower-resourced countries with higher economic disparity, including South Africa, incurred greater occupational health risk and had less acceptable measures to protect HCWs at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic than higher-income more-equal counterpart countries. It showed that rigorously adopting occupational health measures can indeed protect the healthcare workforce; training and preventive initiatives can reduce workplace stress; information systems are valued; and HCWs most at-risk (including care aides in the Canadian setting) can be readily identified to trigger adoption of protective actions. The C-M-O analysis showed that various ways of working through a WHOCC partnership not only enabled knowledge sharing, but allowed for triangulating results and, ultimately, initiatives for worker protection. Conclusions: The value of an international partnership on a North-South axis especially lies in providing contextualized global evidence regarding protecting HCWs as a pandemic emerges, particularly with bi-directional cross-jurisdiction participation by researchers working with practitioners.
ABSTRACT
While the global COVID-19 pandemic has been widely acknowledged to affect the mental health of health care workers (HCWs), attention to measures that protect those on the front lines of health outbreak response has been limited. In this cross-sectional study, we examine workplace contextual factors associated with how psychological distress was experienced in a South African setting where a severe first wave was being experienced with the objective of identifying factors that can protect against HCWs experiencing negative impacts. Consistent with mounting literature on mental health effects, we found a high degree of psychological distress (57.4% above the General Health Questionnaire cut-off value) and a strong association between perceived risks associated with the presence of COVID-19 in the healthcare workplace and psychological distress (adjusted OR = 2.35, p < 0.01). Our research indicates that both training (adjusted OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21-0.81) and the reported presence of supportive workplace relationships (adjusted OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.27-0.97) were associated with positive outcomes. This evidence that workplace resilience can be reinforced to better prepare for the onset of similar outbreaks in the future suggests that pursuit of further research into specific interventions to improve resilience is well merited.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Psychological Distress , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Health Personnel/psychology , Humans , Pandemics , South Africa/epidemiologyABSTRACT
Medical laboratory workers may have an increased risk of COVID-19 due to their interaction with biological samples received for testing and contamination of documents. Records of COVID-19 laboratory-confirmed positive cases within the medical laboratory service were routinely collected in the company's Occupational Health and Safety Information System (OHASIS). Surveillance data from the OHASIS system were extracted from 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021. An epidemic curve was plotted and compared to that for the country, along with prevalence proportions and incidence rates. The odds of COVID-19 infection were categorised by job and compared to the US Occupational Risk Scores. A logistic regression model assessed the risk of COVID-19 infection per occupational group. A total of 2091 (26% of staff) COVID-19 positive cases were reported. The number of COVID-19 cases was higher in the first wave at 46% (967/2091) of cases, than in the second wave 40% (846/2091) of cases. There was no significant difference in COVID-19 prevalence between male and female employees. The job categories with the most increased risk were laboratory managers [AOR 3.2 (95%CI 1.9-5.1)] and laboratory support clerks [AOR 3.2 (95%CI 1.9-5.2)]. Our study confirms that some categories of medical laboratory staff are at increased risk for COVID-19; this is a complex interaction between workplace risk factors, community interaction, socioeconomic status, personal habits, and behaviour. Targeted interventions are recommended for high-risk groups. OHASIS has the potential to generate data for surveillance of health care workers and contribute towards a South African risk profile.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cohort Studies , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , Male , South Africa/epidemiology , WorkplaceABSTRACT
IntroductionMedical laboratory workers are exposed to COVID-19 in the community and through their interaction with samples received for testing. The National Health Laboratory service in South Africa serves 80% of the population providing medical tests. Information on all staff cases was collected in the Occupational Health and Safety Information System.MethodsSurveillance data from the OHASIS system was extracted from 01 April 2020–30 March 2021. All staff with a laboratory-confirmed positive test for SARS-COVID-19 were included in the study. NHLS staff had increased access to testing compared to the general public. An epidemic curve was plotted and compared to that for the country along with descriptive statistics.ResultsA high proportion of NHLS staff tested positive for SARS Cov 2, 25.7%. This varied across occupation groups with more educated occupations such as pathologists at less risk of COVID-19 compared to messengers and laboratory clerks. The epidemic curve for the facility peaked higher in the first wave compared to the rest of the country.ConclusionThe prevalence found in the laboratory staff may be a proxy for the country prevalence of COVID-19 if more access to testing had been available. The lower rate of positive cases in more educated staff may indicate the role of education in adherence to COVID-19 prevention measures.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: the level five (L5) lockdown was a very stringent social distancing measure taken to reduce the spread of COVID-19 infections. This study assessed the impact of the L5 lockdown and its association with the incidence of COVID-19 cases in South Africa (SA). METHODS: data was obtained from the National Department of Health (NDoH) from the 5th March to the 30th April 2020. A basic reproductive number (R0) and a serial interval were used to calculate estimated cases (EC). A double exponential smoothing model was used to forecast the number of cases during the L5 lockdown period. A Poisson regression model was fitted to describe the association between L5 lockdown status and incident cases. RESULTS: a total of 5,737 laboratory-confirmed cases (LCC) were reported by 30th April 2020, 4,785 (83%) occurred during L5 lockdown. Our model forecasted 30,629 cases of COVID-19 assuming L5 lockdown was not imposed. High incidence rates of COVID-19 were recorded in KwaZulu-Natal and Mpumalanga Provinces during the L5 lockdown compared to the other provinces. Nationally, the incident rate of COVID-19 was 68.00% higher in L5 lockdown than pre-lockdown for LCC. CONCLUSION: the L5 lockdown was very effective in reducing the incidence of COVID-19 cases. However, the incident rates of LCC and EC were higher nationally, and in some provinces during the L5 lockdown.