Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on sick leave among healthcare workers: a register-based observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on sick leave among healthcare workers (HCWs) in primary and specialist care and examine its causes. METHODS: Using individual-level register data, we studied monthly proportions of sick leave (all-cause and not related to SARS-CoV-2 infection) from 2017 to February 2022 for all HCWs in primary (N=60 973) and specialist care (N=34 978) in Norway. First, we estimated the impact of the pandemic on sick leave, by comparing the sick leave rates during the pandemic to sick leave rates in 2017-2019. We then examined the impact of COVID-19-related workload on sick leave, by comparing HCWs working in healthcare facilities with different levels of COVID-19 patient loads. RESULTS: HCWs had elevated monthly rates of all-cause sick leave during the COVID-19 pandemic of 2.8 (95% CI 2.67 to 2.9) and 2.2 (95% CI 2.07 to 2.35) percentage points in primary and specialist care. The corresponding increases for sick leave not related to SARS-CoV-2 infection were 1.2 (95% CI 1.29 to 1.05) and 0.7 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.78) percentage points. All-cause sick leave was higher in areas with high versus low COVID-19 workloads. However, after removing sick leave episodes due to SARS-CoV-2 infections, there was no difference. CONCLUSIONS: There was a substantial increase in sick leave among HCWs during the pandemic. Our results suggest that the increase was due to HCWs becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 and/or sector-wide effects, such as strict infection control measures. More differentiated countermeasures should, therefore, be evaluated to limit capacity constraints in healthcare provision.

The COVID-19 pandemic's impact on mental health care use among Norwegian students in higher education: a nation-wide register-based pre-post cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic, and its associated social distancing measures, gave profound changes to the everyday and academic life of students in higher education. The current study is the first to use nation-wide data to evaluate the long-term effect of the pandemic and its countermeasures on university students' mental health care use. METHODS: Using nation-wide individual-level data, we studied mental health consultations in primary care (data available from January 2017 to February 2022) and dispensed prescription drugs used to treat anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances (data available from October 2018 to February 2021) for first-year undergraduate university students. We compared changes over time in mental health care use in a pandemic cohort (12,501 first-year students enrolled in 2019) to the same change in a pre-pandemic cohort (25,990 first-year students enrolled in 2017 and 2018). Event study and difference-in-difference models allowed us to separate the impact of the pandemic, experienced by the pandemic cohort only, from secular and seasonal changes experienced by all cohorts. RESULTS: The percentage of students with a mental health consultation temporarily decreased during the first period of strict social distancing measures in March 2020. At the end of the second round with strict measures in April 2021, the level of mental health consultations increased by 73% (95% CI 40-106.3). There was also a 42% (95% CI 5.7-79.5) increase in mental health consultations in November 2021. No similar increases were observed for dispensed prescription drugs between March 2020 and February 2021. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with increases in mental health consultations in primary care among students, especially during/after longer periods of strict social distancing measures. The benefits of social distancing measures in future pandemic preparedness should be weighed against the cost of potentially worsening mental health in vulnerable groups.

Impact of Omicron on sick leave across industries: A population-wide study.

AIMS: To estimate the industry-specific impact of the COVID-19 pandemic (Omicron wave) on sick leave. METHODS: Using individual-level data from the Norwegian Emergency Preparedness Register, the study covers all workers in different industries (N = 2,733,751 people) on a monthly level in the time periods January-March 2017-2020 (except March 2020) and 2022 (38,199,536 person-months). We estimated the industry-specific increase in monthly average sick leave during the Omicron wave in 2022 compared with the corresponding months in 2017-2020. RESULTS: We found an average increase in monthly sick leave rates of 2.92 percentage points (95% CI 2.9-2.94) during the three first months of 2022. The increases were strongest within food and accommodation (4.42 percentage points increase, 95% CI 4.33-4.51) and administrative support services (3.94 percentage points increase, 95% CI 3.85-4.03). CONCLUSIONS: The Omicron wave resulted in a substantial increase in sick leave, which was unevenly distributed across industries. The results of this study highlight the importance of industry-specific contingency planning when facing the rapid spread of infectious diseases.

Has vaccination alleviated the strain on hospitals due to COVID-19? A combined difference-in-difference and simulation approach.

BACKGROUND: Serious measures, including mass vaccination, have been taken to ensure sufficient hospital capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to high hospitalization risk in the oldest age groups, most countries prioritized elderly for vaccines. The aim of this study is to broaden the understanding of how vaccination in younger age groups relieved the strain on hospitals during the pandemic. METHODS: To determine the impact of vaccination on hospitalization, we relied on individual level data on health care use and vaccination from the Norwegian Emergency Preparedness Register Beredt C19. Using a pre-post design, we estimated the increase in hospitalization days from before to after confirmed COVID-19 for individuals aged 18-64 who were fully vaccinated (N=2 419) or unvaccinated (N=55 168) with comparison groups of vaccinated (N=4 818) and unvaccinated (N= 97 126) individuals without COVID-19. To evaluate whether vaccination itself contributed to a strain in hospitals, we use a similar design to study hospitalization rates before and after vaccination by comparing individuals vaccinated with the first dose (N=67 687) to unvaccinated individuals (N=130 769). These estimates were incorporated into a simulation of hospitalization days with different vaccine scenarios to show how the estimated results might have mattered for the hospitals and their capacity. RESULTS: Hospitalization days increased by 0.96 percentage point each day during the first week and 1.57 percentage points during the second week after testing positive for COVID-19 for unvaccinated individuals. The corresponding increase was 0.46 and 0.32 for vaccinated individuals, i.e., a substantial difference. The increase was significantly higher for those aged 45-64 than for those aged 18-25. We find no increase in hospitalization days due to vaccination. Simulation results show that vaccination reduced hospitalization days by 25 percent, mainly driven by age 45-64. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that vaccination of individuals aged 18-64 did alleviate pressure on hospitals. Whereas there was a substantial relieve from vaccinating the 45-64 age group, there was no such contribution from vaccinating the 18-25 age group. Our study highlights how simulation models can be useful when evaluating alternative vaccine strategies.

Analysis of Thromboembolic and Thrombocytopenic Events After the AZD1222, BNT162b2, and MRNA-1273 COVID-19 Vaccines in 3 Nordic Countries.

Importance: Vaccinations are paramount to halt the COVID-19 pandemic, and safety data are essential to determine the risk-benefit ratio of each COVID-19 vaccine. Objective: To evaluate the association between the AZD1222, BNT162b2, and mRNA-1273 vaccines and subsequent thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic events. Design, Setting, and Participants: This self-controlled case series used individual-level data from national registries in Norway, Finland, and Denmark. Participants included individuals with hospital contacts because of coronary artery disease, coagulation disorders, or cerebrovascular disease between January 1, 2020, and May 16, 2021. Exposures: AZD1222, BNT162b2, or mRNA-1273 vaccine. Main Outcomes and Measure: Relative rate (RR) of hospital contacts for coronary artery disease, coagulation disorders, or cerebrovascular disease in a 28-day period following vaccination compared with the control period prior to vaccination. Results: We found 265 339 hospital contacts, of whom 112 984 [43%] were for female patients, 246 092 [93%] were for patients born in 1971 or earlier, 116 931 [44%] were for coronary artery disease, 55 445 [21%] were for coagulation disorders, and 92 963 [35%] were for cerebrovascular disease. In the 28-day period following vaccination, there was an increased rate of coronary artery disease following mRNA-1273 vaccination (RR, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.02-1.25]), but not following AZD1222 vaccination (RR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.82-1.03]) or BNT162b2 vaccination (RR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.92-0.99]). There was an observed increased rate of coagulation disorders following all 3 vaccines (AZD1222: RR, 2.01 [95% CI, 1.75-2.31]; BNT162b2: RR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.07-1.19]; and mRNA-1273: RR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.07-1.47]). There was also an observed increased rate of cerebrovascular disease following all 3 vaccines (AZD1222: RR, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.16-1.52]; BNT162b2: RR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.05-1.13]; and mRNA-1273: RR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.09-1.35]). For individual diseases within the main outcomes, 2 notably high rates were observed: 12.04 (95% CI, 5.37-26.99) for cerebral venous thrombosis and 4.29 (95% CI, 2.96-6.20) for thrombocytopenia, corresponding to 1.6 (95% CI, 0.6-2.6) and 4.9 (95% CI, 2.9-6.9) excess events per 100 000 doses, respectively, following AZD1222 vaccination. Conclusions and Relevance: In this self-controlled case series, there was an increased rate of hospital contacts because of coagulation disorders and cerebrovascular disease, especially for thrombocytopenia and cerebral venous thrombosis, following vaccination with AZD1222. Although increased rates of several thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic outcomes following BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccination were observed, these increases were less than the rates observed after AZD1222, and sensitivity analyses were not consistent. Confirmatory analysis on the 2 mRNA vaccines by other methods are warranted.

Admissions to Norwegian Hospitals during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: In mid-March 2020, the Norwegian government implemented measures to contain the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, and hospitals prepared to handle an unpredictable inflow of patients with COVID-19. AIM: The study was performed to describe the changes in hospital admissions during the first phase of the pandemic. METHODS: The Norwegian Institute of Public Health established a national preparedness register with daily updates on COVID-19 cases and the use of health services. We used individual-level information on inpatients from the electronic journal systems for all hospitals in Norway to estimate daily hospital admissions. RESULTS: Before the onset of the pandemic in March, there was an average of 2400 inpatient admissions per day in Norway, which decreased to approximately 1500 in the first few days after lockdown measures were implemented. The relative magnitudes of the decreases were similar in men and women and across all age groups. The decreases were substantial for both elective (54%) and emergency (29%) inpatient care. The admission rate gradually increased and reached pre-pandemic levels in June. However, the reductions in admissions for pneumonia and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease seemed to persist. CONCLUSIONS: The elective and emergency inpatient admission rates were substantially reduced a few days after the pandemic response measures were implemented. The ways in which the lack or postponement of care may have affected the health and well-being of patients is an important issue to be addressed in future research.

Utilization of health care services before and after media attention about fatal side effects of the AstraZeneca vaccine: a nation-wide register-based event study.

BACKGROUND: Survey studies have found that vaccinated persons tend to report more side effects after being given information about side effects rather than benefits. However, the impact of high media attention about vaccine-related side effects on the utilization of health care is unknown. We aimed to assess whether utilization of health care services for newly vaccinated health care workers changed after media attention about fatal side effects of the AstraZeneca vaccine on March 11th, 2021, and whether changes differed by age, sex, or occupation. METHODS: We utilized individual-level data on health care use, vaccination, employment, and demographics available in the Norwegian emergency preparedness register Beredt C19. In all 99,899 health care workers in Norway who were vaccinated with AstraZeneca between February 11th and March 11th, we used an event-study design with a matched comparison group to compare the change in primary and inpatient specialist care use from 14 days before to 14 days after the information shock on March 11th, 2021. RESULTS: Primary health care use increased with 8.2 daily consultations per 1000 health care workers (95% CI 7.51 to 8.89) the week following March 11th for those vaccinated with AstraZeneca (n = 99,899), compared with no increase for the unvaccinated comparison group (n = 186,885). Utilization of inpatient care also increased with 0.8 daily hospitalizations per 1000 health care workers (95% CI 0.37 to 1.23) in week two after March 11th. The sharpest increase in daily primary health care use in the first week after March 11th was found for women aged 18-44 (10.6 consultations per 1000, 95% CI 9.52 to 11.68) and for cleaners working in the health care sector (9.8 consultations per 1000, 95% CI 3.41 to 16.19). CONCLUSIONS: Health care use was higher after the media reports of a few cases of fatal or severe side effects of the AstraZeneca vaccine. Our results suggest that the reports did not only lead vaccinated individuals to contact primary health care more, but also that physicians referred and treated more cases to specialist care after the new information.

Factors associated with hospitalization, invasive mechanical ventilation treatment and death among all confirmed COVID-19 cases in Norway: Prospective cohort study.

Aims: For everyone with a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 in Norway, we studied whether age, sex, comorbidity, continent of birth and nursing home residency were risk factors for hospitalization, invasive mechanical ventilation treatment and death. Methods: Data for everyone who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in Norway by end of June 2020 (N = 8569) were linked at the individual level to hospitalization, receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation treatment and death measured to end of July 2020. Underlying comorbidity was proxied by hospital-based in- or outpatient treatment during the two months before the SARS-CoV-2 test. Multivariable generalized linear models were used to assess risk ratios (RRs). Results: Risk of hospitalization was particularly high for elderly (for those aged 90 and above: RR 9.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 7.1-12.7; comparison group aged below 50), Norwegian residents born in Asia, Africa or Latin-America (RR 2.1; 95% CI 1.9-2.4; comparison group born in Norway), patients with underlying comorbidity (RR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4-1.8) and men (RR 1.3; 95% CI 1.2-1.5). Men and residents born in Africa, Asia and Latin-America were also at higher risk of receiving ventilation treatment and dying, but the mortality risk was especially high for the elderly (for those aged 90 and above: RR 607.9; 95% CI 145.5-2540.1; comparison group aged below 50) and residents in nursing homes (RR 4.2; 95% CI 3.1-5.7). Conclusions: High age was the most important predictor of severe disease and death if infected with SARS-CoV-2, and nursing home residents were at particularly high risk of death.

COVID-19 among immigrants in Norway, notified infections, related hospitalizations and associated mortality: A register-based study.

Aim: Research concerning COVID-19 among immigrants is limited. We present epidemiological data for all notified cases of COVID-19 among the 17 largest immigrant groups in Norway, and related hospitalizations and mortality. Methods: We used data on all notified COVID-19 cases in Norway up to 18 October 2020, and associated hospitalizations and mortality, from the emergency preparedness register (including Norwegian Surveillance System for Communicable Diseases) set up by The Norwegian Institute of Public Health to handle the pandemic. We report numbers and rates per 100,000 people for notified COVID-19 cases, and related hospitalizations and mortality in the 17 largest immigrant groups in Norway, crude and with age adjustment. Results: The notification, hospitalization and mortality rates per 100,000 were 251, 21 and five, respectively, for non-immigrants; 567, 62 and four among immigrants; 408, 27 and two, respectively, for immigrants from Europe, North-America and Oceania; and 773, 106 and six, respectively for immigrants from Africa, Asia and South America. The notification rate was highest among immigrants from Somalia (2057), Pakistan (1868) and Iraq (1616). Differences between immigrants and non-immigrants increased when adjusting for age, especially for mortality. Immigrants had a high number of hospitalizations relative to notified cases compared to non-immigrants. Although the overall COVID-19 notification rate was higher in Oslo than outside of Oslo, the notification rate among immigrants compared to non-immigrants was not higher in Oslo than outside. Conclusions: We observed a higher COVID-19 notification rate in immigrants compared to non-immigrants and much higher hospitalization rate, with major differences between different immigrant groups. Somali-, Pakistani- and Iraqi-born immigrants had especially high rates.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on emergency and elective hip surgeries in Norway.

Background and purpose - Many countries implemented strict lockdown policies to control the COVID-19 pandemic during March 2020. The impacts of lockdown policies on joint surgeries are unknown. Therefore, we assessed the effects of COVID-19 pandemic lockdown restrictions on the number of emergency and elective hip joint surgeries, and explored whether these procedures are more/less affected by lockdown restrictions than other hospital care.Patients and methods - In 1,344,355 persons aged ≥ 35 years in the Norwegian emergency preparedness (BEREDT C19) register, we studied the daily number of persons having (1) emergency surgeries due to hip fractures, and (2) electively planned surgeries due to hip osteoarthritis before and after COVID-19 lockdown restrictions were implemented nationally on March 13, 2020, for different age and sex groups. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) reflect the after-lockdown number of surgeries divided by the before-lockdown number of surgeries.Results - After-lockdown elective hip surgeries comprised one-third the number of before-lockdown (IRR ∼0.3), which is a greater drop than that seen in all-cause elective hospital care (IRR ∼0.6). Men aged 35-69 had half the number of emergency hip fracture surgeries (IRR ∼0.6), whereas women aged ≥ 70 had the same number of emergency hip fracture surgeries after lockdown (IRR ∼1). Only women aged 35-69 and men aged ≥ 70 had emergency hip fracture surgery rates after lockdown comparable to what may be expected based on analyses of all-cause acute care (IRR ∼0.80)Interpretation - It is important to note for future pandemics management that lockdown restrictions may impact more on scheduled joint surgery than other scheduled hospital care. Lockdown may also impact the number of emergency joint surgeries for men aged ≥ 35 but not those for women aged ≥ 70.

SARS-CoV-2 in health and care staff in Norway, 2020. / SARS-CoV-2 blant ansatte i helse- og omsorgstjenesten.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic is placing considerable pressure on health services around the world. In Norway, the incidence rate among the working-age population (20-69 years) for the whole of 2020 was 1.11 %. In this study, we describe diagnosed infection among staff in the health service, based on register data. MATERIAL AND METHOD: From the emergency preparedness register, Beredt C19, we identified 382 332 persons employed in selected occupational groups in the health service in week 9 of 2020, and investigated incidence and testing activity for diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 according to occupation, age, sex, country of birth, place of residence and place of work, for the whole of 2020. RESULTS: The incidence in the health service for the entire period was 1.48 % (5673/382 332). Diagnosed infection was highest among ambulance personnel and nursing home staff, with an incidence of 1.83 % (95/5203) and 1.86 % (1534/82 776), respectively. Doctors were tested most frequently (1.45 tests per person), and the proportion of positive tests was highest among cleaners (2.78 %) and ambulance personnel (1.57 %). Imported infection was highest for dentists (14.3 %), psychologists (12.8 %) and doctors (10.8 %). INTERPRETATION: There are variations in the incidence of diagnosed infections among employees in the health service. Some of this can likely be viewed in connection with high testing activity, imported infection, age and sex distribution, place of residence and country of birth, and outbreaks in different health services. More research and data are needed to ascertain whether occupational practice is associated with increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Hospitalisations for COVID-19 - a comparison of different data sources. / Sykehusinnleggelser med covid-19 ‒ en sammenligning av ulike datakilder.

BACKGROUND: Three different data sources exist for monitoring COVID-19-associated hospitalisations in Norway: The Directorate of Health, the Norwegian Intensive Care and Pandemic Registry (NIPaR), and the linking of the Norwegian Patient Registry (NPR) and the Norwegian Surveillance System for Communicable Diseases (MSIS). A comparison of results from different data sources is important to increase understanding of the data and to further optimise current and future surveillance. We compared results from the three data sources from March to June 2020. MATERIAL AND METHOD: We analysed the number of new admissions, as well as the total number of hospitalised patients and those on ventilatory support, reported per day and by regional health authority. The analysis was descriptive. RESULTS: The cumulative number of new admissions according to NPR-MSIS (n=1260) was higher than NIPaR (n=1153). The discrepancy was high early in the epidemic (93 as of 29 March). The trend in the number of hospitalised patients was similar for all three sources throughout the study period. NPR-MSIS overestimated the number of hospitalised patients on ventilatory support. INTERPRETATION: The discrepancy in new admissions between NIPaR and NPR-MSIS is primarily due to missing registrations for some patients admitted before NIPaR became operational. Basic information retrieved daily by the Directorate of Health give comparable results to more comprehensive daily information retrieval undertaken in NIPaR and NPR-MSIS, adjusted retrospectively. Further analysis is necessary regarding whether NIPaR and NPR-MSIS provide timely data and function as required in an emergency preparedness situation.