Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Occupational differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection: analysis of the UK ONS COVID-19 infection survey.
Rhodes, Sarah; Wilkinson, Jack; Pearce, Neil; Mueller, William; Cherrie, Mark; Stocking, Katie; Gittins, Matthew; Katikireddi, Srinivasa Vittal; Tongeren, Martie Van.
  • Rhodes S; Centre for Biostatistics, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK Sarah.A.Rhodes@manchester.ac.uk.
  • Wilkinson J; Centre for Biostatistics, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
  • Pearce N; Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
  • Mueller W; Institute of Occupational Medicine, Edinburgh, UK.
  • Cherrie M; Institute of Occupational Medicine, Edinburgh, UK.
  • Stocking K; Centre for Biostatistics, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
  • Gittins M; Centre for Biostatistics, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
  • Katikireddi SV; MRC/CSO Social & Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
  • Tongeren MV; Centre for Occupation and Environmental Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
J Epidemiol Community Health ; 2022 Jul 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1932784
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Concern remains about how occupational SARS-CoV-2 risk has evolved during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to ascertain occupations with the greatest risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and explore how relative differences varied over the pandemic.

METHODS:

Analysis of cohort data from the UK Office of National Statistics COVID-19 Infection Survey from April 2020 to November 2021. This survey is designed to be representative of the UK population and uses regular PCR testing. Cox and multilevel logistic regression were used to compare SARS-CoV-2 infection between occupational/sector groups, overall and by four time periods with interactions, adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation, region, household size, urban/rural neighbourhood and current health conditions.

RESULTS:

Based on 3 910 311 observations (visits) from 312 304 working age adults, elevated risks of infection can be seen overall for social care (HR 1.14; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.24), education (HR 1.31; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.39), bus and coach drivers (1.43; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.97) and police and protective services (HR 1.45; 95% CI 1.29 to 1.62) when compared with non-essential workers. By time period, relative differences were more pronounced early in the pandemic. For healthcare elevated odds in the early waves switched to a reduction in the later stages. Education saw raises after the initial lockdown and this has persisted. Adjustment for covariates made very little difference to effect estimates.

CONCLUSIONS:

Elevated risks among healthcare workers have diminished over time but education workers have had persistently higher risks. Long-term mitigation measures in certain workplaces may be warranted.
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Cohort study / Experimental Studies / Observational study / Prognostic study / Randomized controlled trials Language: English Year: 2022 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: Jech-2022-219101

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Cohort study / Experimental Studies / Observational study / Prognostic study / Randomized controlled trials Language: English Year: 2022 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: Jech-2022-219101