Exposure and illness among workers filing for COVID-19 related workers' compensation -- California, 2020.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 exposure and COVID-19 infection among California workers' compensation claims in 2020 and examine risk factors for exposure. METHODS: Using a case-control approach, we combined machine learning techniques and job exposure matrices to assess associations between exposures and illness claims and clusters of claims within specific worksites over a 3-week period. RESULTS: Of the 117,125 COVID-19 claims, most were primarily among younger groups, of shorter tenure, and from healthcare occupations. Illness claims were among older groups with longer tenure. Jobs with very close physical proximity and high physical activity, along with transportation and warehousing industries, were associated with being part of a cluster of claims. CONCLUSIONS: The findings merit further study but indicate respiratory viral transmission and support efforts to systematically incorporate work-related variables into other California data sources.

Unmet Mental Health Needs Among California Workers Since the Start of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify worker groups with high prevalence of unmet mental health needs to inform employer benefits programs and outreach to increase access to care. METHODS: We conducted a repeated cross-sectional study to understand unmet mental health needs among workers since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic using California Health Interview Survey data from 2013-2021. RESULTS: In 2021, 23.4% (CI: 22.4-24.4) reported unmet mental health needs, an absolute increase of 3.9% from 2019. Relative increases were highest among workers in the information industries (prevalence ratio [PR]: 1.89, CI: 1.4-2.5) and older workers (PR: 1.27, CI: 0.9-1.8). Increases in needing help were not met with comparable increases in seeking care. CONCLUSIONS: Unmet mental health needs increased for California workers during the pandemic. Employers should dedicate resources and implement strategies to increase access to care and promote worker well-being.

Extreme Heat and Occupational Health Risks.

Climate change poses a significant occupational health hazard. Rising temperatures and more frequent heat waves are expected to cause increasing heat-related morbidity and mortality for workers across the globe. Agricultural, construction, military, firefighting, mining, and manufacturing workers are at particularly high risk for heat-related illness (HRI). Various factors, including ambient temperatures, personal protective equipment, work arrangements, physical exertion, and work with heavy equipment may put workers at higher risk for HRI. While extreme heat will impact workers across the world, workers in low- and middle-income countries will be disproportionately affected. Tracking occupational HRI will be critical to informing prevention and mitigation strategies. Renewed investment in these strategies, including workplace heat prevention programs and regulatory standards for indoor and outdoor workers, will be needed. Additional research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions in order to successfully reduce the risk of HRI in the workplace.

Temporal assessment of disparities in California COVID-19 mortality by industry: a population-based retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: To assess changes in the COVID-19 mortality rate and disparities over variants or waves by industry. METHODS: We identified COVID-19 deaths that occurred between January 2020 and May 2022 among California workers aged 18-64 years using death certificates, and estimated Californians at risk using the Current Population Survey. The waves in deaths were wave 1: March-June 2020, wave 2: July-November 2020, wave 3/Epsilon and Alpha variants: December 2020-May 2021, wave 4/Delta variant: June 2021-January 2022, and wave 5/Omicron variant: February-May 2022. We used Poisson regression to generate wave-specific mortality rate ratios (MRR) and included an interaction term between industry and wave in different models to assess significance of the change in MRR. RESULTS: In all waves of the pandemic, healthcare, other services, manufacturing, transportation, and retail trade industries had higher mortality rates than the professional, scientific, and technical industry. The healthcare industry had the highest relative rate earlier in the pandemic, while other services, utilities, and accommodation and food services industries had substantial increases in MRR in later waves. CONCLUSIONS: Industries that consistently had disproportionate COVID-19 mortality may have benefitted from protections that consider workers' increased exposure and vulnerability to severe outcomes.

Occupational COVID-19 Exposures and Illnesses among Workers in California-Analysis of a New Occupational COVID-19 Surveillance System.

Little is known about occupational SARS-CoV-2 exposures and COVID-19 outcomes. We established a Doctor's First Reports of Occupational Injury or Illness (DFR)-based surveillance system to study cases of work-related COVID-19 exposures and disease. The surveillance data included demographics, occupation, industry, exposure, and illness, details including hospitalization and lost work. We classified workers into 'healthcare', non-healthcare 'public-facing', or 'other' worker groups, and rural-urban commuting areas (RUCAs). We describe worker exposures and outcomes overall by worker group and RUCA. We analyzed 2848 COVID-19 DFRs representing workers in 22 detailed occupation groups and 19 industry groups. Most DFRs were for workers in metropolitan RUCAs (89%) and those in healthcare (42%) and public-facing (24%) worker groups. While DFRs were from 382 unique worksites, 52% were from four hospitals and one prison. Among 1063 DFRs with a suspected exposure, 73% suspected exposure to a patient or client. Few DFRs indicated hospitalization (3.9%); however, the proportion hospitalized was higher among nonmetropolitan (7.4%) and public-facing (6.7%) workers. While 56% of DFRs indicated some lost work time, the proportion was highest among public-facing (80%) workers. Healthcare and prison workers were the majority of reported occupational COVID-19 exposures and illnesses. The risk of COVID-19 hospitalization and lost work may be highest among nonmetropolitan and public-facing workers.

Risk factors for COVID-19 among Californians working outside the home, November 2020 - May 2021.

BACKGROUND: Higher incidences of COVID-19 mortality and outbreaks have been found in certain industries and occupations. Workplace factors, including working in close proximity to others and contact with the public can facilitate SARS-CoV-2 transmission, especially without appropriate protective measures. Limited information is available about workers at highest risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: A phone-based, nonprobability study was conducted between November 2020 and May 2021 among California workers who were tested for SARS-CoV-2. Participants were asked about demographics and workplace factors, including industry, occupation, and implementation of COVID-19 mitigation measures. Using the SARS-CoV-2 occupational exposure matrix, three exposure metrics and a combination index were used to categorize occupations. We assessed the association between workplace risks and SARS-CoV-2 test positivity using adjusted logistic regression. RESULTS: We enrolled 451 (13%) of 3475 potentially eligible workers in the study: 212 with positive and 239 with negative SARS-CoV-2 test results. Those working very close to others and with the highest combined exposure index had a positive association with SARS-CoV-2 positivity. Primarily indoor workers had a lower odds of test positivity compared to those with any outdoor work. There was no association between public-facing occupations and test positivity. Participants with employers who implemented mitigation measures in all three control categories-engineering, administrative, and personal protective equipment-had lower odds of test positivity than those with fewer mitigation measures. CONCLUSIONS: Worker groups with higher risk factors should be prioritized for outreach. Assessment of occupational risk factors collectively can provide insight to inform preventative actions for workers, employers, and public health entities.

Increases in Prevalent Depressed Mood and Suicidal Ideation among Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic-Findings from the California Health Interview Survey.

Limited data exist on COVID-19's mental health impact on non-healthcare workers. We estimated the prevalence of depressed mood and suicidal ideation experienced in the past year among California workers and assessed whether the prevalence changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. We analyzed 2013-2020 California Health Interview Survey data using survey-weighted methods to assess the change in the prevalence of depressed mood and suicidal ideation from 2019 to 2020 for working adults by demographics and occupational groups. We used trend-adjusted quasi-Poisson regressions and report rate ratios (RR), comparing the prevalence of outcomes during 2020 to the pre-pandemic period (2013-2019). We identified priority occupation groups with a higher-than-average outcome prevalence in 2020 and rate increases after adjusting for pre-pandemic trends. Our analysis included 168,768 respondents, of which 65% were workers. Production and service workers were the priority occupation groups for depressed mood (RR: 1.46, CI: 1.1-1.9; RR: 1.23, CI: 1.1-1.4) and suicidal ideation (RR: 1.86, CI: 1.0-3.6; RR: 1.47, CI: 1.1-1.9). Workers aged 45-65 years experienced over a 30% relative increase in both outcomes from 2019 to 2020. Depressed mood and suicidal ideation in the past year increased for production, service, and older workers during the pandemic. These groups should be considered for mental health interventions.

COVID-19 Outbreaks and Mortality Among Public Transportation Workers - California, January 2020-May 2022.

Work-related factors can contribute to risk for exposure to and infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and subsequent COVID-19-attributable outcomes, including death. Comparing COVID-19 metrics across industries can help identify workers at highest risk. Elevated COVID-19 mortality rates have been reported among all transportation workers, as well as specifically in public transportation industries (1-3). The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) calculated public transportation industry-specific COVID-19 outbreak incidence during January 2020-May 2022 and analyzed all laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 deaths among working-age adults in California to calculate public transportation industry-specific mortality rates during the same period. Overall, 340 confirmed COVID-19 outbreaks, 5,641 outbreak-associated cases, and 537 COVID-19-associated deaths were identified among California public transportation industries. Outbreak incidence was 5.2 times as high (129.1 outbreaks per 1,000 establishments) in the bus and urban transit industry and 3.6 times as high in the air transportation industry (87.7) as in all California industries combined (24.7). Mortality rates were 2.1 times as high (237.4 deaths per 100,000 workers) in transportation support services and 1.8 times as high (211.5) in the bus and urban transit industry as in all industries combined (114.4). Workers in public transportation industries are at higher risk for COVID-19 workplace outbreaks and mortality than the general worker population in California and should be prioritized for COVID-19 prevention strategies, including vaccination and enhanced workplace protection measures.

Workplaces Most Affected by COVID-19 Outbreaks in California, January 2020-August 2021.

Objectives. To describe which industries have the highest burden of COVID-19 outbreaks in California. Methods. We assigned US census industry codes to COVID-19 outbreaks reported to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) from January 1, 2020, to August 31, 2021, and determined numbers of outbreaks, numbers of outbreak-associated cases, and outbreak incidence levels by industry. We determined characteristics of outbreak-associated cases using individual case data linked to COVID-19 outbreaks. Results. Local health departments reported 19 893 COVID-19 outbreaks and 300 379 outbreak-associated cases to CDPH. The most outbreaks (47.8%) and outbreak-associated cases (54.8%) occurred in the health care and social assistance sector, where outbreak incidence levels were highest in skilled nursing facilities and residential care facilities (1306 and 544 outbreaks per 1000 establishments, respectively). High proportions of outbreaks also occurred in the retail trade (8.6%) and manufacturing (7.9%) sectors. Demographics of outbreak-associated cases varied across industries. Conclusions. Certain California industries, particularly in the health care, manufacturing, and retail sectors, have experienced a high burden of COVID-19 outbreaks during the pandemic. Public Health Implications. Tracking COVID-19 outbreaks by industry may help target prevention efforts, including workforce vaccination. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(8):1180-1190. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.306862).

Reported Exposures Among In-Person Workers With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection in 6 States, September 2020-June 2021.

BACKGROUND: Surveillance systems lack detailed occupational exposure information from workers with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health partnered with 6 states to collect information from adults diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection who worked in person (outside the home) in non-healthcare settings during the 2 weeks prior to illness onset. METHODS: The survey captured demographic, medical, and occupational characteristics and work- and non-work-related risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Reported close contact with a person known or suspected to have SARS-CoV-2 infection was categorized by setting as exposure at work, exposure outside of work only, or no known exposure/did not know. Frequencies and percentages of exposure types are compared by respondent characteristics and risk factors. RESULTS: Of 1111 respondents, 19.4% reported exposure at work, 23.4% reported exposure outside of work only, and 57.2% reported no known exposure/did not know. Workers in protective service occupations (48.8%) and public administration industries (35.6%) reported exposure at work most often. More than one third (33.7%) of respondents who experienced close contact with ≥10 coworkers per day and 28.8% of respondents who experienced close contact with ≥10 customers/clients per day reported exposures at work. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to occupational SARS-CoV-2 was common among respondents. Examining differences in exposures among different worker groups can help identify populations with the greatest need for prevention interventions. The benefits of recording employment characteristics as standard demographic information will remain relevant as new and reemerging public health issues occur.

Close physical proximity on the job-An exposure matrix.

BACKGROUND: The workplace is a setting for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission via respiratory droplets and aerosols for those working in close proximity to others. Currently, limited methods exist for assessing SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Since occupation serves as a surrogate measure, job exposure matrices (JEMs) can be useful for population-based exposure assessment for a portion of exposure. METHODS: We developed a JEM to assess physical proximity at work. Scores for questions related to frequency of face-to-face discussions, working closely with others, and working with a team were extracted from a US-based, comprehensive source of descriptive occupational information (Occupational Information Network [O*NET]). We described score distributions using univariate analyses, devised thresholds, and assigned exposure levels for 968 O*NET occupations. Three exposure measures were constructed using combinations of O*NET data, with expert judgment, and accounting for telework. National and California employment estimates were used to assess the workforce proportions by proximity level and demographic characteristics. RESULTS: We categorized 535 US Census occupations (2010) into four-level ordinal exposure levels (not close to very close). Overall, an estimated 56% of the California workforce worked in very close proximity, which decreased to 46% when accounting for telework. The occupational groups working very close across all three measures were: healthcare support, healthcare practitioner, food preparation and serving, building and grounds cleaning and maintenance, and protective service occupations. Latinos and women were overrepresented within occupations working in very close physical proximity. CONCLUSION: JEMs can inform SARS-CoV-2 exposure assessment for epidemiologic studies, assist in resource allocation, and inform prevention strategies.

Disparities in COVID-19 fatalities among working Californians.

BACKGROUND: Information on U.S. COVID-19 mortality rates by occupation is limited. We aimed to characterize 2020 COVID-19 fatalities among working Californians to inform preventive strategies. METHODS: We identified laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 fatalities with dates of death in 2020 by matching death certificates to the state's COVID-19 case registry. Working status for decedents aged 18-64 years was determined from state employment records, death certificates, and case registry data and classified as "confirmed working," "likely working," or "not working." We calculated age-adjusted overall and occupation-specific COVID-19 mortality rates using 2019 American Community Survey denominators. RESULTS: COVID-19 accounted for 8,050 (9.9%) of 81,468 fatalities among Californians 18-64 years old. Of these decedents, 2,486 (30.9%) were matched to state employment records and classified as "confirmed working." The remainder were classified as "likely working" (n = 4,121 [51.2%]) or "not working" (n = 1,443 [17.9%]) using death certificate and case registry data. Confirmed and likely working COVID-19 decedents were predominantly male (76.3%), Latino (68.7%), and foreign-born (59.6%), with high school or less education (67.9%); 7.8% were Black. The overall age-adjusted COVID-19 mortality rate was 30.0 per 100,000 workers (95% confidence interval [CI], 29.3-30.8). Workers in nine occupational groups had age-adjusted mortality rates higher than this overall rate, including those in farming (78.0; 95% CI, 68.7-88.2); material moving (77.8; 95% CI, 70.2-85.9); construction (62.4; 95% CI, 57.7-67.4); production (60.2; 95% CI, 55.7-65.0); and transportation (57.2; 95% CI, 52.2-62.5) occupations. While occupational differences in mortality were evident across demographic groups, mortality rates were three-fold higher for male compared with female workers and three- to seven-fold higher for Latino and Black workers compared with Asian and White workers. CONCLUSION: Californians in manual labor and in-person service occupations experienced disproportionate COVID-19 mortality, with the highest rates observed among male, Latino, and Black workers; these occupational group should be prioritized for prevention.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 and Respiratory Virus Sentinel Surveillance, California, USA, May 10, 2020-June 12, 2021.

State and local health departments established the California Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and Respiratory Virus Sentinel Surveillance System to conduct enhanced surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory pathogens at sentinel outpatient testing sites in 10 counties throughout California, USA. We describe results obtained during May 10, 2020‒June 12, 2021, and compare persons with positive and negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR results by using Poisson regression. We detected SARS-CoV-2 in 1,696 (19.6%) of 8,662 specimens. Among 7,851 specimens tested by respiratory panel, rhinovirus/enterovirus was detected in 906 (11.5%) specimens and other respiratory pathogens in 136 (1.7%) specimens. We also detected 23 co-infections with SARS-CoV-2 and another pathogen. SARS-CoV-2 positivity was associated with male participants, an age of 35-49 years, Latino race/ethnicity, obesity, and work in transportation occupations. Sentinel surveillance can provide useful virologic and epidemiologic data to supplement other disease monitoring activities and might become increasingly useful as routine testing decreases.

From bad to worse: global governance of abortion and the Global Gag Rule.

The Trump Administration's Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA) significantly expands the "Global Gag Rule" - and, in so doing, weakens the global governance of abortion. By chilling debate, reducing transparency, ghettoising sexual and reproductive health and rights work, and interfering with research, PLGHA makes an already bad context demonstrably worse. Individual women suffer the most, as PLGHA inhibits ongoing efforts to reduce abortion-related morbidity and mortality.

FOLFOX plus ziv-aflibercept or placebo in first-line metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma: A double-blind, randomized, multicenter phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Antiangiogenic therapy is a proven therapeutic modality for refractory gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. This trial assessed whether the addition of a high affinity angiogenesis inhibitor, ziv-aflibercept, could improve the efficacy of first-line mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and bolus plus infusional 5- fluorouracil) in metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Patients with treatment-naive metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) in a multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial to receive first-line mFOLFOX6 with or without ziv-aflibercept (4 mg/kg) every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Sixty-four patients were randomized to receive mFOLFOX6 and ziv-aflibercept (43 patients) or mFOLFOX6 and a placebo (21 patients). There was no difference in the PFS, overall survival, or response rate. Patients treated with mFOLFOX6/ziv-aflibercept tended to be more likely to discontinue study treatment for reasons other than progressive disease (P = .06). The relative dose intensity of oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil was lower in the mFOLFOX6/ziv-aflibercept arm during the first 12 and 24 weeks of the trial. There were 2 treatment-related deaths due to cerebral hemorrhage and bowel perforation in the mFOLFOX6/ziv-aflibercept cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Ziv-aflibercept did not increase the anti-tumor activity of first-line mFOLFOX6 in metastatic esophagogastric cancer, potentially because of decreased dose intensity of FOLFOX. Further evaluation of ziv-aflibercept in unselected, chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma is not warranted.