COVID-19 vaccination requirements, encouragement and hesitancy among non-health care, non-congregate workers in Chicago: results from the WEVax survey.

BACKGROUND: While frontline and essential workers were prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination in the United States, coverage rates and encouragement strategies among non-health care workers have not been well-described. The Chicago Department of Public Health surveyed non-health care businesses to fill these knowledge gaps and identify potential mechanisms for improving vaccine uptake. METHODS: The Workplace Encouragement for COVID-19 Vaccination in Chicago survey (WEVax Chicago) was administered using REDCap from July 11 to September 12, 2022, to businesses previously contacted for COVID-19 surveillance and vaccine-related outreach. Stratified random sampling by industry was used to select businesses for phone follow-up; zip codes with low COVID-19 vaccine coverage were oversampled. Business and workforce characteristics including employee vaccination rates were reported. Frequencies of requirement, verification, and eight other strategies to encourage employee vaccination were assessed, along with barriers to uptake. Fisher's exact test compared business characteristics, and Kruskal-Wallis test compared numbers of encouragement strategies reported among businesses with high (> 75%) vs. lower or missing vaccination rates. RESULTS: Forty-nine businesses completed the survey, with 86% having 500 or fewer employees and 35% in frontline essential industries. More than half (59%) reported high COVID-19 vaccination rates among full-time employees; most (75%) workplaces reporting lower coverage were manufacturing businesses with fewer than 100 employees. Verifying vaccination was more common than requiring vaccination (51% vs. 28%). The most frequently reported encouragement strategies aimed to improve convenience of vaccination (e.g., offering leave to be vaccinated (67%) or to recover from side effects (71%)), while most barriers to uptake were related to vaccine confidence (concerns of safety, side effects, and other skepticism). More high-coverage workplaces reported requiring (p = 0.03) or verifying vaccination (p = 0.07), though the mean and median numbers of strategies used were slightly greater among lower-coverage versus higher-coverage businesses. CONCLUSIONS: Many WEVax respondents reported high COVID-19 vaccine coverage among employees. Vaccine requirement, verification and addressing vaccine mistrust may have more potential to improve coverage among working-age Chicagoans than increasing convenience of vaccination. Vaccine promotion strategies among non-health care workers should target low-coverage businesses and assess motivators in addition to barriers among workers and businesses.

Adoption of safety eyewear among citrus harvesters in rural Florida.

The community-based prevention marketing program planning framework was used to adapt an evidence-based intervention to address eye injuries among Florida's migrant citrus harvesters. Participant-observer techniques, other direct observations, and individual and focus group interviews provided data that guided refinement of a safety eyewear intervention. Workers were attracted to the eyewear's ability to minimize irritation, offer protection from trauma, and enable work without declines in productivity or comfort. Access to safety glasses equipped with worker-designed features reduced the perceived barriers of using them; deployment of trained peer-leaders helped promote adoption. Workers' use of safety glasses increased from less than 2% to between 28% and 37% in less than two full harvesting seasons. The combination of formative research and program implementation data provided insights for tailoring an existing evidence-based program for this occupational community and increase potential for future dissemination and worker protection.

Preventing eye injuries among citrus harvesters: the community health worker model.

OBJECTIVES: Although eye injuries are common among citrus harvesters, the proportion of workers using protective eyewear has been negligible. We focused on adoption of worker-tested safety glasses with and without the presence and activities of trained peer-worker role models on harvesting crews. METHODS: Observation of 13 citrus harvesting crews established baseline use of safety eyewear. Nine crews subsequently were assigned a peer worker to model use of safety glasses, conduct eye safety education, and treat minor eye injuries. Safety eyewear use by crews was monitored up to 15 weeks into the intervention. RESULTS: Intervention crews with peer workers had significantly higher rates of eyewear use than control crews. Intervention exposure time and level of worker use were strongly correlated. Among intervention crews, workers with 1 to 2 years of experience (odds ratio [OR] = 2.89; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.11, 7.55) and who received help from their peer worker (OR = 3.73; 95% CI = 1.21, 11.57) were significantly more likely to use glasses than were other intervention crew members. CONCLUSIONS: Adaptation of the community health worker model for this setting improved injury prevention practices and may have relevance for similar agricultural settings.

Workers' compensation costs among construction workers: a robust regression analysis.

BACKGROUND: Workers' compensation data are an important source for evaluating costs associated with construction injuries. METHODS: We describe the characteristics of injured construction workers filing claims in Illinois between 2000 and 2005 and the factors associated with compensation costs using a robust regression model. RESULTS: In the final multivariable model, the cumulative percent temporary and permanent disability-measures of severity of injury-explained 38.7% of the variance of cost. Attorney costs explained only 0.3% of the variance of the dependent variable. DISCUSSION: The model used in this study clearly indicated that percent disability was the most important determinant of cost, although the method and uniformity of percent impairment allocation could be better elucidated. There is a need to integrate analytical methods that are suitable for skewed data when analyzing claim costs.

Personal dust exposures at a food processing facility.

A field study was performed to quantify personal dust exposures at a food processing facility. A review of the literature shows very little exposure information in the food processing industry. The processing area consisted of a series of four rooms, connected by a closed-loop ventilation system, housed within a larger warehouse-type facility. Workers were exposed to various fruit and vegetable dusts during the grinding, sieving, mixing and packaging of freeze-dried or air-dried products. Eight two-hour periods were monitored over two days. Personal total suspended particulate samples were collected on 37 mm PVC filters with 5 microm pore size according to National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Method 0500. The filters were analyzed gravimetrically. The two-hour task sampling personal dust exposures ranged from 0.33-103 mg/m3. For each worker, an eight-hour time weighted average (TWA) concentration was calculated, and these ranged from 3.08-59.8 mg/m3. Although there are no directly appropriate occupational exposure limits that may be used for comparison, we selected the Threshold Limit Value (TLV) for particulates not otherwise classified (PNOC) of 10 mg/m3 for inhalable particles. Neglecting the respiratory protection used, five out of eight of the worker time-weighted averages exceeded the TLV. It should be noted that the TLV is based on the inhalable fraction and in this study total suspended particulate was measured; additionally, the TLV is applicable for dusts that are insoluble or poorly soluble, and have low toxicity, which may have limited protective ability in this case due to the irritant nature of certain dusts (e.g., jalapeno peppers, aloe vera). Sieving resulted in significantly higher exposure than grinding and blending. Measuring area concentrations alone in this environment is not a sufficient method of estimating personal exposures due to work practices for some operations.