Burnout among public health workers in Canada: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: This study presents the prevalence of burnout among the Canadian public health workforce after three years of the COVID-19 pandemic and its association with work-related factors. METHODS: Data were collected using an online survey distributed through Canadian public health associations and professional networks between November 2022 and January 2023. Burnout was measured using a modified version of the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI). Logistic regressions were used to model the relationship between burnout and work-related factors including years of work experience, redeployment to pandemic response, workplace safety and supports, and harassment. Burnout and the intention to leave or retire as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic was explored using multinomial logistic regressions. RESULTS: In 2,079 participants who completed the OLBI, the prevalence of burnout was 78.7%. Additionally, 49.1% of participants reported being harassed because of their work during the pandemic. Burnout was positively associated with years of work experience, redeployment to the pandemic response, being harassed during the pandemic, feeling unsafe in the workplace and not being offered workplace supports. Furthermore, burnout was associated with greater odds of intending to leave public health or retire earlier than anticipated. CONCLUSION: The high levels of burnout among our large sample of Canadian public health workers and its association with work-related factors suggest that public health organizations should consider interventions that mitigate burnout and promote recovery.

Effect of Wearing a Face Mask on Hand-to-Face Contact by Children in a Simulated School Environment: The Back-to-School COVID-19 Simulation Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Wearing a face mask in school can reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission but it may also lead to increased hand-to-face contact, which in turn could increase infection risk through self-inoculation. Objective: To evaluate the effect of wearing a face mask on hand-to-face contact by children while at school. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective randomized clinical trial randomized students from junior kindergarten to grade 12 at 2 schools in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, during August 2020 in a 1:1 ratio to either a mask or control class during a 2-day school simulation. Classes were video recorded from 4 angles to accurately capture outcomes. Interventions: Participants in the mask arm were instructed to bring their own mask and wear it at all times. Students assigned to control classes were not required to mask at any time (grade 4 and lower) or in the classroom where physical distancing could be maintained (grade 5 and up). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of hand-to-face contacts per student per hour on day 2 of the simulation. Secondary outcomes included hand-to-mucosa contacts and hand-to-nonmucosa contacts. A mixed Poisson regression model was used to derive rate ratios (RRs), adjusted for age and sex with a random intercept for class with bootstrapped 95% CIs. Results: A total of 174 students underwent randomization and 171 students (mask group, 50.6% male; control group, 52.4% male) attended school on day 2. The rate of hand-to-face contacts did not differ significantly between the mask and the control groups (88.2 vs 88.7 events per student per hour; RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.78-1.28; P = >.99). When compared with the control group, the rate of hand-to-mucosa contacts was significantly lower in the mask group (RR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.07-0.21), while the rate of hand-to-nonmucosa contacts was higher (RR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.08-1.82). Conclusions and Relevance: In this clinical trial of simulated school attendance, hand-to-face contacts did not differ among students required to wear face masks vs students not required to wear face masks; however, hand-to-mucosa contracts were lower in the face mask group. This suggests that mask wearing is unlikely to increase infection risk through self-inoculation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04531254.

Comparison of longitudinal trends in self-reported symptoms and COVID-19 case activity in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Limitations in laboratory diagnostic capacity impact population surveillance of COVID-19. It is currently unknown whether participatory surveillance tools for COVID-19 correspond to government-reported case trends longitudinally and if it can be used as an adjunct to laboratory testing. The primary objective of this study was to determine whether self-reported COVID-19-like illness reflected laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 case trends in Ontario Canada. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed longitudinal self-reported symptoms data collected using an online tool-Outbreaks Near Me (ONM)-from April 20th, 2020, to March 7th, 2021 in Ontario, Canada. We measured the correlation between COVID-like illness among respondents and the weekly number of PCR-confirmed COVID-19 cases and provincial test positivity. We explored contemporaneous changes in other respiratory viruses, as well as the demographic characteristics of respondents to provide context for our findings. RESULTS: Between 3,849-11,185 individuals responded to the symptom survey each week. No correlations were seen been self-reported CLI and either cases or test positivity. Strong positive correlations were seen between CLI and both cases and test positivity before a previously documented rise in rhinovirus/enterovirus in fall 2020. Compared to participatory surveillance respondents, a higher proportion of COVID-19 cases in Ontario consistently came from low-income, racialized and immigrant areas of the province- these groups were less well represented among survey respondents. INTERPRETATION: Although digital surveillance systems are low-cost tools that have been useful to signal the onset of viral outbreaks, in this longitudinal comparison of self-reported COVID-like illness to Ontario COVID-19 case data we did not find this to be the case. Seasonal respiratory virus transmission and population coverage may explain this discrepancy.

Impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pre-test probability on positive predictive value of high cycle threshold severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test results.

OBJECTIVES: Performance characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection assays are understudied within contexts of low pre-test probability, including screening asymptomatic persons without epidemiological links to confirmed cases, or asymptomatic surveillance testing. SARS-CoV-2 detection without symptoms may represent presymptomatic or asymptomatic infection, resolved infection with persistent RNA shedding, or a false-positive test. This study assessed the positive predictive value of SARS-CoV-2 real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) assays by retesting positive specimens from 5 pre-test probability groups ranging from high to low with an alternate assay. METHODS: In total, 122 rRT-PCR positive specimens collected from unique patients between March and July 2020 were retested using a laboratory-developed nested RT-PCR assay targeting the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) gene followed by Sanger sequencing. RESULTS: Significantly fewer (15.6%) positive results in the lowest pre-test probability group (facilities with institution-wide screening having ≤3 positive asymptomatic cases) were reproduced with the nested RdRp gene RT-PCR assay than in each of the 4 groups with higher pre-test probability (individual group range, 50.0%-85.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Large-scale SARS-CoV-2 screening testing initiatives among low pre-test probability populations should be evaluated thoroughly prior to implementation given the risk of false-positive results and consequent potential for harm at the individual and population level.

Antivirals for influenza: a summary of a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

Despite the use of antivirals to treat patients with severe influenza, questions remain with respect to effects and safety. Although a recent systematic review has provided some indication of benefit, the analysis is limited by the quality of the available evidence from randomized controlled trials. To supplement the existing information, the authors conducted a systematic review of observational studies of antiviral treatment for influenza. This report summarises the findings of that review. Similar to the randomised trials, the confidence in the estimates of the effects for decision-making is low to very low primarily due to the risk of selection and publication bias in the observational studies. From these observational studies, the summary estimates suggest that oseltamivir may reduce mortality, hospitalisation and duration of symptoms compared with no treatment. Inhaled zanamivir may also reduce symptom duration and hospitalisations, but patients may experience more complications compared with no treatment. Earlier treatment with antivirals is generally associated with better outcomes than later treatment. Further high-quality evidence is needed to inform treatment guidelines because of the overall low to very low quality of evidence.

Antivirals for treatment of influenza: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews of randomized, controlled trials in patients with influenza suggest a lack of evidence about the effects of antiviral therapy on several patient-important outcomes of influenza. PURPOSE: To systematically review observational studies for benefits and harms of oseltamivir, zanamivir, amantadine, or rimantadine in the treatment of influenza. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, SIGLE, the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Panteleimon, and LILACS up to November 2010; contact with pharmaceutical companies; and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Observational studies in any language that compared single antiviral therapy with no therapy or other antiviral therapy, or that had no comparator, for influenza or influenza-like illness. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent investigators extracted data. Confidence in the estimates of the obtained effects (quality of evidence) was assessed by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. DATA SYNTHESIS: 74 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses of the few studies providing effects with adjustment for confounders suggest that, in high-risk populations, oral oseltamivir may reduce mortality (odds ratio, 0.23 [95% CI, 0.13 to 0.43]; low-quality evidence), hospitalization (odds ratio, 0.75 [CI, 0.66 to 0.89]; low-quality evidence), and duration of symptoms (33 hours [CI, 21 to 45 hours]; very low-quality evidence) compared with no treatment. Earlier treatment with oseltamivir was generally associated with better outcomes. Inhaled zanamivir may lead to shorter symptom duration (23 hours [CI, 17 to 28 hours]; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer hospitalizations (odds ratio, 0.66 [CI, 0.37 to 1.18]) but more complications than no treatment. Direct comparison of oral oseltamivir and inhaled zanamivir suggests no important differences in key outcomes. Data from 1 study suggest that oral amantadine may reduce mortality and pneumonia associated with influenza A. No included study evaluated rimantadine. LIMITATIONS: Mortality was assessed in high-risk patients, and generalizability is limited. The overall body of evidence is limited by risk for confounding and selection, reporting, and publication bias. CONCLUSION: Therapy with oral oseltamivir and inhaled zanamivir may provide a net benefit over no treatment of influenza. However, as with the randomized trials, the confidence in the estimates of the effects for decision making is low to very low. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCES: World Health Organization and McMaster University.