Author:
Beale Sarah,Hoskins Susan,Byrne Thomas,Fong Wing Lam Erica,Fragaszy Ellen,Geismar Cyril,Kovar Jana,Navaratnam Annalan M. D.,Nguyen Vincent,Patel Parth,Yavlinsky Alexei,Johnson Anne M.,Van Tongeren Martie,Aldridge Robert W.,Hayward Andrew,Michie Susan,Hardelid Pia,Wijlaars Linda,Nastouli Eleni,Spyer Moira,Killingley Ben,Cox Ingemar,McKendry Rachel A,Cheng Tao,Liu Yunzhe,Gibbs Jo,Gilson Richard,Rodger Alison,
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Workers across different occupations vary in their risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, but the direct contribution of occupation to this relationship is unclear. This study aimed to investigate how infection risk differed across occupational groups in England and Wales up to April 2022, after adjustment for potential confounding and stratification by pandemic phase.
Methods
Data from 15,190 employed/self-employed participants in the Virus Watch prospective cohort study were used to generate risk ratios for virologically- or serologically-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection using robust Poisson regression, adjusting for socio-demographic and health-related factors and non-work public activities. We calculated attributable fractions (AF) amongst the exposed for belonging to each occupational group based on adjusted risk ratios (aRR).
Results
Increased risk was seen in nurses (aRR = 1.44, 1.25–1.65; AF = 30%, 20–39%), doctors (aRR = 1.33, 1.08–1.65; AF = 25%, 7–39%), carers (1.45, 1.19–1.76; AF = 31%, 16–43%), primary school teachers (aRR = 1.67, 1.42- 1.96; AF = 40%, 30–49%), secondary school teachers (aRR = 1.48, 1.26–1.72; AF = 32%, 21–42%), and teaching support occupations (aRR = 1.42, 1.23–1.64; AF = 29%, 18–39%) compared to office-based professional occupations. Differential risk was apparent in the earlier phases (Feb 2020—May 2021) and attenuated later (June—October 2021) for most groups, although teachers and teaching support workers demonstrated persistently elevated risk across waves.
Conclusions
Occupational differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection risk vary over time and are robust to adjustment for socio-demographic, health-related, and non-workplace activity-related potential confounders. Direct investigation into workplace factors underlying elevated risk and how these change over time is needed to inform occupational health interventions.
Funder
Medical Research Council
Government of the United Kingdom
Wellcome Trust
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Safety Research,Toxicology
Reference30 articles.
1. Phuong Do D, Reanne F. U.S. frontline workers and COVID-19 inequities. Prev Med. 2021;153:106833.
2. Fogh K, Strange JE, Scharff BF, et al. Testing Denmark: A Danish nationwide surveillance study of COVID-19. medRxiv. 2021;9(3):e0133021.
3. Magnusson K, Nygård K, Methi F, Vold L, Telle K. Occupational risk of COVID-19 in the first versus second epidemic wave in Norway, 2020. Eurosurveillance. 2021;26:2001875.
4. de Gier B, de Oliveira Bressane Lima P, van Gaalen RD, et al. Occupation- and age-associated risk of test positivity, the Netherlands, June to October 2020. Eurosurveillance 2020; 25: 2001884.
5. Biarnés-Martínez M, Fàbregas M, Coma E, et al. SARS-CoV-2 infection in occupational settings in Catalonia. Rev Esp Salud Publica 2022;96:e202205040.
Cited by
9 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献