Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles) ISSN (Print) 2398-7308 - ISSN (Online) 2398-7316 Published by Oxford University Press[424 journals]
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 1 - 3 Abstract: In much of the world, one can be forgiven for thinking that the coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19) has ended, as the activities of daily life have resumed for most. Infections persist, however. There are few people who have made it to this point in the pandemic as fortunate as I, who lost no family members or close friends, and found their career, while disrupted on a day-to-day basis, to thrive with the global interest and investment in research about COVID-19. Indeed, an untallied number of workers were forced through social and personal economic necessity to put themselves at increased risk of COVID-19 to provide healthcare, food, and other goods and services to their communities and the world; experiencing stress, illness, and death. PubDate: Fri, 18 Nov 2022 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/annweh/wxac081 Issue No:Vol. 67, No. 1 (2022)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 4 - 8 Abstract: AbstractHarmonized tools and approaches for data collection can help to detect similarities and differences within and between countries and support the development, implementation, and assessment of effective and consistent preventive strategies. We developed open source occupational questionnaires on COVID-19 within COVID-19 working groups in the OMEGA-NET COST action (Network on the Coordination and Harmonisation of European Occupational Cohorts, omeganetcohorts.eu), and the EU funded EPHOR project (Exposome project for health and occupational research, ephor-project.eu). We defined domains to be included in order to cover key working life aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Where possible, we selected questionnaire items and instruments from existing questionnaire resources. Both a general occupational COVID-19 questionnaire and a specific occupational COVID-19 questionnaire are available. The general occupational COVID-19 questionnaire covers key working life aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic, including the domains: COVID-19 diagnosis and prevention, Health and demographics, Use of personal protective equipment and face covering, Health effects, Work-related effects (e.g. change in work schedule and work–life balance), Financial effects, Work-based risk factors (e.g. physical distancing, contact with COVID-19-infected persons), Psychosocial risk factors, Lifestyle risk factors, and Personal evaluation of the impact of COVID-19. For each domain, additional questions are available. The specific occupational COVID-19 questionnaire focusses on occupational risk factors and mitigating factors for SARS-CoV2 infection and COVID-19 disease and includes questions about the type of job, amount of home working, social distancing, human contact (colleagues, patients, and members of the public), commuting, and use of personal protective equipment and face coverings. The strength of this initiative is the broad working life approach to various important issues related to SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 disease, and potentially future pandemics. It requires further work to validate the questionnaires, and we welcome collaboration with researchers willing to do this. A limitation is the moderate number of questions for each of the domains in the general questionnaire. Only few questions on general core information like ethnicity, demographics, lifestyle factors, and general health status are included, but the OMEGA-NET questionnaires can be integrated in existing questionnaires about sociodemographic and health-related aspects. The questionnaires are freely accessible from the OMEGA-NET and the EPHOR homepages. PubDate: Sun, 10 Jul 2022 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/annweh/wxac044 Issue No:Vol. 67, No. 1 (2022)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 9 - 20 Abstract: AbstractObjectivesA COVID-19 Job Exposure Matrix (COVID-19-JEM) has been developed, consisting of four dimensions on transmission, two on mitigation measures, and two on precarious work. This study aims to validate the COVID-19-JEM by (i) comparing risk scores assigned by the COVID-19-JEM with self-reported data, and (ii) estimating the associations between the COVID-19-JEM risk scores and self-reported COVID-19.MethodsData from measurements 2 (July 2020, n = 7690) and 4 (March 2021, n = 6794) of the Netherlands Working Conditions Survey-COVID-19 (NWCS-COVID-19) cohort study were used. Responses to questions related to the transmission risks and mitigation measures of Measurement 2 were used to calculate self-reported risk scores. These scores were compared with the COVID-19-JEM attributed risk scores, by assessing the percentage agreement and weighted kappa (κ). Based on Measurement 4, logistic regression analyses were conducted to estimate the associations between all COVID-19-JEM risk scores and self-reported COVID-19 (infection in general and infected at work).ResultsThe agreement between the COVID-19-JEM and questionnaire-based risk scores was good (κ ≥ 0.70) for most dimensions, except work location (κ = 0.56), and face covering (κ = 0.41). Apart from the precarious work dimensions, higher COVID-19-JEM assigned risk scores had higher odds ratios (ORs; ranging between 1.28 and 1.80) on having had COVID-19. Associations were stronger when the infection were thought to have happened at work (ORs between 2.33 and 11.62).ConclusionsGenerally, the COVID-19-JEM showed a good agreement with self-reported infection risks and infection rates at work. The next step is to validate the COVID-19-JEM with objective data in the Netherlands and beyond. PubDate: Wed, 18 May 2022 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/annweh/wxac032 Issue No:Vol. 67, No. 1 (2022)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 21 - 35 Abstract: AbstractThe COVID-19 pandemic spurred some regulators in the USA to require occupational health and safety programs to prevent COVID-19 transmission in workplaces. The objective of this study was to describe such state and federal regulations enacted between January 2020 and January 2022. Regulations, including emergency temporary standards (ETS) and permanent standards, were identified through a search of Nexis Uni and Bloomberg Law and review of US OSHA websites and the Federal Register. Full texts were reviewed for regulatory scope, hazard and exposure definitions, determination of exposure or risk levels, and control strategies. Four state (California, Michigan, Virginia, and Oregon) and two federal regulations were identified. All regulations described respiratory aerosols as the primary source of SARS-CoV-2 and recognized person-to-person transmission by droplet, airborne, and contact routes. Only the US OSHA ETS for healthcare explicitly stated that inhalation of respiratory particles was the most likely method of COVID-19 transmission. The Virginia, Michigan, and Oregon regulations described different categories of risk defined by exposure frequency and duration or specific workplace activities. California described exposure as places and times when employees come into contact or congregate with other people. The US OSHA ETS for healthcare described exposure as involving close contact with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients. While all of the state regulations required strategies from across the hierarchy, only the Virginia regulations specifically incorporated the hierarchy of controls. Only the California and Virginia regulations explicitly linked control strategies to the transmission route, while Virginia demarcated control strategies by risk level. Oregon linked risk level to occupancy levels and physical distancing requirements and referred to the use of a layered approach for transmission control. The US OSHA ETS for healthcare defined droplet and airborne precautions but made no mention of the hierarchy of controls or risk levels. Respirators were discussed in most of the regulations. The first Michigan regulation explicitly required respirators appropriate to exposure risk. The California regulations noted that respirators protect the wearer while face coverings protect people around the wearer. These regulations offer insights for a permanent US OSHA infectious disease regulation, such as the need to consider a range of transmission modes including near- and far-range aerosol inhalation, endemic and novel pathogens, workplaces beyond healthcare settings, factors that contribute to exposure and risk, the hierarchy of controls, the role of vaccination, and the importance of written exposure assessment and infection prevention plans. PubDate: Tue, 13 Dec 2022 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/annweh/wxac084 Issue No:Vol. 67, No. 1 (2022)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 36 - 49 Abstract: AbstractFace shields (also referred to as visors), goggles and safety glasses have been worn during the COVID-19 pandemic as one measure to control transmission of the virus. However, their effectiveness in controlling facial exposure to cough droplets is not well established and standard tests for evaluating eye protection for this application are limited. A method was developed to evaluate face shields, goggles, and safety glasses as a control measure to protect the wearer against cough droplets. The method uses a semi-quantitative assessment of facial droplet deposition. A cough simulator was developed to generate droplets comparable to those from a human cough. The droplets consisted of a UV fluorescent marker (fluorescein) in water. Fourteen face shields, four pairs of goggles and one pair of safety glasses were evaluated by mounting them on two different sizes of breathing manikin head and challenging them with the simulated cough. The manikin head was positioned in seven orientations relative to the cough simulator to represent various potential occupational exposure scenarios, for example, a nurse standing over a patient. Droplet deposition in the eyes, nose and mouth regions were visualised following three ‘coughs’. Face shields, goggles, and safety glasses reduced, but did not eliminate exposure to the wearer from droplets such as those produced by a human cough. The level of protection differed based on the design of the personal protective equipment and the relative orientation of the wearer to the cough. For example, face shields, and goggles offered the greatest protection when a cough challenge was face on or from above and the least protection when a cough challenge was from below. Face shields were also evaluated as source control to protect others from the wearer. Results suggested that if a coughing person wears a face shield, it can provide some protection from cough droplets to those standing directly in front of the wearer. PubDate: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/annweh/wxac047 Issue No:Vol. 67, No. 1 (2022)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 50 - 58 Abstract: AbstractThroughout the COVID-19 pandemic, hundreds of millions of people worldwide have become new users of respiratory protective devices. Facemasks and KN95 respirators utilizing an ear loop straps system (ELSS) have recently become popular among occupational and non-occupational populations. Part of this popularity is due to the ease of wearability as compared with traditional devices utilizing two headbands, one worn over the head and the other behind the neck—a universal strap system used in NIOSH-certified N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs). Some users convert the two-strap configuration to an adjustable ELSS. The first objective of this pilot study was to quantitatively characterize how such a conversion impacts the respirator fit. Additionally, a novel faceseal (NFS) technology, which has been previously demonstrated to enhance the fit of N95 FFRs, was deployed to modify the ELSS-converted N95 FFRs. The second objective of this study was to quantify the fit improvement that results from adding the NFS to the ELSS. The study was conducted by performing the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)-approved quantitative fit testing (QNFT) on 16 human subjects featuring different facial shapes and dimensions. Three models of cup-shaped N95 FFRs were tested in three versions: the standard version with manufacturer’s strap system, the ELSS-converted, and the ELSS-converted version modified by adding the NFS. QNFT demonstrated that the fit of an N95 FFR featuring the traditional/standard headbands strap system is negatively impacted when this system is converted to an ELSS. The fit of an ELSS-converted respirator can be significantly improved by the addition of the NFS. We found that the FFR model and the strap system version are significant factors affecting the QNFT-determined respirator fit factor (FF), as well as the OSHA QNFT pass rate (FF ≥100). The findings suggest that the current NFS, if further improved, has a potential for developing a ‘universally fitting’ ELSS-equipped N95 FFR that can be used by the general public, the vast majority of whom do not have access to OSHA fit requirements. PubDate: Thu, 04 Aug 2022 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/annweh/wxac051 Issue No:Vol. 67, No. 1 (2022)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 59 - 75 Abstract: AbstractIntroductionTo treat and properly care for COVID-19 patients it is vital to have healthy healthcare workers to ensure the continued function of the healthcare system and to prevent transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) to patients, co-workers, and the community. Personal protective equipment (PPE) can prevent healthcare workers from being infected with and transmitting SARS-CoV-2. Experience and training are pivotal to ensure optimal protection. This study aims to examine the use and failure of PPE and compliance with PPE guidelines during the first and the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic among Danish healthcare workers.MethodsHealthcare workers from the Central Denmark Region and the Capital Region of Denmark were invited to participate April–June 2020 during the first wave and November 2020–April 2021 during the second wave. Day-by-day, participants reported work procedures, use and failure of PPE, and compliance with PPE guidelines. Register-based information on sex, age, department, and profession was available for all participants.ResultsIn total, 21 684 and 10 097 healthcare workers participated during the first and the second wave, respectively. During the first wave, 1.7% used filtering face piece-2 or -3 (FFP2 or FFP3) respirators and 8.2% used face masks [fluid resistant (type IIR) masks, masks with visor (typically type IIR), and other unspecified face masks] during physical contact with patients. During the second wave, the corresponding figures increased to 17.8% and 80.7%. During respiratory procedures, the use of FFP2 or FFP3 respirators increased from 5.6 to 24.3%, and the use of face masks from 14.7 to 77.8%. The no PPE use decreased from 21.3% during the first wave to 0.4% in the second wave, during respiratory procedures. Total PPE failures decreased from 0.7 to 0.4% from the first to second wave. The proportion not complying with PPE guidelines declined from 3.6 to 2.2% during physical contact with patients and from 6.5 to 4.6% during respiratory procedures. PPE failure and non-compliance varied by age, sex and type of department. Frequent reasons for non-compliance were forgetfulness and lack of time, and during the first but not during the second wave, limited availability of PPE.ConclusionWe found a substantial increase in the use of PPE and a substantial decrease in PPE failures from the first to the second wave of COVID-19 in Denmark. However, there is still a need for continuous focus on compliance in use of PPE among healthcare workers. PubDate: Tue, 30 Aug 2022 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/annweh/wxac054 Issue No:Vol. 67, No. 1 (2022)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 76 - 86 Abstract: AbstractBackgroundAge-standardized mortality rates for taxi drivers, chauffeurs, bus and coach drivers show that public transport workers were at high risk at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, the public transport sector was required to continue services throughout the pandemic.ObjectivesThis paper aims to develop a better understanding of the experiences of organizational leaders and workers within the UK public transport sector (bus, rail, and tram). Specifically, it aims to explore the perceived balance of risk and mitigation of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, report on their perceptions of safety in public transport during the pandemic and in the future, and consider how these perceptions and changes impact on long-term worker health and wellbeing.MethodsThis study formed part of a larger stakeholder engagement with the public transport sector. Organizational leaders and workers were recruited (n = 18) and semi-structured interviews carried out between January and May 2021. Data were analysed thematically.ResultsOverarching and subthemes were identified. Themes relating to perceptions and impacts of risk of COVID-19 for employees included: acceptability of risk for workers, perceptions of risk mitigation effectiveness, changes to working practices and their impact on morale and wellbeing, issues with compliance to mitigations such as social distancing and face coverings in passenger and co-worker groups alongside a lack of power to challenge behaviour effectively, and the roles of leadership and messaging. Themes related to long-lasting impacts of COVID-19 on working practices and effects on health and wellbeing included: continuing mitigations, impact of increasing passenger numbers, impact of vaccination programme, and impact of changes to business structure.ConclusionsMost public transport employees reported feeling safe, related to the extent to which their role was public-facing. However, data were collected during a time of very low passenger numbers. Current mitigation measures were thought effective in reducing the risk of viral transmission, although measures may have a detrimental effect on worker morale and wellbeing. Issues relating to non-compliance with guidance and ‘in-group’ behaviour were identified. Impacts on wider business sustainability and individual wellbeing of staff should be considered when developing responses to any future pandemics. Recommendations are made for prioritizing employee engagement with colleagues, and the importance of strong leadership and clear messaging in promoting adherence to behavioural mitigations. PubDate: Sat, 14 May 2022 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/annweh/wxac030 Issue No:Vol. 67, No. 1 (2022)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 87 - 100 Abstract: AbstractThe COVID-19 pandemic has simultaneously exacerbated and elucidated inequities in resource distribution for small businesses across the United States in terms of worker health and the financial stability of both owners and employees. This disparity was further intensified by the constantly changing and sometimes opposing health and safety guidelines and recommendations to businesses from the local, state, and federal government agencies. To better understand how the pandemic has impacted small businesses, a cross-sectional survey was administered to owners, managers, and workers (n = 45) in the beauty and auto shop sectors from Southern Arizona. The survey identified barriers to safe operation that these businesses faced during the pandemic, illuminated worker concerns about COVID-19, and elicited perceptions of how workplaces have changed since the novel coronavirus outbreak of 2019. A combination of open-ended and close-ended questions explored how businesses adapted to the moving target of pandemic safety recommendations, as well as how the pandemic affected businesses and workers more generally. Almost all the beauty salons surveyed had to close their doors (22/25), either temporarily or permanently, due to COVID-19, while most of the auto repair shops were able to stay open (13/20). Beauty salons were more likely to implement exposure controls meant to limit transmission with customers and coworkers, such as wearing face masks and disallowing walk-ins, and were also more likely to be affected by pandemic-related issues, such as reduced client load and sourcing difficulties. Auto shops, designated by the state of Arizona to be ‘essential’ businesses, were less likely to have experienced financial precarity due to the pandemic. Content analysis of open-ended questions using the social-ecological model documented current and future worker concerns, namely financial hardships from lockdowns and the long-term viability of their business, unwillingness of employees to return to work, uncertainty regarding the progression of the pandemic, conflict over suitable health and safety protocols, and personal or family health and well-being (including anxiety and/or stress). Findings from the survey indicate that small businesses did not have clear guidance from policymakers during the pandemic and that the enacted regulations and guidelines focused on either health and safety or finances, but rarely both. Businesses often improvised and made potentially life-changing decisions with little to no support. This analysis can be used to inform future pandemic preparedness plans for small businesses that are cost-efficient, effective at reducing environmental exposures, and ultimately more likely to be implemented by the workers. PubDate: Sat, 16 Jul 2022 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/annweh/wxac048 Issue No:Vol. 67, No. 1 (2022)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 101 - 117 Abstract: AbstractSchool nurses and unlicensed assistive personnel (UAPs) are essential to the health and wellness of school children. However, most US schools do not have a full-time licensed nurse. During the COVID-19 pandemic, school nurses and UAPs have been integral in ensuring that the health needs of students were met. They have seen a marked increase in their responsibilities included implementing COVID-19 mitigation strategies, screening for symptoms, testing students and staff, conducting contact tracing and data collection, and ensuring the implementation of rapidly changing COVID-19 guidelines and protocols for schools. The objective of this study was to explore COVID-19 occupational changes and their contributions to stress among school nurses and UAPs through a content analysis of local and national media articles. A Google search of articles published between February 2020 and September 2021 was conducted using the following search terms: ‘school nurse’, ‘COVID-19’, ‘health aide’, ‘stress’, and ‘experiences’. A search was also conducted in Nexis Uni. Articles were included if the topic discussed school nurses or UAPs and COVID-19. All articles that examined nurses in other settings were excluded from the review. We examined topics and themes temporally (from February 2020 to September 2021) and spatially (i.e. the frequency by US state). Overall, 496 media articles discussing school nurses and COVID-19 were included in our review. The highest volume of articles was from September 2021 (22%, 111/496). Other months with relatively high volume of articles included August 2020 (9%, 43/496), January 2021 (10%, 47/496), February 2021 (9%, 44/496), and August 2021 (8%, 39/496). These larger article volumes coincided with notable COVID-19 events, including returning to school in the fall (August 2020 and August 2021), school nurses assisting with vaccine rollouts among adults in the USA (January/February 2021), concerns regarding the delta variant (August/September 2021), and vaccine rollouts for children ages 12–15 (September 2021). The representation of articles spatially (national, state, regional, or local) was 66 (13%) articles at national level, 217 (44%) state level, 25 (5%) regional level, and 188 (38%) local news at the city and/or village level. Pennsylvania had the highest frequency of articles, but when standardized to the state population, Alaska had the highest rate of media per 100 000 people. Three major themes were identified in our analysis: (i) safety; (ii) pandemic-related fatigue/stress; and (iii) nursing shortage/budget. The most represented theme for articles before September 2021 was that of safety. Over time, the themes of pandemic-related fatigue/stress and nursing shortage/budget increased with the most notable increase being in September 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in new occupational risks, burdens, and stressors experienced by school nurses and UAPs. School nurses play a critical role in disease surveillance, disaster preparedness, wellness and chronic disease prevention interventions, immunizations, mental health screening, and chronic disease education. Furthermore, they provide a safety net for our most vulnerable children. Given that school nurses were already over-burdened and under-resourced prior to the pandemic, characterization of these new burdens and stressors will inform emergency preparedness resources for school health personnel during future pandemics or outbreaks. PubDate: Fri, 16 Sep 2022 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/annweh/wxac053 Issue No:Vol. 67, No. 1 (2022)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 118 - 128 Abstract: AbstractObjectivesNearly all workers and industry sectors have been affected by the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in some form since March 2020. However, the pandemic-related stressors experienced in the workplace may vary from industry to industry and may have disproportionally affected some workers. This study investigates increased stress levels, stressor events, and other perceptions of stress from at-risk workers during COVID-19.MethodsAn in-depth work-related stress survey that incorporated many aspects of work, life, work-life balance, and the health of employer-employee relationships was developed with a focus on COVID-19-related stressors. The cross-sectional survey was distributed online through professional networks from October to November 2021. The survey results were statically analyzed using Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) after grouping the industry sectors into the four groups to determine trends within these groupings.ResultsThe survey was completed by 670 workers in sectors such as manual labor, business/office service, healthcare, and education. A variety of trends were determined between the occurrence of COVID-19 and work stress which had, in some cases, affected some industry sectors to a larger degree than others. More than 50% of the participants reported experiencing an increased workload since the onset of the pandemic with some sectors, like healthcare, reporting an increased workload more frequently at 80%. Around 55% of respondents believed they could be exposed to COVID-19 in their workplace, ranging from 52% of business/office service workers to 77% of healthcare workers.ConclusionsAs workplaces navigate past the pandemic, occupational stress should be addressed head-on through workplaces providing expanded resources so as to assure work stress associated with future pandemics are mitigated appropriately. Whether the stressor is associated with irregular shift work or psychosocial aspects (i.e. relying on coworkers), many of these stressors have the possibility to become exacerbated by external factors such as pandemics. PubDate: Wed, 09 Nov 2022 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/annweh/wxac076 Issue No:Vol. 67, No. 1 (2022)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 129 - 140 Abstract: AbstractThere is an ongoing debate on airborne transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) as a risk factor for infection. In this study, the level of SARS-CoV-2 in air and on surfaces of SARS-CoV-2 infected nursing home residents was assessed to gain insight in potential transmission routes. During outbreaks, air samples were collected using three different active and one passive air sampling technique in rooms of infected patients. Oropharyngeal swabs (OPS) of the residents and dry surface swabs were collected. Additionally, longitudinal passive air samples were collected during a period of 4 months in common areas of the wards. Presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA was determined using RT-qPCR, targeting the RdRp- and E-genes. OPS, samples of two active air samplers and surface swabs with Ct-value ≤35 were tested for the presence of infectious virus by cell culture. In total, 360 air and 319 surface samples from patient rooms and common areas were collected. In rooms of 10 residents with detected SARS-CoV-2 RNA in OPS, SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 93 of 184 collected environmental samples (50.5%) (lowest Ct 29.5), substantially more than in the rooms of residents with negative OPS on the day of environmental sampling (n = 2) (3.6%). SARS-CoV-2 RNA was most frequently present in the larger particle size fractions [>4 μm 60% (6/10); 1–4 μm 50% (5/10); <1 μm 20% (2/10)] (Fischer exact test P = 0.076). The highest proportion of RNA-positive air samples on room level was found with a filtration-based sampler 80% (8/10) and the cyclone-based sampler 70% (7/10), and impingement-based sampler 50% (5/10). SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 10 out of 12 (83%) passive air samples in patient rooms. Both high-touch and low-touch surfaces contained SARS-CoV-2 genome in rooms of residents with positive OPS [high 38% (21/55); low 50% (22/44)]. In one active air sample, infectious virus in vitro was detected. In conclusion, SARS-CoV-2 is frequently detected in air and on surfaces in the immediate surroundings of room-isolated COVID-19 patients, providing evidence of environmental contamination. The environmental contamination of SARS-CoV-2 and infectious aerosols confirm the potential for transmission via air up to several meters. PubDate: Wed, 07 Sep 2022 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/annweh/wxac056 Issue No:Vol. 67, No. 1 (2022)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 141 - 146 Abstract: AbstractBackgroundThere is strong observational evidence that respirators are highly effective in protecting the users from being infected with Middle East respiratory syndrome and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), but the evidence for SARS-CoV-2 during daily work is limited. This study utilized a subset of healthcare workers’ temporary use of a new brand respirator with frequent defects when caring for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients to assess the protective effect of regular respirators against SARS-CoV-2 infection.MethodsWe retrospectively followed 463 participants wearing a regular respirator and 168 wearing the new brand respirator day-by-day when caring for COVID-19 patients until testing polymerase chain reaction positive for SARS-CoV-2 between 27th December 2020 and 14th January 2021.ResultsWe observed seven and eight incident SARS-CoV-2-infected cases. This corresponded with daily infection rates of 0.2 and 0.5%, an incidence rate ratio of 0.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.1; 1.0], and an incidence rate difference of 0.3% (95% CI −0.1; 0.8) when comparing a regular with the new brand respirator.DiscussionWe regard the new brand respirator a sham intervention, and this study thus provides further evidence for the protective effect of respirators when exposed to SARS-CoV-2 virus. PubDate: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/annweh/wxac031 Issue No:Vol. 67, No. 1 (2022)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 147 - 152 Abstract: AbstractObjectivesFood processing facilities represent critical infrastructure that have stayed open during much of the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding the burden of COVID-19 in this sector is thus important to help reduce the potential for workplace infection in future outbreaks.MethodsWe undertook a workplace survey in the UK food and drink processing sector and collected information on workplace size, characteristics (e.g. temperature, ventilation), and experience with COVID-19 (e.g. numbers of positive cases). For each site, we calculated COVID-19 case rates per month per 1000 workers. We performed an ecological analysis using negative binomial regression to assess the association between COVID-19 rates and workplace and local risk factors.ResultsRespondents from 33 companies including 66 individual sites completed the survey. COVID-19 cases were reported from the start of the pandemic up to June 2021. Respondents represented a range of industry subgroups, including grain milling/storage (n = 16), manufacture of malt (n = 14), manufacture of prepared meals (n = 12), manufacture of beverages (n = 8), distilling (n = 5), manufacture of baked goods (n = 5), and other (n = 6), with a total of 15 563 workers across all sites. Average monthly case rates per 1000 workers ranged from 0.9 in distilling to 6.1 in grain milling/storage. Incidence rate ratios were partially attenuated after adjusting for several local and workplace factors, though risks for one subgroup (grain milling/storage) remained elevated. Certain local and workplace characteristics were related to higher infection rates, such as higher deprivation (5 km only), a lower proportion of remote workers, lower proportion of workers in close proximity, and higher numbers of workers overall.ConclusionsOur analysis suggests some heterogeneity in the rates of COVID-19 across sectors of the UK food and drink processing industry. Infection rates were associated with deprivation, the proportions of remote workers and workers in close proximity, and the number of workers. PubDate: Wed, 15 Jun 2022 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/annweh/wxac042 Issue No:Vol. 67, No. 1 (2022)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 153 - 159 Abstract: AbstractObjectivesTo estimate the rate ratio (RR) of reported Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases among governmental employees from seven District of Columbia (D.C.) departments from March 2020 to February 2022.MethodsPoisson regression models were used to estimate the RR by department, using D.C. residents as the reference and the person-day as the offset. The COVID-19 surveillance data and the full-time equivalent hours for each department were obtained from the D.C. governmental websites.ResultsFive of the seven departments had statistically significant higher COVID-19 case rates than D.C. residents. Stratified by four pandemic stages, RR of Fire and Emergency Medical Services (FEMS), Office of Unified Communication (OUC), and Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) were consistently >1: FEMS: 3.34 (95% confidence interval, CI [2.94, 3.77]), 2.39 (95% CI [2.06, 2.75]), 2.48 (95% CI [2.06, 2.95]), and 3.90 (95% CI [3.56, 4.26]), respectively; OUC: 1.47 (95% CI [0.92, 2.18]), 2.72 (95% CI [1.93, 3.69]), 1.85 (95% CI [1.09, 2.92]), and 2.18 (95% CI [1.62, 2.85]), respectively; and MPD: 2.33 (95% CI [2.11, 2.58]), 1.96 (95% CI [1.75, 2.18]), 1.52 (95% CI [1.29, 1.77]), and 1.76 (95% CI [1.60, 1.92]), respectively.ConclusionsThe results suggested higher case rates for emergency responders and frontline personnel than for general population in D.C. PubDate: Thu, 28 Jul 2022 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/annweh/wxac049 Issue No:Vol. 67, No. 1 (2022)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 160 - 162 Abstract: Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan10.13039/501100004663108-2221-E-400-003-MY3110-2221-E-400-003-MY3National Health Research Institutes of TaiwanNHRI-EX109-10829EINHRI-EX110-10829EIMinistry of Economic Affairs, Taiwan110-EC-17-A-22-1650 PubDate: Sat, 21 May 2022 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/annweh/wxac036 Issue No:Vol. 67, No. 1 (2022)
Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
[424 journals]
