COVID-19 Risk Factors Among Health Workers: A Rapid Review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Mhango M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7502606 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundHealth care workers (HCWs) have been recognized as being at higher risk for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection; however, relevant factors and magnitude have not been clearly elucidated.AimThis study was aimed to describe COVID-19 infections among hospital employees at a large tertiary care hospital located in Ontario, Canada from March to July 2020, towards better understanding potential risk factors.MethodsData on all HCWs with either a positive COVID test or a high-risk exposure from March to July 2020 were analyzed. HCWs with positive COVID test results and high-risk exposures were described. Those who developed COVID-19 following high-risk exposure were compared to those who did not. Data were also analyzed to determine trends over time.ResultsOver the period of observation, 193 staff (2% of total working staff) had a positive COVID-19 test. Incidence of HCW infections closely followed community incidence. Overall, 31% of COVID-19 cases were deemed occupationally acquired. Of these, 41% were acquired from a patient, with the remainder (59%) from fellow staff. Over the same period, 204 staff were identified as having a high-risk exposure. The majority of exposures (55%) were patient-associated, with the remaining (45%) resulting from staff-to-staff contact. Overall, 13% went on to develop COVID-19. Of these cases, 58% were patient-associated and 42% were a result of staff-to-staff transmission.ConclusionsHCWs are at risk for work-related COVID-19. Given the number of infections attributed to staff-staff transmission, greater attention could be paid to implementing prevention measures in non-clinical areas.
| S-EPMC8689909 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) outbreak currently puts health care workers at high risk of both physical and mental health problems. This study aimed to identify the risk and protective factors for mental health outcomes in health care workers during coronavirus epidemics.MethodsA rapid systematic review was performed in three databases (March 24, 2020) and a current COVID-19 resource (May 28, 2020). Following study selection, study characteristics and effect measures were tabulated, and data were synthesized by using vote counting. Meta-analysis was not possible because of high variation in risk factors, outcomes and effect measures. Risk of bias of each study was assessed and the certainty of evidence was appraised according to the GRADE methodology.ResultsOut of 2605 references, 33 observational studies were selected and the identified risk and protective factors were categorized in ten thematic categories. Most of these studies (n = 23) were performed during the SARS outbreak, seven during the current COVID-19 pandemic and three during the MERS outbreak. The level of disease exposure and health fear were significantly associated with worse mental health outcomes. There was evidence that clear communication and support from the organization, social support and personal sense of control are protective factors. The evidence was of very low certainty, because of risk of bias and imprecision.ConclusionSafeguarding mental health of health care workers during infectious disease outbreaks should not be treated as a separate mental health intervention strategy, but could benefit from a protective approach. This study suggests that embedding mental health support in a safe and efficient working environment which promotes collegial social support and personal sense of control could help to maximize resilience of health care workers. Low quality cross-sectional studies currently provide the best possible evidence, and further research is warranted to confirm causality.
| S-EPMC7737991 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-BSST563 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundHealth care workers (HCWs) are at risk for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.PurposeTo examine the burden of SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV-1, and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)-CoV on HCWs and risk factors for infection, using rapid and living review methods.Data sourcesMultiple electronic databases, including the WHO database of publications on coronavirus disease and the medRxiv preprint server (2003 through 27 March 2020, with ongoing surveillance through 24 April 2020), and reference lists.Study selectionStudies published in any language reporting incidence of or outcomes associated with coronavirus infections in HCWs and studies on the association between risk factors (demographic characteristics, role, exposures, environmental and administrative factors, and personal protective equipment [PPE] use) and HCW infections. New evidence will be incorporated on an ongoing basis by using living review methods.Data extractionOne reviewer abstracted data and assessed methodological limitations; verification was done by a second reviewer.Data synthesis64 studies met inclusion criteria; 43 studies addressed burden of HCW infections (15 on SARS-CoV-2), and 34 studies addressed risk factors (3 on SARS-CoV-2). Health care workers accounted for a significant proportion of coronavirus infections and may experience particularly high infection incidence after unprotected exposures. Illness severity was lower than in non-HCWs. Depression, anxiety, and psychological distress were common in HCWs during the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak. The strongest evidence on risk factors was on PPE use and decreased infection risk. The association was most consistent for masks but was also observed for gloves, gowns, eye protection, and handwashing; evidence suggested a dose-response relationship. No study evaluated PPE reuse. Certain exposures (such as involvement in intubations, direct patient contact, or contact with bodily secretions) were associated with increased infection risk. Infection control training was associated with decreased risk.LimitationThere were few studies on risk factors for SARS-CoV-2, the studies had methodological limitations, and streamlined rapid review methods were used.ConclusionHealth care workers experience significant burdens from coronavirus infections, including SARS-CoV-2. Use of PPE and infection control training are associated with decreased infection risk, and certain exposures are associated with increased risk.Primary funding sourceWorld Health Organization.
| S-EPMC7240841 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to summarize the prevalence and risk factors of mental health problems among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We applied an optimized search strategy across the PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, PsycINFO, and four Chinese databases, with hand searching supplemented to identify relevant surveys. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were published in peer-reviewed literature and used a validated method to assess the prevalence and risk factors of mental health problems among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Heterogeneity was quantified using Q statistics and the I 2 statistics. The potential causes of heterogeneity were investigated using subgroup analysis and meta-regression analysis. Sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the robustness of the results. Results: We pooled and analyzed data from 20 studies comprising 10,886 healthcare workers. The prevalence of depression, anxiety, insomnia, post-traumatic stress symptoms, phobia, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, and somatization symptoms was 24.1, 28.6, 44.1, 25.6, 35.0, 16.2, and 10.7%, respectively. Female and nurses had a high prevalence of depression and anxiety. Frontline healthcare workers had a higher prevalence of anxiety and a lower prevalence of depression than the those in the second-line. Furthermore, the proportion of moderate-severe depression and anxiety is higher in the frontline. Additionally, four studies reported on risk factors of mental health problems. Conclusions: In this systematic review, healthcare workers have a relatively high prevalence of depression, anxiety, insomnia, post-traumatic stress symptoms, phobia, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, and somatization symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic, and focus should be on the healthcare workers at high risk of mental problems. Mental health problems in healthcare workers should be taken seriously, and timely screening and appropriate intervention for the high-risk group are highly recommended. Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020179189.
| S-EPMC8239157 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEvidence on the spectrum of risk factors for infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among front-line healthcare workers (HCWs) has not been well-described. While several studies evaluating the risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection among patient-facing and non-patient-facing front-line HCWs have been reported since the outbreak of the coronavirus disease in 2019 (COVID-19), and several more are still underway. There is, therefore, an immediate need for an ongoing, rigorous systematic review that continuously assesses the risk factors of SARS-CoV-2 infection among front-line HCWs.ObjectiveHere, we outline a protocol to serve as a guideline for conducting a living systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the burden of COVID-19 on front-line HCWs and identify risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection in patient-facing and non-patient-facing front-line HCWs.MethodsThe protocol was developed and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). The conduct of the proposed living systematic review and meta-analysis will primarily follow the principles recommended in the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) guidance for undertaking systematic reviews in healthcare, and the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. The systematic literature searches will be performed using the EBSCOhost platform by searching the following databases within the platform: Academic search complete, health source: nursing/academic edition, CINAHL with full text, Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE, Science Direct databases, Google Scholar, and; also a search in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure and the World Health Organization library databases for relevant studies will be performed. The searches will include peer-reviewed articles, published in English and Mandarin language irrespective of publication year, evaluating the risk for testing positive for C0VID-19, the risk of developing symptoms associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, or both, among front-line HCWs. The initial review period will consider articles published since the onset of COVID-19 disease to the present and then updated monthly. Review Manager (RevMan 5.3) will be used to pool the odds ratios or mean differences for individual risk factors where possible. Results will be presented as relative risks and 95% confidence intervals for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences, or standardised mean differences along with 95% confidence intervals, for continuous outcomes. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale will be used to rate study quality, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed by using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE). The results of the living systematic review and meta-analysis will be reported per the PRISMA guidelines.DiscussionThough addressing the needs of front-line HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic is a high priority, data to inform such initiatives are inadequate, particularly data on the risk factor disparities between patient-facing and non-patient-facing front-line HCWs. The proposed living systematic review and meta-analysis anticipate finding relevant studies reporting risk factors driving the SARS-CoV-2 infection rates among patient-facing and non-patient-facing front-line HCWs, thus providing subsidies for public health interventions and occupational health policies. The study results will be disseminated electronically, in print and through conference presentation, and key stakeholder meetings in the form of policy briefs.Trail registrationPROSPERO registration number: CRD42020193508 available for public comments via the link below https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020193508).
| S-EPMC8096084 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Since the outbreak of COVID-19, physical and psychological harm has been spreading across the global population alongside the spread of the virus. Currently, the novel coronavirus has spread to most countries in the world, and its impact on the public is also increasing. As a high-risk group in direct contact with the virus, medical workers should be monitored, and their mental health deserves extensive attention. The aim of this study was to explore the mental health of medical workers facing the novel coronavirus and the main factors affecting it. Methods: The present cross-sectional study including 2,100 eligible individuals from 1,050 hospitals in China was conducted through the network platform powered by www.wjx.cn, a platform providing functions equivalent to Amazon Mechanical Turk. We used a self-designed questionnaire to collect demographic information and data on mental states, including gender, age (years), educational level, job rank, body and mind reaction, cognition of risk, and the judgment of the epidemic situation. Independent samples t-tests and one-way (ANOVA) analysis were carried out to compare the differences in the mental reactions according to the demographic and psychological states of the participants. Results: There were 502 males (23.9%) and 1,598 females (76.1%). The participants reported feeling calm (39.1%), tense (63.0%), scared (31.4%), angry (18.8%), sad (49.0%), afraid (34.7%), optimistic (5.1%), impressed (65.0%), and confident (31.1%) during the epidemic. At the same time, the psychological stress responses of medical staff were significantly different according to the levels of exposure in their environments, duration and personal experience. Conclusions: Prolonged exposure to the virus and intense work are detrimental to the mental health of medical care personnel. It is necessary to adjust work conditions and intensity according to workers' mental state flexibly and systematically.
| S-EPMC7536346 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesRapid review to determine the magnitude of association between potential risk factors and severity of COVID-19, to inform vaccine prioritisation in Canada.SettingOvid MEDLINE(R) ALL, Epistemonikos COVID-19 in L·OVE Platform, McMaster COVID-19 Evidence Alerts and websites were searched to 15 June 2020. Eligible studies were conducted in high-income countries and used multivariate analyses.ParticipantsAfter piloting, screening, data extraction and quality appraisal were performed by a single experienced reviewer. Of 3740 unique records identified, 34 were included that reported on median 596 (range 44-418 794) participants, aged 42-84 years. 19/34 (56%) were good quality.OutcomesHospitalisation, intensive care unit admission, length of stay in hospital or intensive care unit, mechanical ventilation, severe disease, mortality.ResultsAuthors synthesised findings narratively and appraised the certainty of the evidence for each risk factor-outcome association. There was low or moderate certainty evidence for a large (≥2-fold) magnitude of association between hospitalisation in people with COVID-19, and: obesity class III, heart failure, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, dementia, age >45 years, male gender, black race/ethnicity (vs non-Hispanic white), homelessness and low income. Age >60 and >70 years may be associated with large increases in mechanical ventilation and severe disease, respectively. For mortality, a large magnitude of association may exist with liver disease, Bangladeshi ethnicity (vs British white), age >45 years, age >80 years (vs 65-69 years) and male gender among 20-64 years (but not older). Associations with hospitalisation and mortality may be very large (≥5-fold) for those aged ≥60 years.ConclusionsIncreasing age (especially >60 years) may be the most important risk factor for severe outcomes. High-quality primary research accounting for multiple confounders is needed to better understand the magnitude of associations for severity of COVID-19 with several other factors.Prospero registration numberCRD42020198001.
| S-EPMC8126435 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCovid-status certification - certificates for those who test negative for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, test positive for antibodies, or who have been vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 - has been proposed to enable safer access to a range of activities. Realising these benefits will depend in part upon the behavioural and social impacts of certification. The aim of this rapid review was to describe public attitudes towards certification, and its possible impact on uptake of testing and vaccination, protective behaviours, and crime.MethodA search was undertaken in peer-reviewed databases, pre-print databases, and the grey literature, from 2000 to December 2020. Studies were included if they measured attitudes towards or behavioural consequences of health certificates based on one of three indices of Covid-19 status: test-negative result for current infectiousness, test-positive for antibodies conferring natural immunity, or vaccination(s) conferring immunity.ResultsThirty-three papers met the inclusion criteria, only three of which were rated as low risk of bias. Public attitudes were generally favourable towards the use of immunity certificates for international travel, but unfavourable towards their use for access to work and other activities. A significant minority was strongly opposed to the use of certificates of immunity for any purpose. The limited evidence suggested that intention to get vaccinated varied with the activity enabled by certification or vaccination (e.g., international travel). Where vaccination is seen as compulsory this could lead to unwillingness to accept a subsequent vaccination. There was some evidence that restricting access to settings and activities to those with antibody test certificates may lead to deliberate exposure to infection in a minority. Behaviours that reduce transmission may decrease upon health certificates based on any of the three indices of Covid-19 status, including physical distancing and handwashing.ConclusionsThe limited evidence suggests that health certification in relation to COVID-19 - outside of the context of international travel - has the potential for harm as well as benefit. Realising the benefits while minimising the harms will require real-time evaluations allowing modifications to maximise the potential contribution of certification to enable safer access to a range of activities.
| S-EPMC8221819 | biostudies-literature
Project description:RNA was extracted from whole blood of subjects collected in Tempus tubes prior to COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccination. D01 and D21 correspond to samples collected at pre-dose 1 and pre-dose 2 respectively. RNA was also extracted from blood collected at indicated time points post-vaccination. DB1, DB2, DB4 and DB7 correspond to booster day 1 (pre-booster), booster day 2, booster day 4 and booster day 7 respectively. The case subject experienced cardiac complication following mRNA booster vaccination. We performed gene expression analysis of case versus controls over time.
2023-03-20 | E-MTAB-12829 | biostudies-arrayexpress