Dataset Information

SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence survey among 17,971 healthcare and administrative personnel at hospitals, pre-hospital services, and specialist practitioners in the Central Denmark Region.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The objective of this study was to perform a seroprevalence survey on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among Danish healthcare workers to identify high risk groups.

Methods

All healthcare workers and administrative personnel at the seven hospitals, pre-hospital services and specialist practitioner clinics in the Central Denmark Region were invited to be tested by a commercial SARS-CoV-2 total antibody enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA, Wantai Biological Pharmacy Enterprise Co., Ltd., Beijing, China).

Results

A total of 25,950 participants were invited. Of these, 17,971 had samples available for SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing. After adjustment for assay sensitivity and specificity, the overall seroprevalence was 3.4% (CI: 2.5%-3.8%). The seroprevalence was higher in the western part of the region than in the eastern part (11.9% vs 1.2%, difference: 10.7 percentage points, CI: 9.5-12.2). In the high prevalence area, the emergency departments had the highest seroprevalence (29.7%), while departments without patients or with limited patient contact had the lowest seroprevalence (2.2%). Among the total 668 seropositive participants, 433 (64.8%) had previously been tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA, and 50.0% had a positive RT-PCR result.

Conclusions

We found large differences in the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in staff working in the healthcare sector within a small geographical area of Denmark. Half of all seropositive staff had been tested positive by PCR prior to this survey. This study raises awareness of precautions which should be taken to avoid in-hospital transmission. Regular testing of healthcare workers for SARS-CoV-2 should be considered to identify areas with increased transmission.

SUBMITTER: Jespersen S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7797753 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDenmark has no general recommendations for vaccination of healthcare workers (HCWs). We explored the self-reported immunity to varicella, measles, mumps, and rubella, reasons for receiving the influenza vaccine or not, and opinions on vaccination of HCWs against varicella, MMR, pertussis, diphtheria, and influenza among staff from departments with a high risk of exposure to infectious agents.MethodsFrom May 2019 to August 2019, a structured questionnaire was distributed to clinical and non-clinical HCWs at a tertiary and a general paediatric department in Denmark. Self-reported immunity was defined as either previous infection or vaccination against the disease.ResultsOf 619 employed HCWs, 555 (90%) were included. A large proportion were unsure of or denied previous vaccination or infection with measles (20.1%), mumps (30.2%), rubella (21.4%), varicella (12.1%), pertussis (44.1%), and diphtheria (32.1%). Non-clinical personnel and employees born in 1974-1983 had the lowest level of self-reported immunity. Mandatory vaccination of non-immune HCWs was approved by 54-68.9% of participants, and any kind of vaccination (mandatory or as an offer at hospitals) was approved of up to 95.3% of all participants depending on the disease. During the season 2018/19, 214 (38.6%) HCWs received the influenza vaccine, including 20.3% of non-clinical staff, 34.8% of nurses and 56.5% of doctors (P < 0.001). Reasons for lack of vaccine uptake were mainly employees considering themselves rarely sick, the vaccine was not regarded as necessary, forgetfulness or lack of time. Only 37.8% was in favour of mandatory influenza vaccination.ConclusionsA large proportion of paediatric HCWs were not aware of their immune status against important vaccine-preventable diseases. >90% supported vaccination of HCWs, with two out of three supporting mandatory MMR, pertussis and diphtheria vaccination. Better information and an official immunisation policy of non-immune HCWs in Denmark is warranted.

Project description:The relative importance of different attitudes in predicting vaccination among healthcare personnel (HCP) is unclear. We hypothesized that HCP who feel at risk without vaccination or say they would regret not getting vaccinated would be more likely to get vaccinated than HCP who do not expect these emotional benefits.A prospective cohort of 1544 HCP with direct patient care was enrolled from September 18 to December 18, 2010 at Scott & White Healthcare in Texas and Kaiser Permanente Northwest in Oregon and Washington. An Internet-based questionnaire assessed pre-season intention to be vaccinated and included 12 questions on attitudes about vaccination: single-item measures of perceived susceptibility and vaccine effectiveness, 5 items that were summed to form a concerns about vaccine scale, and 5 items summed to form an emotional benefits of vaccination scale. Influenza vaccination status for the 2010-2011 season and for 5 prior seasons was confirmed by medical record extraction.There were significant differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated HCP on all attitude items; 72% of vaccinated HCP agreed that they "worry less about getting the flu" if vaccinated, compared to only 26% of the unvaccinated (odds ratio=7.4, 95% confidence interval=5.8-9.5). In a multivariate model, the emotional benefits scale was the strongest predictor of 2010-2011 seasonal influenza vaccination, after adjusting for other attitude measures, prior vaccination history, and pre-season intention to be vaccinated. The predictive value of the emotional benefits scale was strongest for HCP with low pre-season intention to be vaccinated, where HCP vaccine receipt was 15% versus 83% for those with low versus high scores on the emotional benefits scale.The expected emotional benefits of vaccination strongly affect seasonal influenza vaccination among HCP, even after taking into account other attitudes, pre-season intentions, and prior vaccination history. These attitudes are promising targets for future vaccination campaigns.