Dataset Information

COVID-19 in health care workers - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background and objectives

It is essential to know the proportion of health care workers (HCW) who are COVID 19 positive, as well as the severity and mortality among them.

Methods

This systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and meta-analysis. Databases including PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science were searched from December-31, 2019 to April-23, 2020. The search was limited to the studies that reported the data on the number of COVID-19 positive healthcare workers, among the COVID-19 positive patients. Case reports, duplicate publications, reviews, and family-based studies were excluded. The methodological quality of studies was assessed by the Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS) tool.

Results

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we pooled eleven studies to investigate the above factors. The overall proportion of HCW who were SARS-CoV-2 positive among all COVID-19 patients was 10.1% (95%CI: 5.3-14.9). This proportion varied according to the country of study i.e. China (7 studies) - 4.2%, 95%CI:2.4-6.0; United States (3 studies) - 17.8%, 95%CI:7.5-28.0; and Italy (1 study) - 9.0%, 95%CI:8.6-9.4. The incidence of severe or critical disease in HCW (9.9%, 95%CI:0.8-18.9) was significantly lower (p < 0.001) than the incidence of severe or critical disease in all COVID-19 positive patients (29.4%, 95%CI:18.6-40.2). Similarly, the mortality among HCW (0.3%, 95%CI:0.2-0.4) was also significantly lower (p < 0.001) as compared to that of all patients (2.3%, 95%CI:2.2-2.4).

Conclusion

Health care workers who are COVID-19 positive constituted a significant proportion of all COVID-19 patients; but the severity and mortality were lower among them.

SUBMITTER: Sahu AK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7837172 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

COVID-19 in health care workers - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Sahu Ankit Kumar AK Amrithanand V T VT Mathew Roshan R Aggarwal Praveen P Nayer Jamshed J Bhoi Sanjeev S

The American journal of emergency medicine 20200606 9

<h4>Background and objectives</h4>It is essential to know the proportion of health care workers (HCW) who are COVID 19 positive, as well as the severity and mortality among them.<h4>Methods</h4>This systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and meta-analysis. Databases including PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science were searched from December-31, 2019 to April-23, 2020. The search was limited to the studies that reported the data on the number ...[more]

PMID: 32738467

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionCoronavirus Disease (COVID-19) vaccine acceptance, and hesitancy amongst Health Care Workers (HCWs) on the African continent have been examined through observational studies. However, there are currently no comprehensive reviews among these cadre of population in Africa. Hence, we aimed to review the acceptance rate and possible reasons for COVID-19 vaccine non-acceptance/hesitancy amongst HCWs in Africa.MethodsWe searched Medline/PubMed, Google Scholar, and Africa Journal Online from January, 2020 to September, 2021. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment tool adapted for cross-sectional studies was used to assess the quality of the retrieved studies. DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model was used to pool the COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rate. Sub-group and sensitivity analyses were performed. Reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy were also systematically analyzed.ResultsTwenty-one (21) studies were found to be eligible for review out of the 513 initial records. The estimated pooled COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rate was 46% [95% CI: 37%-54%]. The pooled estimated COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rate was 37% [95% CI: 27%-47%] in North Africa, 28% [95% CI: 20%-36%] in Central Africa, 48% [CI: 38%-58%] in West Africa, 49% [95% CI: 30%-69%] in East Africa, and 90% [CI: 85%-96%] in Southern Africa. The estimated pooled vaccine acceptance was 48% [95% CI:38%-57%] for healthcare workers, and 34% [95% CI:29%-39%] for the healthcare students. Major drivers and reasons were the side effects of the vaccine, vaccine's safety, efficacy and effectiveness, short duration of the clinical trials, COVID-19 infections, limited information, and social trust.ConclusionThe data revealed generally low acceptance of the vaccine amongst HCWs across Africa. The side effects of the vaccine, vaccine's safety, efficacy and effectiveness, short duration of the clinical trials, COVID-19 infections, limited information, and social trust were the major reasons for COVID-19 hesitancy in Africa. The misconceptions and barriers to COVID-19 vaccine acceptance amongst HCWs must be addressed as soon as possible in the continent to boost COVID-19 vaccination rates in Africa.

Project description:Objective:The authors carried out a systematic review and a meta-analysis on smoking cessation interventions on health -care workers to clarify the state of the art interventions and to identify the best one. Materials and Methods:This review was registered with PROSPERO: CRD42019130117. The databases PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and CINAHL were searched until December 2018. Quality of all studies included in the systematic review was assessed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) on cohort or cross-sectional studies and to the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Controlled Trials. Meta-analysis and meta-regression analyses were also carried out for cohort studies (quasi-experimental or a before-after studies design) and clinical trials. Results:Twenty-four studies have been included in the analysis: four before-after, 13 cross-sectional, three quasi-experimental studies and four clinical trials. Articles were heterogeneous (P for homogeneity <0.01), but they have all shown positive results since they reached the goal of smoking cessation among health-care workers, even if with different proportions. Meta-analysis was performed on 10 studies (six cohort studies and four clinical trials), showing a 21% of success rate from the application of smoking cessation interventions, either pharmacological or behavioral ones. The resulted pooled RR (Risk Ratio) was 1.21 (95% CI [1.06-1.38]), being 24% of success rate from clinical trials (pooled RR 1.244; 95% CI [1.099-1.407]) and 19% of success rate from cohort studies (pooled RR 1.192; 0.996-1.426). However, two studies have confidence intervals which include unity and one study has a wide confidence interval; as a consequence, the meta-analysis for its results depends heavily on one single study. Meta-regression analysis revealed that results were influenced by the number of participants. Conclusion:Both policy and pharmaceutical interventions can obtain positive results in quitting smoking among health-care workers. However, as shown by our review, combination approaches can produce better results in terms of cessation percentages and smoking abstinence.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Medical-related professions are at high suicide risk. However, data are contradictory and comparisons were not made between gender, occupation and specialties, epochs of times. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on suicide risk among health-care workers. METHOD:The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Science Direct and Embase databases were searched without language restriction on April 2019, with the following keywords: suicide* AND (« health care worker* » OR physician* OR nurse*). When possible, we stratified results by gender, countries, time, and specialties. Estimates were pooled using random-effect meta-analysis. Differences by study-level characteristics were estimated using stratified meta-analysis and meta-regression. Suicides, suicidal attempts, and suicidal ideation were retrieved from national or local specific registers or case records. In addition, suicide attempts and suicidal ideation were also retrieved from questionnaires (paper or internet). RESULTS:The overall SMR for suicide in physicians was 1.44 (95CI 1.16, 1.72) with an important heterogeneity (I2 = 93.9%, p<0.001). Female were at higher risk (SMR = 1.9; 95CI 1.49, 2.58; and ES = 0.67; 95CI 0.19, 1.14; p<0.001 compared to male). US physicians were at higher risk (ES = 1.34; 95CI 1.28, 1.55; p <0.001 vs Rest of the world). Suicide decreased over time, especially in Europe (ES = -0.18; 95CI -0.37, -0.01; p = 0.044). Some specialties might be at higher risk such as anesthesiologists, psychiatrists, general practitioners and general surgeons. There were 1.0% (95CI 1.0, 2.0; p<0.001) of suicide attempts and 17% (95CI 12, 21; p<0.001) of suicidal ideation in physicians. Insufficient data precluded meta-analysis on other health-care workers. CONCLUSION:Physicians are an at-risk profession of suicide, with women particularly at risk. The rate of suicide in physicians decreased over time, especially in Europe. The high prevalence of physicians who committed suicide attempt as well as those with suicidal ideation should benefits for preventive strategies at the workplace. Finally, the lack of data on other health-care workers suggest to implement studies investigating those occupations.

Project description:BackgroundHealth and care workers (HCW) faced the double burden of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: as members of a society affected by a public health emergency and as HWC who experienced fear of becoming infected and of infecting others, stigma, violence, increased workloads, changes in scope of practice, among others. To understand the short and long-term impacts in terms of the COVID-19 pandemic and other public health emergencies of international concern (PHEICs) on HCW and relevant interventions to address them, we designed and conducted a living systematic review (LSR).MethodsWe reviewed literature retrieved from MEDLINE-PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS, LILACS, the World Health Organization COVID-19 database, the ClinicalTrials.org and the ILO database, published from January 2000 until December 2021. We included quantitative observational studies, experimental studies, quasi-experimental, mixed methods or qualitative studies; addressing mental, physical health and well-being and quality of life. The review targeted HCW; and interventions and exposures, implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic or other PHEICs. To assess the risk of bias of included studies, we used the Johanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tools. Data were qualitatively synthetized using meta-aggregation and meta-analysis was performed to estimate pooled prevalence of some of the outcomes.ResultsThe 1013 studies included in the review were mainly quantitative research, cross-sectional, with medium risk of bias/quality, addressing at least one of the following: mental health issue, violence, physical health and well-being, and quality of life. Additionally, interventions to address short- and long-term impact of PHEICs on HCW included in the review, although scarce, were mainly behavioral and individual oriented, aimed at improving mental health through the development of individual interventions. A lack of interventions addressing organizational or systemic bottlenecks was noted.DiscussionPHEICs impacted the mental and physical health of HCW with the greatest toll on mental health. The impact PHEICs are intricate and complex. The review revealed the consequences for health and care service delivery, with increased unplanned absenteeism, service disruption and occupation turnover that subvert the capacity to answer to the PHEICs, specifically challenging the resilience of health systems.

Dataset Information

COVID-19 in health care workers - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

COVID-19 in health care workers - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets