Dataset Information

Occupations by Proximity and Indoor/Outdoor Work: Relevance to COVID-19 in All Workers and Black/Hispanic Workers.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

This paper describes the occupations in the U.S. that involve close contact with others and whether the work is outdoors or indoors (risk factors for COVID-19), including the distribution of Black and Hispanic workers over these occupations.

Methods

U.S. data released from 2014 to 2019 on employment, proximity to others at work, outdoor or indoor work, and Black and Hispanic worker percentages for occupations were used. Occupations were assigned to 6 categories defined as a low, medium, or high physical closeness (proximity) at work and outdoor or indoor work. A total of 3 of the 6 categories represent a higher risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2: medium-proximity indoor, high-proximity outdoor, and high-proximity indoor exposure.

Results

A high proportion of U.S. workers may be at higher risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2 because their occupations involve either high proximity to others indoors and outdoors (25.2%, 36.5 million workers) or medium-proximity indoors (48%, 69.6 million workers). There is a differential distribution of proximity and outdoor/indoor work by occupation, which disproportionately affects Black and Hispanic workers in some occupations.

Conclusions

Implementation of COVID-19 preventive measures in work settings should be based on occupation-specific risk factors, including the extent of proximity to others and whether the work is conducted outdoors or indoors. It is important that communication messages are tailored to the languages and preferred media of the workforce.

SUBMITTER: Cox-Ganser JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7970652 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFarm work entails a heterogeneous mixture of exposures that vary considerably across farms and farmers. Farm work is associated with various health outcomes, both adverse and beneficial. One mechanism by which farming exposures can impact health is through the microbiome, including the indoor built environment microbiome. It is unknown how individual occupational exposures shape the microbial composition in workers' homes.ObjectivesWe investigated associations between farm work activities, including specific tasks and pesticide use, and the indoor microbiome in the homes of 468 male farmers.MethodsParticipants were licensed pesticide applicators, mostly farmers, enrolled in the Agricultural Lung Health Study from 2008-2011. Vacuumed dust from participants' bedrooms underwent whole-genome shotgun sequencing for indoor microbiome assessment. Using questionnaire data, we evaluated 6 farm work tasks (processing of either hay, silage, animal feed, fertilizer, or soy/grains, and cleaning grain bins) and 19 pesticide ingredients currently used in the past year, plus 7 persistent banned pesticide ingredients ever used.ResultsAll 6 work tasks were associated with increased within-sample microbial diversity, with a positive dose-response for the sum of tasks (p=0.001). All tasks were associated with altered overall microbial compositions (weighted UniFrac p=0.001) and with higher abundance of specific microbes, including soil-based microbes such as Haloterrigena . Among the 19 pesticides, only current use of glyphosate and past use of lindane were associated with increased within-sample diversity (p=0.02-0.04). Ten currently used pesticides and all 7 banned pesticides were associated with altered microbial composition (p=0.001-0.04). Six pesticides were associated with differential abundance of certain microbes.DiscussionSpecific farm activities and exposures can impact the dust microbiome inside homes. Our work suggests that occupational farm exposures could impact the health of workers and their families through modifying the indoor environment, specifically the microbial composition of house dust, offering possible future intervention targets.

Project description:Most wearable devices that measure movement in workplaces cannot determine the context in which people spend time. This study examined the accuracy of Bluetooth sensing (10-second intervals) via the ActiGraph GT9X Link monitor to determine location in an office setting, using two simple, bespoke algorithms.For one work day (mean±SD 6.2±1.1 hours), 30 office workers (30% men, aged 38±11 years) simultaneously wore chest-mounted cameras (video recording) and Bluetooth-enabled monitors (initialised as receivers) on the wrist and thigh. Additional monitors (initialised as beacons) were placed in the entry, kitchen, photocopy room, corridors, and the wearer's office. Firstly, participant presence/absence at each location was predicted from the presence/absence of signals at that location (ignoring all other signals). Secondly, using the information gathered at multiple locations simultaneously, a simple heuristic model was used to predict at which location the participant was present. The Bluetooth-determined location for each algorithm was tested against the camera in terms of F-scores.When considering locations individually, the accuracy obtained was excellent in the office (F-score = 0.98 and 0.97 for thigh and wrist positions) but poor in other locations (F-score = 0.04 to 0.36), stemming primarily from a high false positive rate. The multi-location algorithm exhibited high accuracy for the office location (F-score = 0.97 for both wear positions). It also improved the F-scores obtained in the remaining locations, but not always to levels indicating good accuracy (e.g., F-score for photocopy room ?0.1 in both wear positions).The Bluetooth signalling function shows promise for determining where workers spend most of their time (i.e., their office). Placing beacons in multiple locations and using a rule-based decision model improved classification accuracy; however, for workplace locations visited infrequently or with considerable movement, accuracy was below desirable levels. Further development of algorithms is warranted.