Dataset Information

Potential risk factors associated with COVID-19 in health care workers.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Health 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.

Aim

This 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.

Methods

Data 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.

Results

Over 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.

Conclusions

HCWs 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.

SUBMITTER: Spilchuk V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8689909 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionHealth care workers are the most affected part of the world population due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Countries prioritize vaccinating health workers against COVID-19 because of their susceptibility to the virus. However, the acceptability of the vaccine varies across populations. Thus, this study aimed to determine the health care worker's intentions to accept the COVID-19 vaccine and its associated factors in southwestern Ethiopia, 2021.MethodsA facility-based cross-sectional study was conducted among health care workers in public hospitals in southwestern Ethiopia from March 15 to 28, 2021. A simple random sampling method was used to select 405 participants from each hospital. Data were collected using self-administered questionnaires. Descriptive statistics, such as frequency and percentage, were calculated. Multivariable logistic regression was also performed to identify factors associated with health care worker's intention to accept the COVID-19 vaccine. Statistically significant variables were selected based on p-values (<0.05) and the adjusted odds ratio was used to describe the strength of association with 95% confidence intervals.ResultAmong the respondents, 48.4% [95% CI: 38.6, 58.2] of health care workers intended to accept COVID-19. Intention to accept COVID-19 vaccination was significantly associated with physicians (AOR = 9.27, 95% CI: 1.27-27.32), professionals with a history of chronic illness (AOR = 4.07, 95% CI: 2.02-8.21), perceived degree of risk of COVID-19 infection (AOR = 4.63, 95% CI: 1.26-16.98), positive attitude toward COVID-19 prevention (AOR = 6.08, 95% CI: 3.39-10.91) and good preventive practices (AOR = 2.83, 95% CI: 1.58-5.08).ConclusionIn this study, the intention of health care workers to accept the COVID-19 vaccine was low. Professional types, history of chronic illness, perceived degree of risk to COVID-19 infection, attitude toward COVID-19 and preventive practices were found to be factors for intention to accept COVID-19 vaccine in professionals. It is important to consider professional types, history of chronic illness, perceived degree of risk to COVID-19, attitude of professionals and preventive behaviors to improve the intention of professionals' vaccine acceptance.

Project description:BackgroundVaccination of healthcare workers (HCWs) is recommended during the COVID-19 pandemic to reduce the risk of infection for themselves and their patients, as well as to encourage their patients to get immunized. The present study aimed to investigate the psychological outcomes and associated factors among vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs against COVID-19 infection in Bangladesh.MethodsFrom March to August 2021, an online nationwide survey was conducted with a total of 2,038 Bangladeshi HCWs. The frequency of symptoms of general health problems, depression, anxiety, stress, post-traumatic stress disorder, insomnia, and loneliness was assessed using the Bangla versions of the GHQ-12, PHQ-2, GAD-2, PSS-4, PC-PTSD-5, ISI, and UCLA-LS scales, respectively.ResultsCompared with unvaccinated HCWs (n = 1,058), vaccinated HCWs (n = 980) had a statistically significant lower prevalence of general health problems (16.7 vs. 59.1%), depression (15.6 vs. 31.9%), post-traumatic stress disorder (22.3 vs. 30.8%), insomnia (23.8 vs. 64.9%), and loneliness symptoms (13.9 vs. 21.8%). Among vaccinated HCWs, females were significantly associated with a higher risk of symptoms of general health problems (AOR, 2.71; 95% CI, 0.97-7.60), anxiety (AOR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.14-4.13), and loneliness (AOR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.11-5.73). Except for anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, participants living in urban areas had a significantly lower risk of all psychological outcomes (e.g., depression: AOR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.27-0.67; stress: AOR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.47-0.88). Respondents who were married were significantly less likely to experience symptoms of general health problems (AOR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.02-0.39), depression (AOR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.22-0.82), insomnia (AOR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.20-1.03), and loneliness (AOR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.10-0.92). Participants who worked as doctors were significantly less chance of experiencing symptoms of general health problems (AOR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.08-0.37), depression (AOR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.30-0.87), and anxiety (AOR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37-0.78). On the other hand, unvaccinated HCWs who were 18-29 years old and had <5 years of work experience were significantly associated with a higher risk of all psychological outcomes except anxiety and insomnia symptoms (e.g., depression among 18-29 years old: AOR, 1.83; 95% CI, 0.27-2.60; stress among those with <5 years of work experience: AOR, 2.37; 95% CI, 0.93-6.07). Participants who worked as nurses were significantly more likely to suffer from depression (AOR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.84-2.46), anxiety (AOR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.24-1.73), and stress (AOR, 1.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.89) symptoms. Except for anxiety and stress symptoms, respondents who worked as frontline workers and provided direct care to infected patients were the significantly higher chance of experiencing all psychological outcomes (e.g., depression among who worked as frontline workers: AOR, 2.41; 95% CI, 0.23-3.73; insomnia among those who provide direct care to infected patients: AOR, 2.60; 95% CI, 0.34-3.06). Participants who were infected with COVID-19 had a significantly less chance of experiencing symptoms of general health problems (AOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.65-1.22), depression (AOR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.48-0.92), and anxiety (AOR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46-0.87).ConclusionsTo control the infection and improve psychological outcomes, this study suggests emphasizing the vaccinated to unvaccinated HCWs as soon as possible. They also required special attention, health-related education, and psychological support.

Project description:ImportanceIdentifying health care settings and professionals at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection is crucial to defining appropriate strategies, resource allocation, and protocols to protect health care workers (HCWs) and patients. Moreover, such information is crucial to decrease the risk that HCWs and health care facilities become amplifiers for SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the community.ObjectiveTo assess the association of different health care professional categories and operational units, including in-hospital wards, outpatient facilities, and territorial care departments, with seroprevalence and odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study was conducted using IgG serological tests collected from April 1 through May 26, 2020, in the Lombardy region in Italy. Voluntary serological screening was offered to all clinical and nonclinical staff providing any health care services or support to health care services in the region. Data were analyzed from June 2020 through April 2021.ExposuresEmployment in the health care sector.Main outcomes and measuresSeroprevalence of positive IgG antibody tests for SARS-CoV-2 was collected, and odds ratios of experiencing infection were calculated.ResultsA total of 140 782 professionals employed in the health sector were invited to participate in IgG serological screening, among whom 82 961 individuals (59.0% response rate) were tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, with median (interquartile range [IQR]; range) age, 50 (40-56; 19-83) years and 59 839 (72.1%) women. Among these individuals, 10 115 HCWs (12.2%; 95% CI, 12.0%-12.4%) had positive results (median [IQR; range] age, 50 [39-55; 20-80] years; 7298 [72.2%] women). Statistically significantly higher odds of infection were found among health assistants (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.48; 95% CI, 1.33-1.65) and nurses (aOR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.17-1.41) compared with administrative staff and among workers employed in internal medicine (aOR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.87-2.68), palliative care (aOR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.38-2.44), rehabilitation (aOR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.33-1.91), and emergency departments (aOR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.29-1.89) compared with those working as telephone operators. Statistically significantly lower odds of infection were found among individuals working in forensic medicine (aOR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.19-0.88), histology and anatomical pathology (aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52-0.97), and medical device sterilization (aOR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35-0.84) compared with those working as telephone operators. The odds of infection for physicians and laboratory personnel were not statistically significantly different from those found among administrative staff. The odds of infection for workers employed in intensive care units and infectious disease wards were not statistically significantly different from those of telephone operators.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that professionals partially accustomed to managing infectious diseases had higher odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The findings further suggest that adequate organization of clinical wards and personnel, appropriate personal protective equipment supply, and training of all workers directly and repeatedly exposed to patients with clinical or subclinical COVID-19 should be prioritized to decrease the risk of infection in health care settings.

Project description:BackgroundHealth-care workers are thought to be highly exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We aimed to investigate the prevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in health-care workers and the proportion of seroconverted health-care workers with previous symptoms of COVID-19.MethodsIn this observational cohort study, screening was offered to health-care workers in the Capital Region of Denmark, including medical, nursing, and other students who were associated with hospitals in the region. Screening included point-of-care tests for IgM and IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Test results and participant characteristics were recorded. Results were compared with findings in blood donors in the Capital Region in the study period.FindingsBetween April 15 and April 23, 2020, we screened 29 295 health-care workers, of whom 28 792 (98·28%) provided their test results. We identified 1163 (4·04% [95% CI 3·82-4·27]) seropositive health-care workers. Seroprevalence was higher in health-care workers than in blood donors (142 [3·04%] of 4672; risk ratio [RR] 1·33 [95% CI 1·12-1·58]; p<0·001). Seroprevalence was higher in male health-care workers (331 [5·45%] of 6077) than in female health-care workers (832 [3·66%] of 22 715; RR 1·49 [1·31-1·68]; p<0·001). Frontline health-care workers working in hospitals had a significantly higher seroprevalence (779 [4·55%] of 16 356) than health-care workers in other settings (384 [3·29%] of 11 657; RR 1·38 [1·22-1·56]; p<0·001). Health-care workers working on dedicated COVID-19 wards (95 [7·19%] of 1321) had a significantly higher seroprevalence than other frontline health-care workers working in hospitals (696 [4·35%] of 15 983; RR 1·65 [1·34-2·03]; p<0·001). 622 [53·5%] of 1163 seropositive participants reported symptoms attributable to SARS-CoV-2. Loss of taste or smell was the symptom that was most strongly associated with seropositivity (377 [32·39%] of 1164 participants with this symptom were seropositive vs 786 [2·84%] of 27 628 without this symptom; RR 11·38 [10·22-12·68]). The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04346186.InterpretationThe prevalence of health-care workers with antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 was low but higher than in blood donors. The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in health-care workers was related to exposure to infected patients. More than half of seropositive health-care workers reported symptoms attributable to COVID-19.FundingLundbeck Foundation.

Project description:BackgroundDespite the high efficacy of the BNT162b2 messenger RNA vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), rare breakthrough infections have been reported, including infections among health care workers. Data are needed to characterize these infections and define correlates of breakthrough and infectivity.MethodsAt the largest medical center in Israel, we identified breakthrough infections by performing extensive evaluations of health care workers who were symptomatic (including mild symptoms) or had known infection exposure. These evaluations included epidemiologic investigations, repeat reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) assays, antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic testing (Ag-RDT), serologic assays, and genomic sequencing. Correlates of breakthrough infection were assessed in a case-control analysis. We matched patients with breakthrough infection who had antibody titers obtained within a week before SARS-CoV-2 detection (peri-infection period) with four to five uninfected controls and used generalized estimating equations to predict the geometric mean titers among cases and controls and the ratio between the titers in the two groups. We also assessed the correlation between neutralizing antibody titers and N gene cycle threshold (Ct) values with respect to infectivity.ResultsAmong 1497 fully vaccinated health care workers for whom RT-PCR data were available, 39 SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections were documented. Neutralizing antibody titers in case patients during the peri-infection period were lower than those in matched uninfected controls (case-to-control ratio, 0.361; 95% confidence interval, 0.165 to 0.787). Higher peri-infection neutralizing antibody titers were associated with lower infectivity (higher Ct values). Most breakthrough cases were mild or asymptomatic, although 19% had persistent symptoms (>6 weeks). The B.1.1.7 (alpha) variant was found in 85% of samples tested. A total of 74% of case patients had a high viral load (Ct value, <30) at some point during their infection; however, of these patients, only 17 (59%) had a positive result on concurrent Ag-RDT. No secondary infections were documented.ConclusionsAmong fully vaccinated health care workers, the occurrence of breakthrough infections with SARS-CoV-2 was correlated with neutralizing antibody titers during the peri-infection period. Most breakthrough infections were mild or asymptomatic, although persistent symptoms did occur.

Project description:Introduction: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has significantly affected health care workers (HCWs), including their mental health. However, there has been limited evidence on this topic in the Vietnamese context. Therefore, this study aimed to explore COVID-19-related, psychological stress risk factors among HCWs, their concerns and demands for mental health support during the pandemic period. Methods: We employed a cross-sectional study design with convenience sampling. An online, self-administered questionnaire was used and distributed through social media among medical and non-medical HCWs from April 22 to May 12, 2020. HCWs were categorized either as frontline or non-frontline. We measured the prevalence of psychological stress using the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) instrument. Multivariate binary logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors associated with psychological stress among HCWs. Results: Among the 774 enrolled participants, 761 (98.3%) eligible subjects were included in the analysis. Most respondents were females (58.2%), between 31 and 40 years of age (37.1%), lived in areas where confirmed COVID-19 cases had been reported (61.9%), medical HCWs (59.9%) and practiced being at the frontline (46.3%). The prevalence of stress was 34.3%. We identified significant risk factors such as being frontline HCWs (odds ratio [OR] = 1.77 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.17-2.67]), perceiving worse well-being as compared to those before the COVID-19 outbreak [OR = 4.06 (95% CI: 2.15-7.67)], and experiencing chronic diseases [OR = 1.67 (95% CI: (1.01-2.77)]. Majority (73.9%) were concerned about testing positive for COVID-19 and exposing the infection to their families. Web-based psychological interventions that could provide knowledge on managing mental distress and consulting services were highly demanded among HCWs. Conclusion: The prevalence of psychological stress among HCWs in Vietnam during the COVID-19 pandemic was high. There were also significant risk factors associated with it. Psychological interventions involving web-based consulting services are highly recommended to provide mental health support among HCWs.