Abstract
Background
Although the risk of exposure to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is higher for frontline healthcare workers, not all personnel have similar risks. ...Determining infection rate is difficult due to the limits on testing and the high rate of asymptomatic individuals. Detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 may be useful for determining prior exposure to the virus and assessing mitigation strategies, such as isolation, masks, and other protective equipment.
Methods
An online assessment that included demographic, clinical, and exposure information and a blood sample was collected from 20 614 participants out of ~43 000 total employees at Beaumont Health, which includes 8 hospitals distributed across the Detroit metropolitan area in southeast Michigan. The presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG was determined using the EUROIMMUN assay.
Results
A total of 1818 (8.8%) participants were seropositive between April 13 and May 28, 2020. Among the seropositive individuals, 44% reported that they were asymptomatic during the month prior to blood collection. Healthcare roles such as phlebotomy, respiratory therapy, and nursing/nursing support exhibited significantly higher seropositivity. Among participants reporting direct exposure to a Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) positive individual, those wearing an N95/PAPR mask had a significantly lower seropositivity rate (10.2%) compared to surgical/other masks (13.1%) or no mask (17.5%).
Conclusions
Direct contact with COVID-19 patients increased the likelihood of seropositivity among employees but study participants who wore a mask during COVID-19 exposures were less likely to be seropositive. Additionally, a large proportion of seropositive employees self-reported as asymptomatic. (Funded by Beaumont Health and by major donors through the Beaumont Health Foundation)
ClinicalTrials.gov number
NCT04349202
Background:
Healthcare workers are at the forefront of the COVID-19 pandemic and it is essential to monitor the relative incidence rate of this group, as compared to workers in other occupations. ...This study aimed to produce estimates of the relative incidence ratio between healthcare workers and workers in non-healthcare occupations.
Methods:
Analysis of cross-sectional data from a daily, web-based survey of 1,822,662 Facebook users from September 8, 2020 to October 20, 2020. Participants were Facebook users in the United States aged 18 and above who were tested for COVID-19 because of an employer or school requirement in the past 14 days. The exposure variable was a self-reported history of working in healthcare in the past four weeks and the main outcome was a self-reported positive test for COVID-19.
Results:
On October 20, 2020, in the United States, there was a relative COVID-19 incidence ratio of 0.73 (95% UI 0.68 to 0.80) between healthcare workers and workers in non-healthcare occupations.
Conclusions:
In fall of 2020, in the United States, healthcare workers likely had a lower COVID-19 incidence rate than workers in non-healthcare occupations.
•Repeated surveys with individual follow-up during COVID-19 vaccine campaigns among healthcare sector workers in France.•7C-psychological antecedents and their association with COVID-19 vaccine ...behaviour change, particularly a early in a campaign.•Stable 7C-attitudes were observed for collective responsibility and capacity for reactance (confidence in the system).•Vaccine benefit-risk balance perception and vaccination as a collective action appeared as strongest determinants.
Across various stages of the COVID-19 pandemic and related vaccine recommendations in France, we assessed the association of the 7C-psychological antecedents with vaccine uptake/intention for booster vaccination among healthcare-sector workers (HCSWs). We also assessed whether 7C-antecedent profiles changed over time.
The Research Group for the Prevention of Occupational Infections in Healthcare Workers (GERES) conducted three repeated web-surveys which were disseminated by email chain-referral among HCSWs throughout France. The questionnaires waves took place: July-November 2021, February-March 2022 and January-March 2023 (P2, P3 and P4). We also reanalysed data from a prior similar study conducted late 2020-early 2021 (Moirangthem et al. (2022)) (P1). To evaluate the association of 7C-items with vaccine uptake-intention for future vaccination, we estimated adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) using robust variance Poisson regression. We report the 7C-item population attributable loss in vaccine intention.
The four surveys (P1-P4) encompassed 5234, 339, 351 and 437 participants. At earlier stages of the vaccine campaign, the principal antecedents of vaccine intention were favorable perception of vaccination benefit-risk-balance (BRB) (vs. unfavorable, aPR: 2.32), reactance to employer encouragement for vaccination (motivates vs. dissuades-me, aPR:2.23), vaccine confidence (vs. not-being-confident, aPR: 1.71) and social conformism towards vaccination (favorable vs. skeptical opinion in private environment, aPR: 1.33). Under a vaccine mandate for HCSWs, only perceiving vaccination as a collective action was associated with current vaccine status (agree vs. disagree, aPR: 2.19). At later stages of the epidemic, hypothetical booster vaccine intentions were strongly associated with BRB perception (favorable vs. unfavorable, aPR: 2.07) and perceiving vaccination as a collective action (agree vs. disagree, aPR: 1.69). Fearing a severe side effect from vaccination decreased population vaccine intention by 26.2 %.
Our results suggest that both 7C-antecedents and their association with vaccine behaviour can change over time, and underscore the importance of assuring confidence in vaccine safety.
Healthcare workers are at high risk of developing mental health issues during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. However, there is a need for a full picture of mental health problems ...with comprehensive analysis among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This review aimed to systematically identify the mental health problems among healthcare workers in various countries during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
A systematic literature search was performed of the following databases: PubMed, Academic Search Complete, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Science, MEDLINE Complete, and SocINDEX. The last date of our search was November 2, 2020. We included all cohort, case–control and cross-sectional studies and used the Joanna Briggs Institute tool to assess their quality. A meta-analysis was performed to synthesize the pooled prevalence of mental health problems using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was measured using the I2 statistic and Egger's test was used to assess publication bias.
A total of 38 studies were identified that reported the mental health problems of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. The distribution of healthcare workers analyzed in this review included 27.9% doctors, 43.7% nurses, and 7.0% allied health workers. The pooled prevalence of mental health problems for post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, and distress was 49% (95% confidence interval CI: 22–75%), 40% (95% CI: 29–52%), 37% (95% CI: 29–45%), and 37% (95% CI: 25–50%), respectively.
This review yielded evidence that estimated the global prevalence of mental health problems among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Post-traumatic stress disorder was the most common mental health disorder reported by healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, followed by anxiety, depression, and distress. Additional studies remain necessary to assess the appropriate management strategies for treating and preventing mental health disorders among healthcare workers during the pandemic.
Abstract
Background
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a rapidly emerging virus causing the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with no known effective ...prophylaxis. We investigated whether hydroxychloroquine could prevent SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers at high risk of exposure.
Methods
We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of healthcare workers with ongoing exposure to persons with SARS-CoV-2, including those working in emergency departments, intensive care units, COVID-19 hospital wards, and first responders. Participants across the United States and in the Canadian province of Manitoba were randomized to hydroxychloroquine loading dose then 400 mg once or twice weekly for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was confirmed or probable COVID-19–compatible illness. We measured hydroxychloroquine whole-blood concentrations.
Results
We enrolled 1483 healthcare workers, of whom 79% reported performing aerosol-generating procedures. The incidence of COVID-19 (laboratory-confirmed or symptomatic compatible illness) was 0.27 events/person-year with once-weekly and 0.28 events/person-year with twice-weekly hydroxychloroquine compared with 0.38 events/person-year with placebo. For once-weekly hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis, the hazard ratio was .72 (95% CI, .44–1.16; P = .18) and for twice-weekly was .74 (95% CI, .46–1.19; P = .22) compared with placebo. Median hydroxychloroquine concentrations in whole blood were 98 ng/mL (IQR, 82–120) with once-weekly and 200 ng/mL (IQR, 159–258) with twice-weekly dosing. Hydroxychloroquine concentrations did not differ between participants who developed COVID-19–compatible illness (154 ng/mL) versus participants without COVID-19 (133 ng/mL; P = .08).
Conclusions
Pre-exposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine once or twice weekly did not significantly reduce laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 or COVID-19–compatible illness among healthcare workers.
Clinical Trials Registration
Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04328467.
In this randomized clinical trial of 1483 high-risk healthcare workers, there was no significant reduction in incidence of COVID-19 with once-weekly or twice-weekly hydroxychloroquine compared with placebo.
Abstract
Background
Healthcare workers (HCWs) could be at increased occupational risk for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections due to increased exposure. ...Information regarding the burden of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic in HCWs living in Mexico is scarce. Here, we aimed to explore the epidemiology, symptoms, and risk factors associated with adverse outcomes in HCWs in Mexico City.
Methods
We explored data collected by the National Epidemiological Surveillance System in Mexico City, in HCWs who underwent real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test. We explored COVID-19 outcomes in HCWs and the performance of symptoms to detect SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Results
As of 20 September 2020, 57 758 HCWs were tested for SARS-CoV-2 and 17 531 were confirmed (30.35%); 6610 were nurses (37.70%), 4910 physicians (28.0%), 267 dentists (1.52%), and 5744 laboratory personnel and other HCWs (32.76%). Overall, 2378 HCWs required hospitalization (4.12%), 2648 developed severe COVID-19 (4.58%), and 336 required mechanical-ventilatory support (.58%). Lethality was recorded in 472 (.82%) cases. We identified 635 asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections (3.62%). Compared with general population, HCWs had higher incidence, testing, asymptomatic cases, and mortality rates. No individual symptom offers adequate performance to detect SARS-CoV2. Older HCWs with chronic noncommunicable diseases and severe respiratory symptoms were associated with higher risk for adverse outcome; physicians were at higher risk compared with nurses and other HCWs.
Conclusions
We report a high prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs in Mexico City. Symptoms as a screening method are not efficient to discern those HCWs with a positive PCR-RT test. Particular attention should focus on HCWs with risk factors to prevent adverse outcomes.
•A sizable portion of healthcare staff reached the cutoff levels of disorders in anxiety (28.0%), depression (30.6%), and distress (20.1%) to require mental health attention themselves.•Healthcare ...staff’s access to PPE predicted lower distress, better physical health conditions and more job satisfaction.•Those staff who were unsure whether they had COVID-19 were more distressed, anxious, and less satisfied with their jobs.•The risk factors (predictors) appear to vary across countries and by the outcome variables of interest, suggesting the need to examine the predictors of individual outcome variables of interest for healthcare staff in individual countries.
This study reports the physical health, mental health, anxiety, depression, distress, and job satisfaction of healthcare staff in Iran when the country faced its highest number of total active COVID-19 cases. In a sample of 304 healthcare staff (doctors, nurses, radiologists, technicians, etc.), we found a sizable portion reached the cutoff levels of disorders in anxiety (28.0%), depression (30.6%), and distress (20.1%). Age, gender, education, access to PPE (personal protective equipment), healthcare institutions (public vs. private), and individual status of COVID-19 infection each predicted some but not all the outcome variables of SF-12, PHQ-4, K6, and job satisfaction. The healthcare workers varied greatly in their access to PPE and in their status of COVID-19 infection: negative (69.7%), unsure (28.0%), and positive (2.3%). The predictors were also different from those identified in previous studies of healthcare staff during the COVID-19 crisis in China. This study helps to identify the healthcare staff in need to enable more targeted help as healthcare staff in many countries are facing peaks in their COVID-19 cases.
The outbreak of Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) has a significant impact on the mental health of the global population. Updates are needed regarding the mental health status among the local ...population since limited studies were done so far. This research compared the prevalence of anxiety and depression symptoms among HCWs and non-HCWs. We also evaluated the factors associated with anxiety and depression symptoms among these 2 groups. This was a cross-sectional study conducted between September to December 2022. Online questionnaire was distributed to HCWs from 2 tertiary government hospitals. Non-HCWs from various occupational fields were recruited randomly. Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7 (GAD-7) and Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) were used to screen for anxiety and depression symptoms respectively. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS version 28.0. 200 questionnaires were distributed to HCWs and non-HCWs respectively. The response rate was 74.5% from HCWs and 82.5% from non-HCWs (P = .07). A total of 236 individuals (105 HCWs and 131 non-HCWs) were included in the study. Majority were female, married, highly educated and worked more than 8 hours per day. There was no significant difference for the prevalence of anxiety (37.2% vs 44.3%, P = .34) and depression symptoms (37.3% vs 35.1%, P = .75) between HCWs and non-HCWs. Among HCWs, poor workplace support (P = .009) and low income (P = .04) were associated with anxiety symptoms. Younger age (P = .02), single status (P = .01) and poor workplace support (P = .006) were associated with depression symptoms. More non-HCWs with a higher educational level were having anxiety and depression symptoms. Single status (P = .03), working away from home (P = .02), poor family support (P = .03) and quarantine as Covid-19 close contact (P = .04) were also associated with depression symptoms among non-HCWs. There is no significant difference between HCWs and non-HCWs experiencing possible anxiety or depressive symptoms in this study. However, attention should be paid to address associated factors identified among each group to promote good mental health.
Protecting healthcare workers (HCWs) from coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) is critical to preserve the functioning of healthcare systems. We therefore assessed seroprevalence and identified risk ...factors for severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) seropositivity in this population.
Between 22 June 22 and 15 August 2020, HCWs from institutions in northern/eastern Switzerland were screened for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We recorded baseline characteristics, non-occupational and occupational risk factors. We used pairwise tests of associations and multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with seropositivity.
Among 4664 HCWs from 23 healthcare facilities, 139 (3%) were seropositive. Non-occupational exposures independently associated with seropositivity were contact with a COVID-19-positive household (adjusted OR 59, 95% CI 33–106), stay in a COVID-19 hotspot (aOR 2.3, 95% CI 1.2–4.2) and male sex (aOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1–3.1). Blood group 0 vs. non-0 (aOR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3–0.8), active smoking (aOR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2–0.7), living with children <12 years (aOR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2–0.6) and being a physician (aOR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1–0.5) were associated with decreased risk. Other occupational risk factors were close contact to COVID-19 patients (aOR 2.7, 95% CI 1.4–5.4), exposure to COVID-19-positive co-workers (aOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1–2.9), poor knowledge of standard hygiene precautions (aOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.2–2.9) and frequent visits to the hospital canteen (aOR 2.3, 95% CI 1.4–3.8).
Living with COVID-19-positive households showed the strongest association with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. We identified several potentially modifiable work-related risk factors, which might allow mitigation of the COVID-19 risk among HCWs. The lower risk among those living with children, even after correction for multiple confounders, is remarkable and merits further study.
PDF
