Differential risk of healthcare workers versus the general population during outbreak, war and pandemic crises

IF 7.7 1区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH European Journal of Epidemiology Pub Date : 2024-11-20 DOI:10.1007/s10654-024-01169-7
John P. A. Ioannidis
{"title":"Differential risk of healthcare workers versus the general population during outbreak, war and pandemic crises","authors":"John P. A. Ioannidis","doi":"10.1007/s10654-024-01169-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Healthcare workers may have different risk for severe outcomes compared with the general population during diverse crises. This paper introduces the concept of healthcare worker versus population hazard (HPH), the risk of an outcome of interest in active healthcare workers compared with the general population they serve. HPH can be expressed with relative risk (HPH(r)) and absolute risk difference (HPH(a)) metrics. Illustrative examples are drawn from infectious outbreaks, war, and the COVID-19 pandemic on death outcomes. HPH can be extreme for lethal outbreaks (HPH(r) = 30 to 143, HPH(a) = 8 to 91 per 1000 for Ebola deaths in 3 Western African countries in 2013-5), and modestly high in relative terms and very high in absolute terms for protracted, major armed conflicts (HPH(r) = 1.38 and HPH(a) = 10.2 for Syria during 2011–2024). Conversely, healthcare workers had 8-12-fold lower risk than the population they served for pandemic excess deaths (physicians in USA) or COVID-19 deaths (physicians in Ontario, healthcare workers in Finland), while healthcare workers in Indonesia did not have this advantage for COVID-19 deaths versus the general population. HPH is susceptible to data inaccuracies in numbers of at-risk populations and of outcomes of interest. Importantly, inferences about healthcare worker risk can be misleading, if deaths of retired healthcare workers contaminate the risk calculations– as in the case of misleading early perceptions of exaggerated COVID-19 risk for healthcare professionals. HPH can offer useful insights for risk assessment to healthcare professionals, the general public, and policy makers and may be useful to monitor for planning and interventions during crises.</p>","PeriodicalId":11907,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Epidemiology","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-024-01169-7","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Healthcare workers may have different risk for severe outcomes compared with the general population during diverse crises. This paper introduces the concept of healthcare worker versus population hazard (HPH), the risk of an outcome of interest in active healthcare workers compared with the general population they serve. HPH can be expressed with relative risk (HPH(r)) and absolute risk difference (HPH(a)) metrics. Illustrative examples are drawn from infectious outbreaks, war, and the COVID-19 pandemic on death outcomes. HPH can be extreme for lethal outbreaks (HPH(r) = 30 to 143, HPH(a) = 8 to 91 per 1000 for Ebola deaths in 3 Western African countries in 2013-5), and modestly high in relative terms and very high in absolute terms for protracted, major armed conflicts (HPH(r) = 1.38 and HPH(a) = 10.2 for Syria during 2011–2024). Conversely, healthcare workers had 8-12-fold lower risk than the population they served for pandemic excess deaths (physicians in USA) or COVID-19 deaths (physicians in Ontario, healthcare workers in Finland), while healthcare workers in Indonesia did not have this advantage for COVID-19 deaths versus the general population. HPH is susceptible to data inaccuracies in numbers of at-risk populations and of outcomes of interest. Importantly, inferences about healthcare worker risk can be misleading, if deaths of retired healthcare workers contaminate the risk calculations– as in the case of misleading early perceptions of exaggerated COVID-19 risk for healthcare professionals. HPH can offer useful insights for risk assessment to healthcare professionals, the general public, and policy makers and may be useful to monitor for planning and interventions during crises.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在疾病爆发、战争和大流行危机期间,医护人员与普通人群的风险差异
在各种危机中,医护人员与普通人群相比可能具有不同的严重后果风险。本文介绍了 "医护人员与人群危险"(HPH)的概念,即在职医护人员与他们所服务的普通人群相比,发生相关结果的风险。HPH 可以用相对风险 (HPH(r)) 和绝对风险差异 (HPH(a)) 表示。传染性疾病暴发、战争和 COVID-19 大流行对死亡结果的影响就是一个很好的例子。对于致命疫情,HPH 可能会达到极值(2013-5 年,西非 3 国埃博拉死亡人数的 HPH(r) = 30 至 143,HPH(a) = 8 至 91/1000);而对于旷日持久的重大武装冲突,HPH 的相对值略高,绝对值则非常高(2011-2024 年,叙利亚的 HPH(r) = 1.38,HPH(a) = 10.2)。相反,医护人员的大流行超额死亡风险(美国医生)或 COVID-19 死亡风险(安大略省医生、芬兰医护人员)比他们所服务的人群低 8-12 倍,而印度尼西亚的医护人员与普通人群相比在 COVID-19 死亡方面没有这种优势。HPH容易受到高危人群数量和相关结果数据不准确的影响。重要的是,如果退休医护人员的死亡扰乱了风险计算,那么对医护人员风险的推断可能会产生误导--就像早期对医护人员夸大 COVID-19 风险的误解一样。HPH 可以为医疗保健专业人员、公众和政策制定者的风险评估提供有用的见解,并可在危机期间对规划和干预措施进行监测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Journal of Epidemiology
European Journal of Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
21.40
自引率
1.50%
发文量
109
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Epidemiology, established in 1985, is a peer-reviewed publication that provides a platform for discussions on epidemiology in its broadest sense. It covers various aspects of epidemiologic research and statistical methods. The journal facilitates communication between researchers, educators, and practitioners in epidemiology, including those in clinical and community medicine. Contributions from diverse fields such as public health, preventive medicine, clinical medicine, health economics, and computational biology and data science, in relation to health and disease, are encouraged. While accepting submissions from all over the world, the journal particularly emphasizes European topics relevant to epidemiology. The published articles consist of empirical research findings, developments in methodology, and opinion pieces.
期刊最新文献
Differential risk of healthcare workers versus the general population during outbreak, war and pandemic crises The Jiangsu Biobank for the Prevention and Control of Diabetes (JBPCD) in China How to mitigate selection bias in COVID-19 surveys: evidence from five national cohorts A prospective multicenter birth cohort in China: pregnancy health atlas Machine learning in causal inference for epidemiology
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1