The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic: consequences for occupational health.

IF 4.3 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health Pub Date : 2020-05-01 DOI:10.5271/sjweh.3893
Alex Burdorf, Fabio Porru, Reiner Rugulies
{"title":"The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic: consequences for occupational health.","authors":"Alex Burdorf, Fabio Porru, Reiner Rugulies","doi":"10.5271/sjweh.3893","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We live in unprecedented modern times experiencing how an outbreak of a particular viral disease, COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, also commonly referred to as the Coronavirus, is disrupting societies and personal lives. The virus is likely to spread to most, if not all, countries, illustrating the interconnectedness of the world. At the time of writing, Italy and Spain have become the epicenters in terms of fatalities in Europe, whereas the United States has recorded the most diagnosed cases worldwide. While many national measures to contain, suppress, mitigate, or delay the spread of the virus are being taken, there is great uncertainty as to which measures are appropriate or not, varying from instructions of stringent hand hygiene; travel restrictions; social distancing; and closure of schools, restaurants, bars and shops to a complete lock down of large parts of society. Science-based evidence informing the policy about the efficaciousness and possible adverse effects of these measures are urgently needed. As there is a lack of both data and insight into the mechanisms of the pandemic, generating this science-based evidence will take some time. Key epidemiological numbers, such as the attack rate of the disease and the infection–hospitalization and infection–fatality ratios, are not yet available, and estimates based on the existing limited data come with huge uncertainties (1, 2). Thus, scientists blindfolded by the lack of data have to inform a policy that needs to decide about far-reaching measures fundamentally changing societies and individuals’ lives. It’s an uncomfortable situation.\n\n\nCOVID-19 is a tremendous challenge for occupational health. Workers in many occupations are facing high risks of becoming infected. There is a long list of jobs that involve direct contact with the public and close physical proximity to others. Workers in shops, bars, restaurants, fast food, and delivery services are at increased risk for exposure to infected persons due to the large number of daily contacts. Barbers, manicurists, and physical therapists work in close proximity to their customers. However, there are also many jobs where workers have the freedom of being able to work from home, thus considerably reducing the risk to contract the virus. For example, the authors of this editorial are working from home, but communication is easy through email and Skype.\n\n\nWithout any doubt, healthcare personnel deservedly receive nationwide attention these days. They are at the forefront of combatting this outbreak. Not only is their work stress at record high, their healthcare organizations are under severe pressure and many are struggling to cope with care needs of so many critically ill patients simultaneously. Healthcare professionals are at increased risk of exposure to high viral load because of their close contact with COVID-19 patients, which puts them at risk of becoming infected. At the same time, they themselves are an important source of transmitting the disease to colleagues, patients, friends, and family. Healthcare workers cannot stay at home in times of capacity problems in health emergencies. In a recent letter, a physician asked himself the question: “Am I part of the cure, or am I part of the disease?” (3) \n\n\nEarly evidence from Wuhan, the origin of the worldwide outbreak, indicated that - of all Coronavirus infected cases - almost 4% had comprised healthcare personnel, and five deaths among healthcare workers had been confirmed (4). In Italy, the most affected country in Europe, on March 26, 2020, it was reported that more than 5,000 healthcare workers had tested positive for the Coronavirus and more than 40 had died as a result of COVID-19 (5). The daily reality in Italian hospitals is grim: insufficient testing capacity, lack of suitable protective equipment, lack of mechanical ventilators, wards not isolated from each other, and patients in beds in corridors. The capacity of the national health system is stretched to its limits and, in the most affected region of Lombardy, clearly insufficient (6). In such a crisis, it is imperative to ensure that healthcare workers are protected, for their own safety and to safeguard the healthcare system but also to prevent transmission of the virus. It is obvious that we have to revert to the proven strategies to protect workers by creating awareness of risks and providing personal protective equipment as well as appropriate hygiene procedures. Almost 15 years ago, prompted by the SARS epidemic, Descatha and colleagues (7) already pleaded for such contingency plans in healthcare in the event of an influenza pandemic.\n\n\nCompanies will have to deal with the psychosocial and psychological consequences of the current Coronavirus outbreak. Specifically, healthcare organizations will need to deal with insomnia, burnout, depressive symptoms, and post-traumatic stress disorders among healthcare workers. In Wuhan hospitals support teams have been set up to provide individual psychological guidance and group-based interventions (8). An important source of psychological distress are the impossible decisions (who to treat first?) under extreme work pressure. A recent analysis of previous major incidents called not only for peer-support programs during the crisis but also for active monitoring and adequate availability of mental treatment to prevent long-term damage to healthcare staff (9).\n\n\nThe long-lasting societal effects of this pandemic are impossible to estimate yet. National, regional or global economic recessions seem to be inevitable. We know from previous economic crises, such as the recession in Finland in the 1990s (10) and the global financial crisis of 2007–2009 (11, 12) that there were marked effects on people’s health, both on those who lost their jobs and those remaining at work. Thus, efforts on containment, suppression and mitigation are not only needed with regard to the virus but also with regard to possible adverse societal and economic consequences.\n\n\nCOVID-19 will have both a short-term and long-lasting impact on societies, healthcare systems, workplaces and individuals alike. As occupational health professionals we must contribute with our knowledge and insights to provide appropriate occupational health for all workers affected directly and indirectly by this pandemic.\n\n\nReferences\n1. Ioannidis J.P.A. A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data. STAT; March 17, 2020. https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/\n2. Lipsitch M. We know enough now to act decisively against Covid-19. Social distancing is a good place to start. STAT; 2020, March 18. https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/18/we-know-enough-now-to-act-decisively-against-covid-19/\n3. Rose C. Am I part of the cure or I am part of the disease. N Engl J Med 2020, March 18 (Epub ahead of print). https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp2004768\n4. Wu Z, McGoogan JM. Characteristics of and important lessons from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in China: summary of a report of 72 314 cases from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. JAMA 2020, February 24 (Epub ahead of print). https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.2648\n5. Giuffrida A, Tondo L. `As if a storm hit`: more than 40 Italian health workers have died since crisis began. The Guardian. 26 March 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/26/as-if-a-storm-hit-33-italian-health-workers-have-died-since-crisis-began.\n6. Remuzzi A, Remuzzi G. Covid-19 and Italy: what next? Lancet 2020, March 12 (Epub ahead of print). https://doi.org/10.1016/50140-6736(20)30627-9. \n7. Descatha A, Dolveck F, Salomon J. A contingency plan for health care worker protection in the event of a flu pandemic. J Occup Environ Med 2006;48:660-1. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.jom.0000226919.79483.b7\n8. Kang L, Li Y, Hu S et al. The mental health of medical workers in Wuhan, China dealing with the 2019 novel coronavirus. Lancet Psychiatry 2020;7:e13-e14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30047-X\n9. Greenberg N, Docherty M, Gnanapragasam S, Wessely S. Managing mental health challenges faced by healthcare workers during covid-19 pandemic. BMJ 2020;368:m1211. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1211\n10. Vahtera J, Kivimaki M, Pentti J. Effect of organisational downsizing on health of employees. Lancet 1997;350(9085):1124-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(97)03216-9\n11. Karanikolos M, Heino P, McKee M, Stuckler D, Legido-Quigley H. Effects of the global financial crisis on health in high-income OECD countries: A narrative review. Int J Health Serv 2016;46:208-40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020731416637160\n12. Tora I, Martinez JM, Benavides FG, Leveque K, Ronda E. Effect of economic recession on psychosocial working conditions by workers’ nationality. Int J Occup Environ Health 2015;21:328-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/10773525.2015.1122369","PeriodicalId":21528,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health","volume":"46 3","pages":"229-230"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"195","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3893","RegionNum":2,"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: 195

Abstract

We live in unprecedented modern times experiencing how an outbreak of a particular viral disease, COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, also commonly referred to as the Coronavirus, is disrupting societies and personal lives. The virus is likely to spread to most, if not all, countries, illustrating the interconnectedness of the world. At the time of writing, Italy and Spain have become the epicenters in terms of fatalities in Europe, whereas the United States has recorded the most diagnosed cases worldwide. While many national measures to contain, suppress, mitigate, or delay the spread of the virus are being taken, there is great uncertainty as to which measures are appropriate or not, varying from instructions of stringent hand hygiene; travel restrictions; social distancing; and closure of schools, restaurants, bars and shops to a complete lock down of large parts of society. Science-based evidence informing the policy about the efficaciousness and possible adverse effects of these measures are urgently needed. As there is a lack of both data and insight into the mechanisms of the pandemic, generating this science-based evidence will take some time. Key epidemiological numbers, such as the attack rate of the disease and the infection–hospitalization and infection–fatality ratios, are not yet available, and estimates based on the existing limited data come with huge uncertainties (1, 2). Thus, scientists blindfolded by the lack of data have to inform a policy that needs to decide about far-reaching measures fundamentally changing societies and individuals’ lives. It’s an uncomfortable situation. COVID-19 is a tremendous challenge for occupational health. Workers in many occupations are facing high risks of becoming infected. There is a long list of jobs that involve direct contact with the public and close physical proximity to others. Workers in shops, bars, restaurants, fast food, and delivery services are at increased risk for exposure to infected persons due to the large number of daily contacts. Barbers, manicurists, and physical therapists work in close proximity to their customers. However, there are also many jobs where workers have the freedom of being able to work from home, thus considerably reducing the risk to contract the virus. For example, the authors of this editorial are working from home, but communication is easy through email and Skype. Without any doubt, healthcare personnel deservedly receive nationwide attention these days. They are at the forefront of combatting this outbreak. Not only is their work stress at record high, their healthcare organizations are under severe pressure and many are struggling to cope with care needs of so many critically ill patients simultaneously. Healthcare professionals are at increased risk of exposure to high viral load because of their close contact with COVID-19 patients, which puts them at risk of becoming infected. At the same time, they themselves are an important source of transmitting the disease to colleagues, patients, friends, and family. Healthcare workers cannot stay at home in times of capacity problems in health emergencies. In a recent letter, a physician asked himself the question: “Am I part of the cure, or am I part of the disease?” (3) Early evidence from Wuhan, the origin of the worldwide outbreak, indicated that - of all Coronavirus infected cases - almost 4% had comprised healthcare personnel, and five deaths among healthcare workers had been confirmed (4). In Italy, the most affected country in Europe, on March 26, 2020, it was reported that more than 5,000 healthcare workers had tested positive for the Coronavirus and more than 40 had died as a result of COVID-19 (5). The daily reality in Italian hospitals is grim: insufficient testing capacity, lack of suitable protective equipment, lack of mechanical ventilators, wards not isolated from each other, and patients in beds in corridors. The capacity of the national health system is stretched to its limits and, in the most affected region of Lombardy, clearly insufficient (6). In such a crisis, it is imperative to ensure that healthcare workers are protected, for their own safety and to safeguard the healthcare system but also to prevent transmission of the virus. It is obvious that we have to revert to the proven strategies to protect workers by creating awareness of risks and providing personal protective equipment as well as appropriate hygiene procedures. Almost 15 years ago, prompted by the SARS epidemic, Descatha and colleagues (7) already pleaded for such contingency plans in healthcare in the event of an influenza pandemic. Companies will have to deal with the psychosocial and psychological consequences of the current Coronavirus outbreak. Specifically, healthcare organizations will need to deal with insomnia, burnout, depressive symptoms, and post-traumatic stress disorders among healthcare workers. In Wuhan hospitals support teams have been set up to provide individual psychological guidance and group-based interventions (8). An important source of psychological distress are the impossible decisions (who to treat first?) under extreme work pressure. A recent analysis of previous major incidents called not only for peer-support programs during the crisis but also for active monitoring and adequate availability of mental treatment to prevent long-term damage to healthcare staff (9). The long-lasting societal effects of this pandemic are impossible to estimate yet. National, regional or global economic recessions seem to be inevitable. We know from previous economic crises, such as the recession in Finland in the 1990s (10) and the global financial crisis of 2007–2009 (11, 12) that there were marked effects on people’s health, both on those who lost their jobs and those remaining at work. Thus, efforts on containment, suppression and mitigation are not only needed with regard to the virus but also with regard to possible adverse societal and economic consequences. COVID-19 will have both a short-term and long-lasting impact on societies, healthcare systems, workplaces and individuals alike. As occupational health professionals we must contribute with our knowledge and insights to provide appropriate occupational health for all workers affected directly and indirectly by this pandemic. References 1. Ioannidis J.P.A. A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data. STAT; March 17, 2020. https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/ 2. Lipsitch M. We know enough now to act decisively against Covid-19. Social distancing is a good place to start. STAT; 2020, March 18. https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/18/we-know-enough-now-to-act-decisively-against-covid-19/ 3. Rose C. Am I part of the cure or I am part of the disease. N Engl J Med 2020, March 18 (Epub ahead of print). https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp2004768 4. Wu Z, McGoogan JM. Characteristics of and important lessons from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in China: summary of a report of 72 314 cases from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. JAMA 2020, February 24 (Epub ahead of print). https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.2648 5. Giuffrida A, Tondo L. `As if a storm hit`: more than 40 Italian health workers have died since crisis began. The Guardian. 26 March 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/26/as-if-a-storm-hit-33-italian-health-workers-have-died-since-crisis-began. 6. Remuzzi A, Remuzzi G. Covid-19 and Italy: what next? Lancet 2020, March 12 (Epub ahead of print). https://doi.org/10.1016/50140-6736(20)30627-9. 7. Descatha A, Dolveck F, Salomon J. A contingency plan for health care worker protection in the event of a flu pandemic. J Occup Environ Med 2006;48:660-1. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.jom.0000226919.79483.b7 8. Kang L, Li Y, Hu S et al. The mental health of medical workers in Wuhan, China dealing with the 2019 novel coronavirus. Lancet Psychiatry 2020;7:e13-e14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30047-X 9. Greenberg N, Docherty M, Gnanapragasam S, Wessely S. Managing mental health challenges faced by healthcare workers during covid-19 pandemic. BMJ 2020;368:m1211. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1211 10. Vahtera J, Kivimaki M, Pentti J. Effect of organisational downsizing on health of employees. Lancet 1997;350(9085):1124-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(97)03216-9 11. Karanikolos M, Heino P, McKee M, Stuckler D, Legido-Quigley H. Effects of the global financial crisis on health in high-income OECD countries: A narrative review. Int J Health Serv 2016;46:208-40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020731416637160 12. Tora I, Martinez JM, Benavides FG, Leveque K, Ronda E. Effect of economic recession on psychosocial working conditions by workers’ nationality. Int J Occup Environ Health 2015;21:328-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/10773525.2015.1122369
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
COVID-19(冠状病毒)大流行:对职业健康的影响
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
Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health
Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
9.50%
发文量
65
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The aim of the Journal is to promote research in the fields of occupational and environmental health and safety and to increase knowledge through the publication of original research articles, systematic reviews, and other information of high interest. Areas of interest include occupational and environmental epidemiology, occupational and environmental medicine, psychosocial factors at work, physical work load, physical activity work-related mental and musculoskeletal problems, aging, work ability and return to work, working hours and health, occupational hygiene and toxicology, work safety and injury epidemiology as well as occupational health services. In addition to observational studies, quasi-experimental and intervention studies are welcome as well as methodological papers, occupational cohort profiles, and studies associated with economic evaluation. The Journal also publishes short communications, case reports, commentaries, discussion papers, clinical questions, consensus reports, meeting reports, other reports, book reviews, news, and announcements (jobs, courses, events etc).
期刊最新文献
What do we know about limiting after-hours availability expectations and work-related connectivity? A systematic review of interventions and policies. Association between job insecurity and cardiovascular diseases in workers with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Occupational exposures and risk of pulmonary alveolar proteinosis (PAP). Exploring the health and well-being benefits of reduced working hours with maintained salary: A scoping review and evidence map. The compressed workweek in public health and social care - is it sustainable?
×
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:604180095
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