Covid-19 与工作相关因素的风险:对来自 14 个队列的个人关联数据的汇总分析

Matthew Gittins, Sarah Rhodes, Jacques Wels, Bożena Wielgoszewska, Jingmin Zhu, Richard J Shaw, Olivia KL Hamilton, Evangelia Demou, Anna J Stevenson, Rebecca Rhead, Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi, George B Ploubidis, Martie van Tongeren
{"title":"Covid-19 与工作相关因素的风险:对来自 14 个队列的个人关联数据的汇总分析","authors":"Matthew Gittins, Sarah Rhodes, Jacques Wels, Bożena Wielgoszewska, Jingmin Zhu, Richard J Shaw, Olivia KL Hamilton, Evangelia Demou, Anna J Stevenson, Rebecca Rhead, Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi, George B Ploubidis, Martie van Tongeren","doi":"10.1101/2023.12.19.23298502","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Background\nSARS-CoV-2 infection rates vary by occupation, but the association with work-related characteristics (such as home working, key-worker, or furlough) are not fully understood and may depend on ascertainment approach. We assessed infection risks across work-related characteristics and compared findings using different ascertainment approaches. Methods\nParticipants of 14 UK-based longitudinal cohort studies completed surveys before and during the COVID-19 pandemic about their health, work, and behaviour. These data were linked to NHS digital health records, including COVID-19 diagnostic testing, within the UK Longitudinal Linkage Collaboration (UK-LLC) research environment. Poisson regression modelled self-reported infection and diagnostic test confirmed infection within each cohort for work-related characteristics. Risk Ratios (RR) were then combined using random effects meta-analysis. Results Between March 2020 and March 2021, 72,290 individuals completed 167,302 surveys. Overall, 11% of 138,924 responses self-reported an infection, whereas 1.9% of 159,820 responses had a linked positive test. Self-reported infection risk was greater in key-workers vs not (RR=1.24(95%C.I.=1.17,1.31), among non-home working (1.08(0.98,1.19)) or some home working (1.08(0.97,1.17)) vs all home working. Part-time workers vs full-time (0.94(0.89,0.99)), and furlough vs not (0.97(0.88,1.01)) had reduced risk. Results for the linked positive test outcome were comparable in direction but greater in magnitude e.g. an 1.85(1.56,2.20) in key-workers. Conclusion\nThe UK-LLC provides new opportunities for researchers to investigate risk factors, including occupational factors, for ill-health events in multiple largescale UK cohorts. Risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 illness appeared to be associated with work-related characteristics. Associations using linked diagnostic test data appeared stronger than self-reported infection status.","PeriodicalId":501555,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Occupational and Environmental Health","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Covid-19 Risk by work-related factors: Pooled analysis of individual linked data from 14 cohorts\",\"authors\":\"Matthew Gittins, Sarah Rhodes, Jacques Wels, Bożena Wielgoszewska, Jingmin Zhu, Richard J Shaw, Olivia KL Hamilton, Evangelia Demou, Anna J Stevenson, Rebecca Rhead, Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi, George B Ploubidis, Martie van Tongeren\",\"doi\":\"10.1101/2023.12.19.23298502\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Background\\nSARS-CoV-2 infection rates vary by occupation, but the association with work-related characteristics (such as home working, key-worker, or furlough) are not fully understood and may depend on ascertainment approach. We assessed infection risks across work-related characteristics and compared findings using different ascertainment approaches. Methods\\nParticipants of 14 UK-based longitudinal cohort studies completed surveys before and during the COVID-19 pandemic about their health, work, and behaviour. These data were linked to NHS digital health records, including COVID-19 diagnostic testing, within the UK Longitudinal Linkage Collaboration (UK-LLC) research environment. Poisson regression modelled self-reported infection and diagnostic test confirmed infection within each cohort for work-related characteristics. Risk Ratios (RR) were then combined using random effects meta-analysis. Results Between March 2020 and March 2021, 72,290 individuals completed 167,302 surveys. Overall, 11% of 138,924 responses self-reported an infection, whereas 1.9% of 159,820 responses had a linked positive test. Self-reported infection risk was greater in key-workers vs not (RR=1.24(95%C.I.=1.17,1.31), among non-home working (1.08(0.98,1.19)) or some home working (1.08(0.97,1.17)) vs all home working. Part-time workers vs full-time (0.94(0.89,0.99)), and furlough vs not (0.97(0.88,1.01)) had reduced risk. Results for the linked positive test outcome were comparable in direction but greater in magnitude e.g. an 1.85(1.56,2.20) in key-workers. Conclusion\\nThe UK-LLC provides new opportunities for researchers to investigate risk factors, including occupational factors, for ill-health events in multiple largescale UK cohorts. Risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 illness appeared to be associated with work-related characteristics. Associations using linked diagnostic test data appeared stronger than self-reported infection status.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501555,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"medRxiv - Occupational and Environmental Health\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"medRxiv - Occupational and Environmental Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.12.19.23298502\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Occupational and Environmental Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.12.19.23298502","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

ABSTRACT 背景SARS-CoV-2 感染率因职业而异,但与工作相关的特征(如在家工作、关键员工或休假)之间的关联尚未完全明了,而且可能取决于确定方法。我们评估了不同工作相关特征的感染风险,并比较了采用不同确定方法得出的结果。方法14 项英国纵向队列研究的参与者在 COVID-19 大流行之前和期间完成了有关其健康、工作和行为的调查。这些数据与英国国家医疗服务系统(NHS)的数字健康记录(包括 COVID-19 诊断测试)在英国纵向联系合作组织(UK-LLC)的研究环境中进行了链接。泊松回归模拟了每个队列中与工作相关特征的自我报告感染情况和诊断测试确认感染情况。然后使用随机效应荟萃分析法合并风险比 (RR)。结果 2020 年 3 月至 2021 年 3 月期间,72,290 人完成了 167,302 份调查。总体而言,138,924 份答卷中有 11% 的人自报感染,而 159,820 份答卷中有 1.9% 的人检测结果呈阳性。主要工作者与非主要工作者(RR=1.24(95%C.I.=1.17,1.31))、非家庭工作者(1.08(0.98,1.19))或部分家庭工作者(1.08(0.97,1.17))与所有家庭工作者相比,自我报告的感染风险更大。兼职与全职(0.94(0.89,0.99))、休假与不休假(0.97(0.88,1.01))的风险降低。与之相关的阳性检测结果在方向上具有可比性,但在幅度上更大,例如,关键工人的阳性检测结果为 1.85(1.56,2.20)。结论英国-LLC 为研究人员提供了新的机会,在英国多个大规模队列中调查包括职业因素在内的健康不良事件的风险因素。感染 SARS-CoV-2 和 COVID-19 的风险似乎与工作相关特征有关。与自我报告的感染状况相比,使用关联诊断检测数据的关联似乎更强。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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 Risk by work-related factors: Pooled analysis of individual linked data from 14 cohorts
ABSTRACT Background SARS-CoV-2 infection rates vary by occupation, but the association with work-related characteristics (such as home working, key-worker, or furlough) are not fully understood and may depend on ascertainment approach. We assessed infection risks across work-related characteristics and compared findings using different ascertainment approaches. Methods Participants of 14 UK-based longitudinal cohort studies completed surveys before and during the COVID-19 pandemic about their health, work, and behaviour. These data were linked to NHS digital health records, including COVID-19 diagnostic testing, within the UK Longitudinal Linkage Collaboration (UK-LLC) research environment. Poisson regression modelled self-reported infection and diagnostic test confirmed infection within each cohort for work-related characteristics. Risk Ratios (RR) were then combined using random effects meta-analysis. Results Between March 2020 and March 2021, 72,290 individuals completed 167,302 surveys. Overall, 11% of 138,924 responses self-reported an infection, whereas 1.9% of 159,820 responses had a linked positive test. Self-reported infection risk was greater in key-workers vs not (RR=1.24(95%C.I.=1.17,1.31), among non-home working (1.08(0.98,1.19)) or some home working (1.08(0.97,1.17)) vs all home working. Part-time workers vs full-time (0.94(0.89,0.99)), and furlough vs not (0.97(0.88,1.01)) had reduced risk. Results for the linked positive test outcome were comparable in direction but greater in magnitude e.g. an 1.85(1.56,2.20) in key-workers. Conclusion The UK-LLC provides new opportunities for researchers to investigate risk factors, including occupational factors, for ill-health events in multiple largescale UK cohorts. Risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 illness appeared to be associated with work-related characteristics. Associations using linked diagnostic test data appeared stronger than self-reported infection status.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
In-utero exposure to PM2.5 and adverse birth outcomes in India: Geostatistical modelling using remote sensing and demographic health survey data 2019-21 Protocol for the Work And Vocational advicE (WAVE) randomised controlled trial testing the addition of vocational advice to usual primary care (Clinical Trials: NCT04543097) Harnessing non-standard nucleic acids for highly sensitive icosaplex (20-plex) detection of microbial threats Association of occupational exposure to chemical substances with bladder cancer in Ethiopia: A multi-center matched case-control Study The association between nurse staffing configurations and sickness absence: longitudinal study
×
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