Sarah Beale, Alexei Yavlinsky, Susan Hoskins, Vincent Nguyen, Thomas Byrne, Wing Lam Erica Fong, Jana Kovar, Martie Van Tongeren, Robert W Aldridge, Andrew Hayward
{"title":"与工作相关的 COVID-19 缓解策略随时间推移的职业间差异:英格兰和威尔士病毒观察队列分析。","authors":"Sarah Beale, Alexei Yavlinsky, Susan Hoskins, Vincent Nguyen, Thomas Byrne, Wing Lam Erica Fong, Jana Kovar, Martie Van Tongeren, Robert W Aldridge, Andrew Hayward","doi":"10.5271/sjweh.4092","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>COVID-19 mitigations have had a profound impact on workplaces, however, multisectoral comparisons of how work-related mitigations were applied are limited. This study aimed to investigate (i) occupational differences in the usage of key work-related mitigations over time and (ii) workers' perceptions of these mitigations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Employed/self-employed Virus Watch study participants (N=6279) responded to a mitigation-related online survey covering the periods of December 2020-February 2022. Logistic regression was used to investigate occupation- and time-related differences in the usage of work-related mitigation methods. Participants' perceptions of mitigation methods were investigated descriptively using proportions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Usage of work-related mitigation methods differed between occupations and over time, likely reflecting variation in job roles, workplace environments, legislation and guidance. Healthcare workers had the highest predicted probabilities for several mitigations, including reporting frequent hand hygiene [predicted probability across all survey periods 0.61 (95% CI 0.56-0.66)] and always wearing face coverings [predicted probability range 0.71 (95% CI 0.66-0.75) - 0.80 (95% CI 0.76-0.84) across survey periods]. There were significant cross-occupational trends towards reduced mitigations during periods of less stringent national restrictions. The majority of participants across occupations (55-88%) agreed that most mitigations were reasonable and worthwhile even after the relaxation of national restrictions; agreement was lower for physical distancing (39-44%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While usage of work-related mitigations appeared to vary alongside stringency of national restrictions, agreement that most mitigations were reasonable and worthwhile remained substantial. Further investigation into the factors underlying between-occupational differences could assist pandemic planning and prevention of workplace COVID-19 transmission.</p>","PeriodicalId":21528,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health","volume":"49 5","pages":"350-362"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10713985/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Between-occupation differences in work-related COVID-19 mitigation strategies over time: Analysis of the Virus Watch Cohort in England and Wales.\",\"authors\":\"Sarah Beale, Alexei Yavlinsky, Susan Hoskins, Vincent Nguyen, Thomas Byrne, Wing Lam Erica Fong, Jana Kovar, Martie Van Tongeren, Robert W Aldridge, Andrew Hayward\",\"doi\":\"10.5271/sjweh.4092\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>COVID-19 mitigations have had a profound impact on workplaces, however, multisectoral comparisons of how work-related mitigations were applied are limited. This study aimed to investigate (i) occupational differences in the usage of key work-related mitigations over time and (ii) workers' perceptions of these mitigations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Employed/self-employed Virus Watch study participants (N=6279) responded to a mitigation-related online survey covering the periods of December 2020-February 2022. Logistic regression was used to investigate occupation- and time-related differences in the usage of work-related mitigation methods. Participants' perceptions of mitigation methods were investigated descriptively using proportions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Usage of work-related mitigation methods differed between occupations and over time, likely reflecting variation in job roles, workplace environments, legislation and guidance. Healthcare workers had the highest predicted probabilities for several mitigations, including reporting frequent hand hygiene [predicted probability across all survey periods 0.61 (95% CI 0.56-0.66)] and always wearing face coverings [predicted probability range 0.71 (95% CI 0.66-0.75) - 0.80 (95% CI 0.76-0.84) across survey periods]. There were significant cross-occupational trends towards reduced mitigations during periods of less stringent national restrictions. The majority of participants across occupations (55-88%) agreed that most mitigations were reasonable and worthwhile even after the relaxation of national restrictions; agreement was lower for physical distancing (39-44%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While usage of work-related mitigations appeared to vary alongside stringency of national restrictions, agreement that most mitigations were reasonable and worthwhile remained substantial. Further investigation into the factors underlying between-occupational differences could assist pandemic planning and prevention of workplace COVID-19 transmission.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21528,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health\",\"volume\":\"49 5\",\"pages\":\"350-362\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10713985/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4092\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/4/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4092","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/4/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目标:COVID-19 减缓措施对工作场所产生了深远的影响,然而,对如何应用与工作相关的减缓措施进行多部门比较却很有限。本研究旨在调查:(i) 随着时间的推移,使用主要工作相关缓解措施的职业差异;(ii) 工人对这些缓解措施的看法:受雇/自雇的病毒观察研究参与者(N=6279)对 2020 年 12 月至 2022 年 2 月期间与缓解措施相关的在线调查做出了回复。采用逻辑回归法调查与工作相关的缓解方法使用情况中与职业和时间相关的差异。使用比例对参与者对缓解方法的看法进行了描述性调查:与工作相关的缓解方法的使用情况因职业和时间而异,这可能反映了工作角色、工作场所环境、立法和指导方面的差异。医疗保健工作者使用几种缓解方法的预测概率最高,包括经常报告手部卫生[在所有调查期间的预测概率为 0.61 (95% CI 0.56-0.66)]和总是戴面罩[在所有调查期间的预测概率范围为 0.71 (95% CI 0.66-0.75) - 0.80 (95% CI 0.76-0.84)]。在国家限制措施不那么严格的时期,跨职业的减灾趋势非常明显。各职业的大多数参与者(55-88%)都认为,即使在国家限制放宽后,大多数缓解措施也是合理和值得的;但对物理距离的认同度较低(39-44%):结论:虽然与工作相关的缓解措施的使用似乎随着国家限制的严格程度而变化,但大多数缓解措施是合理和值得的这一共识仍然很大。对造成职业间差异的因素进行进一步调查有助于制定大流行规划和预防工作场所的 COVID-19 传播。
Between-occupation differences in work-related COVID-19 mitigation strategies over time: Analysis of the Virus Watch Cohort in England and Wales.
Objectives: COVID-19 mitigations have had a profound impact on workplaces, however, multisectoral comparisons of how work-related mitigations were applied are limited. This study aimed to investigate (i) occupational differences in the usage of key work-related mitigations over time and (ii) workers' perceptions of these mitigations.
Methods: Employed/self-employed Virus Watch study participants (N=6279) responded to a mitigation-related online survey covering the periods of December 2020-February 2022. Logistic regression was used to investigate occupation- and time-related differences in the usage of work-related mitigation methods. Participants' perceptions of mitigation methods were investigated descriptively using proportions.
Results: Usage of work-related mitigation methods differed between occupations and over time, likely reflecting variation in job roles, workplace environments, legislation and guidance. Healthcare workers had the highest predicted probabilities for several mitigations, including reporting frequent hand hygiene [predicted probability across all survey periods 0.61 (95% CI 0.56-0.66)] and always wearing face coverings [predicted probability range 0.71 (95% CI 0.66-0.75) - 0.80 (95% CI 0.76-0.84) across survey periods]. There were significant cross-occupational trends towards reduced mitigations during periods of less stringent national restrictions. The majority of participants across occupations (55-88%) agreed that most mitigations were reasonable and worthwhile even after the relaxation of national restrictions; agreement was lower for physical distancing (39-44%).
Conclusions: While usage of work-related mitigations appeared to vary alongside stringency of national restrictions, agreement that most mitigations were reasonable and worthwhile remained substantial. Further investigation into the factors underlying between-occupational differences could assist pandemic planning and prevention of workplace COVID-19 transmission.
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).