Workplace interventions to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection outside of healthcare settings

Workplace interventions to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection outside of healthcare settings

BACKGROUND

Although many people infected with SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) experience no or mild symptoms, some individuals can develop severe illness and may die, particularly older people and those with underlying medical problems. Providing evidence-based interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection has become more urgent with the potential psychological toll imposed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Controlling exposures to occupational hazards is the fundamental method of protecting workers. When it comes to the transmission of viruses, workplaces should first consider control measures that can potentially have the most significant impact. According to the hierarchy of controls, one should first consider elimination (and substitution), then engineering controls, administrative controls, and lastly, personal protective equipment. This is the first update of a Cochrane review published 6 May 2022, with one new study added.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of interventions in non-healthcare-related workplaces aimed at reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to other interventions or no intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collections, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv to 13 April 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies of interventions. We included adult workers, both those who come into close contact with clients or customers (e.g. public-facing employees, such as cashiers or taxi drivers), and those who do not, but who could be infected by coworkers. We excluded studies involving healthcare workers. We included any intervention to prevent or reduce workers' exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in the workplace, defining categories of intervention according to the hierarchy of hazard controls (i.e. elimination; engineering controls; administrative controls; personal protective equipment).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection (or other respiratory viruses), SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, and absenteeism from work. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, quality of life, hospitalisation, and uptake, acceptability, or adherence to strategies. We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess risk of bias, and GRADE methods to evaluate the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 2 studies including a total of 16,014 participants. Elimination-of-exposure interventions We included one study examining an intervention that focused on elimination of hazards, which was an open-label, cluster-randomised, non-inferiority trial, conducted in England in 2021. The study compared standard 10-day self-isolation after contact with an infected person to a new strategy of daily rapid antigen testing and staying at work if the test is negative (test-based attendance). The trialists hypothesised that this would lead to a similar rate of infections, but lower COVID-related absence. Staff (N = 11,798) working at 76 schools were assigned to standard isolation, and staff (N = 12,229) working at 86 schools were assigned to the test-based attendance strategy. The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of symptomatic polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (rate ratio (RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 2.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of any PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). COVID-related absenteeism rates were 3704 absence days in 566,502 days-at-risk (6.5 per 1000 working days) in the control group and 2932 per 539,805 days-at-risk (5.4 per 1000 working days) in the intervention group (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to low due to imprecision. Uptake of the intervention was 71% in the intervention group, but not reported for the control intervention. The trial did not measure our other outcomes of SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, all-cause mortality, quality of life, or hospitalisation. We found seven ongoing studies using elimination-of-hazard strategies, six RCTs and one non-randomised trial. Administrative control interventions We found one ongoing RCT that aims to evaluate the efficacy of the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine in preventing COVID-19 infection and reducing disease severity. Combinations of eligible interventions We included one non-randomised study examining a combination of elimination of hazards, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment. The study was conducted in two large retail companies in Italy in 2020. The study compared a safety operating protocol, measurement of body temperature and oxygen saturation upon entry, and a SARS-CoV-2 test strategy with a minimum activity protocol. Both groups received protective equipment. All employees working at the companies during the study period were included: 1987 in the intervention company and 1798 in the control company. The study did not report an outcome of interest for this systematic review. Other intervention categories We did not find any studies in this category.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain whether a test-based attendance policy affects rates of PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (any infection; symptomatic infection) compared to standard 10-day self-isolation amongst school and college staff. A test-based attendance policy may result in little to no difference in absenteeism rates compared to standard 10-day self-isolation. The non-randomised study included in our updated search did not report any outcome of interest for this Cochrane review. As a large part of the population is exposed in the case of a pandemic, an apparently small relative effect that would not be worthwhile from the individual perspective may still affect many people, and thus become an important absolute effect from the enterprise or societal perspective. The included RCT did not report on any of our other primary outcomes (i.e. SARS-CoV-2-related mortality and adverse events). We identified no completed studies on any other interventions specified in this review; however, eight eligible studies are ongoing. More controlled studies are needed on testing and isolation strategies, and working from home, as these have important implications for work organisations.

Systematic review of empiric studies on lockdowns, workplace closures, and other non-pharmaceutical interventions in non-healthcare workplaces during the initial year of the COVID-19 pandemic: benefits and selected unintended consequences

BACKGROUND

We conducted a systematic review aimed to evaluate the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions within non-healthcare workplaces and community-level workplace closures and lockdowns on COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, selected mental disorders, and employment outcomes in workers or the general population.

METHODS

The inclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies of interventions. The exclusion criteria included modeling studies. Electronic searches were conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, and other databases from January 1, 2020, through May 11, 2021. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Meta-analysis and sign tests were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 60 observational studies met the inclusion criteria. There were 40 studies on COVID-19 outcomes, 15 on anxiety and depression symptoms, and five on unemployment and labor force participation. There was a paucity of studies on physical distancing, physical barriers, and symptom and temperature screening within workplaces. The sign test indicated that lockdown reduced COVID-19 incidence or case growth rate (23 studies, p < 0.001), reproduction number (11 studies, p < 0.001), and COVID-19 mortality or death growth rate (seven studies, p < 0.05) in the general population. Lockdown did not have any effect on anxiety symptoms (pooled standardized mean difference = -0.02, 95% CI: -0.06, 0.02). Lockdown had a small effect on increasing depression symptoms (pooled standardized mean difference = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.10, 0.21), but publication bias could account for the observed effect. Lockdown increased unemployment (pooled mean difference = 4.48 percentage points, 95% CI: 1.79, 7.17) and decreased labor force participation (pooled mean difference = -2.46 percentage points, 95% CI: -3.16, -1.77). The risk of bias for most of the studies on COVID-19 or employment outcomes was moderate or serious. The risk of bias for the studies on anxiety or depression symptoms was serious or critical.

CONCLUSIONS

Empiric studies indicated that lockdown reduced the impact of COVID-19, but that it had notable unwanted effects. There is a pronounced paucity of studies on the effect of interventions within still-open workplaces. It is important for countries that implement lockdown in future pandemics to consider strategies to mitigate these unintended consequences.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration # CRD42020182660.

Covid-19 Occupational Risk Incidence and Working Sectors Involved During the Pandemic in Italy

Background

Starting from March 2020 until December 2021, different phases of Covid-19 pandemic have been identified in Italy, with several containing/lifting measures progressively enforced by the National government. In the present study, we investigate the change in occupational risk during the subsequent pandemic phases and we propose an estimate of the incidence of the cases by economic sector, based on the analysis of insurance claims for compensation for Covid-19.

Methods

Covid-19 epidemiological data available for the general population and injury claims of workers covered by the Italian public insurance system in 2020-2021 were analyzed. Monthly Incidence Rate of Covid-19 compensation claims per 100,000 workers (MIRw) was calculated by the economic sector and compared with the same indicator for general population in different pandemic periods.

Results

The distribution of Covid-19 MIRw by sector significantly changed during the pandemic related to both the strength of different waves and the mitigation/lifting strategies enforced. The level of occupational fraction was very high at the beginning phase of the pandemic, decreasing to 5% at the end of 2021. Healthcare and related services were continuously hit but the incidence was significantly decreasing in 2021 in all sectors, except for postal and courier activities in transportation and storage enterprises.

Conclusion

The analysis of compensation claim data allowed to identify time trends for infection risk in different working sectors. The claim rates were highest for human health and social work activities but the distribution of risk among sectors was clearly influenced by the different stages of the pandemic.

Perspective of Workers’ Union Representatives on COVID-19 Measures in Turkish Workplaces in the First Year of the Pandemic

Background

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2, the virus causing coronavirus disease-2019, is a biological hazard in workplaces. Thus, protective measures should be applied. Despite their potential role, the perspective of workplace representatives on coronavirus disease-2019 measures is rarely investigated.

Aims

To assess the perspective of workplace union representatives on coronavirus disease-2019 measures in their workplaces in the first year of the pandemic in Turkey.

Study Design

A descriptive observational study.

Methods

This national descriptive study included workplace chief representatives of 33 workers’ unions. A 42-item electronic survey was used to collect data to evaluate the practice of job organization, social distancing and personal protective equipment use, sanitization, and occupational safety and health training.

Results

The study included 509 workplace chief representatives’ responses. Results showed that several administrative measures, including suspending production or work, encouraging workers to take leave, implementing alternate work schedules, isolating any coronavirus disease-2019 case from other workers in a designated room, and avoiding face-to-face meetings, were not available in more than half of the workplaces. The mean number of available measures was significantly high (p < 0.001) in the industrial sector and workplaces with 250 or more workers. Almost all union representatives (98.8%) reported at least one diagnosis of coronavirus disease-2019 among workers, and 12.6% reported a positive history of coronavirus disease-2019-related mortality. The regression model for any history of coronavirus disease-2019 mortality in workers demonstrated a significantly increased association with workplaces with 250 or more workers compared with workplaces with less than 250 workers (odds ratio =2.99, 95% confidence interval =1.65-5.44, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The results indicate failure in administrative measures and the need for improvement in medium- and small-sized workplaces and the non-industrial sector. All local and national stakeholders need to pay special attention to address these issues. Future studies should evaluate on-site coronavirus disease-2019 workplace measures and their effectiveness.

Substantial increase in perceived benefits over harms of COVID-19 outbreak but persistent socioeconomic disparities: Comparison of two cross-sectional surveys in Hong Kong from 2020 to 2021

Background

We have reported both perceived benefits and harms of the COVID-19 outbreak and their socioeconomic disparities amid the pandemic in Hong Kong. We further investigated whether such perceptions and disparities had changed after 10 months.

Methods

Under the Hong Kong Jockey Club SMART Family-Link Project, we conducted two cross-sectional surveys online on perceived personal and family benefits and harms of the COVID-19 outbreak in Hong Kong adults in May 2020 (after Wave 2 was under control; N = 4,891) and in February and March 2021 (after Wave 4 was under control; N = 6,013). We collected sociodemographic information, including sex, age, education, household income, and housing. Using multivariate models of analysis of covariance (MANCOVA), we compared perceived benefits and harms and socioeconomic disparities between the two surveys.

Results

Adjusting for sex and age, the prevalence of 17 out of 18 perceived personal and family benefits of COVID-19 outbreak increased (Ps < 0.001). Six of 11 perceived personal and family harms decreased (Ps < 0.001) and 4 increased (Ps < 0.001). The total number of perceived personal and family benefits increased substantially (Ps < 0.001), whereas that of perceived personal harms decreased (P = 0.01) and family harms remained stable (P > 0.05). Socioeconomic disparities, however, persisted-more perceived benefits in those with higher socioeconomic status (Ps < 0.001) and more perceived harms in those with lower (Ps ≤ 0.005).

Conclusion

We have first reported that perceived personal and family benefits of the COVID-19 outbreak increased substantially over 10 months amid the pandemic, while perceived personal and family harms were lower and stable, respectively. Socioeconomic disparities of the perceived benefits and harms persisted, which need to be monitored and addressed urgently.