The COVID-19 pandemic: one year later - an occupational perspective

Work ability and return-to-work of patients with post-COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In addition to several sequelae of post-COVID-19, individuals also experience significant limitations in work ability, resulting in negative consequences for the return-to-work (RTW) process. This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess the impact of post-COVID-19 on work ability and RTW of individuals previously infected with SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

Studies on the work ability and RTW of patients with post-COVID-19 (more than 12 weeks after an acute SARS-CoV-2 infection) were regarded eligible for inclusion. Systematic search of literature was performed up to March 2023 using five databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL and WHO COVID 19). Study selection followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) Statement. A meta-analysis estimated the overall success rate of RTW. The risk of bias of the included studies was evaluated with the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS).

RESULTS

19 relevant studies, published between 2021 and 2023, were included in the systematic review, involving 21.155 patients from 14 different countries. The findings indicate that a significant proportion of individuals with post-COVID-19 experience persistent symptoms and functional impairments, with fatigue being the most prominent symptom. These persistent symptoms can have a considerable (negative) impact on individuals' physical and psychological capacity to participate in work-related activities, leading to lower work ability and increased absenteeism. The RTW for post-COVID-19 patients is complex, with approximately 60.9% of patients successfully returning to work after 12 or more weeks following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Among those who successfully returning to work, a considerable number need modifications in their work duties or hours to cope with residual impairments. Factors such as workplace accommodations, supportive policies, and occupational rehabilitation programs play a crucial role in facilitating successful RTW.

CONCLUSIONS

The systematic review underscores the substantial impact of post-COVID-19 on work-related outcomes. The implications of this research highlight the need for healthcare providers, employers, and policymakers to collaborate in creating inclusive work environments and implementing tailored rehabilitation programs to support individuals recovering from post-COVID-19. Further research should focus on long-term follow-up studies with mixed methods to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the long-term consequences of post-COVID-19 on work ability and RTW outcomes.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023385436.

Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection at a UK electricity-generating company: a test-negative design case-control study

OBJECTIVES

Identify workplace risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection, using data collected by a UK electricity-generating company.

METHODS

Using a test-negative design case-control study, we estimated the OR of infection by job category, site, test reason, sex, vaccination status, vulnerability, site outage and site COVID-19 weekly risk rating, adjusting for age, test date and test type.

RESULTS

From an original 80 077 COVID-19 tests, there were 70 646 included in the final analysis. Most exclusions were due to being visitor tests (5030) or tests after an individual first tested positive (2968).Women were less likely to test positive than men (OR=0.71; 95% CI 0.58 to 0.86). Test reason was strongly associated with positivity and although not a cause of infection itself, due to differing test regimes by area, it was a strong confounder for other variables. Compared with routine tests, tests due to symptoms were highest risk (94.99; 78.29 to 115.24), followed by close contact (16.73; 13.80 to 20.29) and broader-defined work contact 2.66 (1.99 to 3.56). After adjustment, we found little difference in risk by job category, but some differences by site with three sites showing substantially lower risks, and one site showing higher risks in the final model.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, infection risk was not associated with job category. Vulnerable individuals were at slightly lower risk, tests during outages were higher risk, vaccination showed no evidence of an effect on testing positive, and site COVID-19 risk rating did not show an ordered trend in positivity rates.

Experiences of health professionals in EU institutions during the Covid crisis

We performed a quantitative and a qualitative study, addressing the experiences of health services of 16 European Union institutions during the Covid-19 pandemic. Among the 165 eligible subjects, 114 (69%) participated in the survey. The biggest problem reported was limitation of social contacts (53%). At work, the biggest problems were workload (50%) and shortage of staff (37%). The majority were positive about teamwork. Teleworking was seen positively by 81%. Most participants felt better prepared for future situations by their recent experience (94%). Participants underlined the importance of strengthening the collaboration with the local health systems (80%), as well as with medical services and internal services within their own institution (75%). The qualitative analysis also reported participants' fear of becoming infected, and of their family members getting sick. Similarly reported were the sense of isolation and anxiety, the excessive workload and work complexity, shortage of staff, and the benefits of teleworking. Study findings highlight: i) the need to strengthen mental health support to health personnel, not only during crisis situations; ii) the need for sufficient health workers, with swift recruitment strategies in times of crisis; iii) the importance of clear protocols to ensure no shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE); iv) the importance of teleworking, which represents an opportunity for major reorganisation of work within EU medical services; v) the need to strengthen collaboration with local health systems and the medical services of EU institutions.

Exploring the relationship between job characteristics and infection: Application of a COVID-19 job exposure matrix to SARS-CoV-2 infection data in the United Kingdom

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess whether workplace exposures as estimated via a COVID-19 job exposure matrix (JEM) are associated with SARS-CoV-2 in the UK.

METHODS

Data on 244 470 participants were available from the Office for National Statistics Coronavirus Infection Survey (CIS) and 16 801 participants from the Virus Watch Cohort, restricted to workers aged 20-64 years. Analysis used logistic regression models with SARS-CoV-2 as the dependent variable for eight individual JEM domains (number of workers, nature of contacts, contact via surfaces, indoor or outdoor location, ability to social distance, use of face covering, job insecurity, and migrant workers) with adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, index of multiple deprivation (IMD), region, household size, urban versus rural area, and health conditions. Analyses were repeated for three time periods (i) February 2020 (Virus Watch)/April 2020 (CIS) to May 2021), (ii) June 2021 to November 2021, and (iii) December 2021 to January 2022.

RESULTS

Overall, higher risk classifications for the first six domains tended to be associated with an increased risk of infection, with little evidence of a relationship for domains relating to proportion of workers with job insecurity or migrant workers. By time there was a clear exposure-response relationship for these domains in the first period only. Results were largely consistent across the two UK cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

An exposure-response relationship exists in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic for number of contacts, nature of contacts, contacts via surfaces, indoor or outdoor location, ability to social distance and use of face coverings. These associations appear to have diminished over time.

Return-to-work rates and predictors of absence duration after COVID-19 over the course of the pandemic

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate employee return-to-work (RTW) rates and examine predictors of absence duration after COVID-19. RTW rates were referenced against RTW rates after absence due to flu-like symptoms and assessed over the course of the pandemic.

METHODS

Routinely collected data from a nationally operating Dutch occupational health service was used. The data were retrieved from employees who reported sick due to COVID-19 (N=30 396) or flu-like symptoms (N=15 862). Data consisted of responses to a triage survey combined with longitudinal register-based information on sickness absence. RTW rates after COVID-19 were evaluated through Kaplan-Meier estimates and compared to RTW rates for flu-like symptoms, and between three periods with different dominant virus variants. Predictors for absence duration were examined through Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

RTW after COVID-19 was found to be notably later than after flu-like symptoms (median RTW=10 versus 6 days, respectively). On average, 5.5% of employees who contracted COVID-19 were absent for over 12 weeks. Time-to-RTW shortened as different virus variants became dominant over time. The main predictors contributing to later RTW were older age, female sex, belonging to a risk group, and the symptoms shortness of breath and fatigue.

CONCLUSIONS

Estimates of the RTW rate after COVID-19 and identification of predictors may aid healthcare professionals in gaining insight into variations in the disease course and rehabilitation process. The present findings can help employers and policy-makers grasp the impact of COVID-19 on the workplace.

Strengthening Social Compact and Innovative Health Sector Collaborations in Addressing COVID-19 in South African Workplaces

Workplaces are nodes for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 transmission and require strategies to protect workers' health. This article reports on the South African national coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) strategy that sought to ensure workers' health, protect the economic activity, safeguard livelihoods and support health services. Data from the Occupational Health Surveillance System, Surveillance System of Sentinel Hospital Sites, and government databases (public sector health worker and Compensation Fund data) was supplemented by peer-reviewed articles and grey literature. A multipronged, multi-stakeholder response to occupational health and safety (OHS) policy development, risk management, health surveillance, information, and training was adopted, underpinned by scientific input, through collaboration between government, organized labour, employer bodies, academia, and community partners. This resulted in government-promulgated legislation addressing OHS, sectoral guidelines, and work-related COVID-19 worker's compensation. The OHS Workstream of the National Department of Health provided leadership and technical support for COVID-specific workplace guidelines and practices, surveillance, information, and training, as well as a workplace-based vaccination strategy.

Encouraging and Reinforcing Safe Breastfeeding Practices during the COVID-19 Pandemic

AIM

Promote safe breastfeeding during the pandemic.

METHODS

All participants were encouraged to request safe breastfeeding education from their prenatal provider. Pregnant mothers received appropriate breastfeeding and COVID-19 safe breastfeeding education in line with the CDC's COVID-19 breastfeeding guidelines. Data were obtained from 39 mothers attending Nashville General Hospital pediatric well-baby clinics (Group I: from December 2019 to June 2020) and 97 pregnant women attending prenatal clinics (Group II: from July 2020 to August 2021).

RESULTS

The participants' ages ranged from 15 to 45 years, with a mean of 27.5 ± 6.2. The women in both groups were similar in age, education, employment, and breastfeeding experience. They were equally unlikely to use face masks at home even while receiving guests or holding their babies. Although 121 (89.0%) women claimed face mask use while shopping, the rate for never doing so was 7 (18.0%) vs. 8 (8.3%) (p < 0.006) for Groups I and II, respectively. Safe practices included limited outing (66 (48.5%)), sanitized hands (62 (45.6%)), restricted visitors (44 (32.4%)), and limited baby outing (27 (19.9%)), and 8 (8.3%) in Group II received COVID-19 vaccinations. About half described fair and accurate COVID-19 safe breastfeeding knowledge, but 22 (30.1%) of them claimed they received no information. Breastfeeding contraindication awareness for Groups I and II were as follows: cocaine = 53.8% vs. 37.1%, p < 0.06; HIV = 35.9% vs. 12.4%, p < 0.002; breast cancer = 17.9% vs. 16.5%; and COVID-19 with symptoms = 28.2% vs. 5.2%, p < 0.001. The information source was similar, with family, friends, and media accounting for 77 (56.6%) of women while doctors, nurses, and the CLC was the source for 21 (15.4%) women. Exclusive breastfeeding one month postpartum for Groups I and II was 41.9% and 12.8% (p < 0.006), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The mothers were not more knowledgeable regarding breastfeeding safely one year into the COVID-19 pandemic. Conflicting lay information can create healthy behavior ambivalence, which can be prevented by health professionals confidently advising mothers to wear face masks when breastfeeding, restricting visitors and outings, and accepting COVID-19 vaccination. This pandemic remains an open opportunity to promote and encourage breastfeeding to every mother as the default newborn feeding method.

Impact of Rehabilitation on Physical and Neuropsychological Health of Patients Who Acquired COVID-19 in the Workplace

Workers, especially healthcare workers, are exposed to an increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, less is known about the impact of rehabilitation on health outcomes associated with post-COVID. This longitudinal observational study examined the changes in physical and neuropsychological health and work ability after inpatient rehabilitation of 127 patients (97 females/30 males; age 21-69 years; Mean = 50.62) who acquired COVID-19 in the workplace. Post-COVID symptoms, functional status, physical performance, neuropsychological health, employment, and work ability were assessed before and after rehabilitation. Group differences relating to sex, professions, and acute COVID status were also analyzed. Except for fatigue, the prevalence of all post-COVID symptoms decreased after rehabilitation. Significant improvements in physical performance and neuropsychological health outcomes were determined. Moreover, healthcare workers showed a significantly greater reduction in depressive symptoms compared to non-healthcare workers. Nevertheless, participants reported poor work ability, and 72.5% of them were still unable to work after discharge from rehabilitation. As most participants were still suffering from the impact of COVID-19 at rehabilitation discharge, ongoing strategies in aftercare are necessary to improve their work ability. Further investigations of this study population at 6 and 12 months after rehabilitation should examine the further course of post-COVID regarding health and work ability status.

Occupational risk of COVID-19 related hospital admission in Denmark 2020-2021: a follow-up study

OBJECTIVE

Mounting evidence indicates increased risk of COVID-19 among healthcare personnel, but the evidence on risks in other occupations is limited. In this study, we quantify the occupational risk of COVID-19-related hospital admission in Denmark during 2020-2021.

METHODS

The source population included 2.4 million employees age 20-69 years. All information was retrieved from public registers. The risk of COVID-19 related hospital admission was examined in 155 occupations with at least 2000 employees (at-risk, N=1 620 231) referenced to a group of mainly office workers defined by a COVID-19 job exposure matrix (N=369 341). Incidence rate ratios (IRR) were computed by Poisson regression.

RESULTS

During 186 million person-weeks of follow-up, we observed 2944 COVID-19 related hospital admissions in at-risk occupations and 559 in referents. Adjusted risk of such admission was elevated in several occupations within healthcare (including health care assistants, nurses, medical practitioners and laboratory technicians but not physiotherapists or midwives), social care (daycare assistants for children aged 4-7, and nursing aides in institutions and private homes, but not family daycare workers) and transportation (bus drivers, but not lorry drivers). Most IRR in these at-risk occupations were in the range of 1.5-3. Employees in education, retail sales and various service occupations seemed not to be at risk.

CONCLUSION

Employees in several occupations within and outside healthcare are at substantially increased risk of COVID-19. There is a need to revisit safety measures and precautions to mitigate viral transmission in the workplace during the current and forthcoming pandemics.

Educational inequalities in self-rated health and emotional exhaustion among workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate trends in educational inequalities in poor health and emotional exhaustion during the pandemic among workers, and differences in trends between men and women.

METHODS

Five waves (2019-2021) from the longitudinal study 'the Netherlands Working Conditions Survey COVID-19 study' were used (response rates: 32-38%). Generalized logistic mixed models were used to estimate the changes in absolute and relative educational inequalities in poor health and emotional exhaustion for all workers (n = 12,479) and for men and women, separately.

RESULTS

Low and intermediate educated workers reported more often poor health (OR 2.54; 95% CI 1.71-3.77 and OR 2.09; 95% CI 1.68-2.61, respectively) than high educated workers. Intermediate educated women (OR 0.49; 95% CI 0.37-0.64) reported less emotional exhaustion than high educated women, but no differences were observed among men. The prevalence of poor health first decreased across all educational levels until March 2021, and bounced back in November 2021. A similar pattern was found for emotional exhaustion, but for low and intermediate educated workers only. Relative educational inequalities in poor health reduced among men during the pandemic, and absolute differences decreased among men and women by 2.4-2.6%. Relative educational inequalities in emotional exhaustion widened among men only. Absolute differences in emotional exhaustion first increased among both men and women, but narrowed between the last two waves.

DISCUSSION

Socioeconomic inequalities for poor self-rated health remained but narrowed in relative and absolute terms during the pandemic. With regard to emotional exhaustion, socioeconomic inequalities returned to pre-COVID-19 levels at the end of 2021.

Clinical characterization and factors associated with quality of life in Long COVID patients: Secondary data analysis from a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Long COVID patients suffer a negative impact on their quality of life, as well as their functioning, productivity or socialization. There is a need to better understand the individual experience and circumstances surrounding these patients.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize clinical picture of Long COVID patients and to identify factors associated with quality of life.

METHODS

A secondary data analysis from a randomized clinical trial (RCT) was carried out with 100 Long COVID patients treated by Primary Health Care and residents in the territory of Aragon (northeast of Spain). The main variable of the study was quality of life, evaluated using the SF-36 Questionnaire, in relation to socio-demographic and clinical variables. In addition, ten validated scales were used that contemplated their cognitive, affective, functional and social status, as well as personal constructs. Correlation statistics and linear regression model were calculated.

RESULTS

Long COVID patients suffer a decrease in their levels of physical and mental health. On the one hand, the higher number of persistent symptoms (b = -0.900, p = 0.008), worse physical functioning (b = 1.587, p = 0.002) and sleep quality (b = -0.538, p = 0.035) are predictors of worse quality of life, physical subscale. On the other hand, higher educational level (b = 13.167, p = 0.017), lower number of persistent symptoms (b = -0.621, p = 0.057) and higher affective affectation (b = -1.402, p<0.001) are predictors of worse quality of life, mental subscale.

CONCLUSION

It is necessary to design rehabilitation programs that consider both the physical and mental health of these patients, thus obtaining an improvement in their quality of life.

Ageing workers' mental health during COVID-19: a multilevel observational study on the association with the work environment, perceived workplace safety and individual factors

OBJECTIVES

The stress and anxiety associated with the predisposition of ageing workers to severe COVID-19 illness, once occupationally infected, jeopardise their mental health. This study aimed to investigate the association between individual level, work environment exposure factors and perceived workplace safety with a decline in mental health of ageing workers from different industry sectors.

DESIGN

Observational study, prevalence assessment of survey added to longitudinal cohort data.

SETTING

The Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) from 27 countries in Europe and Israel participating in the COVID-19 survey (summer 2020) and having prepandemic waves' SHARE data.

PARTICIPANTS

Workers aged 50-70 (n=6449) who attended their workplaces at least partially after the pandemic broke out.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Perceived decline in mental health compared with preoutbreak status.

RESULTS

Multilevel analyses demonstrated that 24.5% (95% CI 23.5% to 25.5%) of ageing workers in Europe experienced mental health decline associated with national-level self-reported COVID-19 burden. Workplace safety perception was the strongest predictor, as each one-point increase in unsafe perception was associated with 60% of mental health decline (OR=1.6, 95% CI 1.47 to 1.74), explaining 30% of increased reported mental health symptoms of ageing workers. Safety perception mediates the mental health outcomes of the work environment, such as workplace contagion risk and work location. Female gender (OR=1.77, 95% CI 1.55 to 2.02), financial difficulties (OR=1.19, 95% CI 1.1 to 1.28), higher vulnerability index (comorbidities, age >60) (OR=1.11, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.18), pre-existing mental problems (OR=1.78, 95% CI 1.55 to 2.04) and increased national burden of COVID-19 (OR=1.01, 95% CI 1.0 to 1.02) were associated with declines in mental health, whereas exclusively working on-site was protective.

CONCLUSION

Vulnerable subgroups for mental health declines among ageing workers were revealed, which warrant their screening and employers' evaluation of workplace conditions of ageing workers to prevent mental health-related implications. Workplace interventions should aim to reduce work environment influences on infection risk and mental distress.

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among public transport workers in Sweden

INTRODUCTION

Public transportation is an essential societal function in crisis situations like the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Bus drivers and other public transport workers are essential workers that need to keep working despite the risk of contagion. The SARS-CoV-2 virus may pose an occupational health risk to public transport workers and especially to bus drivers as they interact with passengers in a confined area. By analyzing antibodies towards SARS-CoV-2 proteins in blood samples it is possible to measure if an individual has been infected by COVID-19. Here, we report the prevalence of antibodies among bus drivers and other public transport employees in Stockholm, Sweden and relate it to socio-demographic factors.

METHODS

Seroprevalence of IgG antibodies towards SARS-CoV-2 proteins was investigated in a sample of 262 non-vaccinated public transport workers (182 men and 40 women) recruited between April 26 and May 7, 2021. Most of the participants were bus drivers (n = 222). The relationship between socio-demographic factors and seroprevalence was investigated with logistic regression.

RESULTS

The seroprevalence was 50% in the total sample of public transport workers. Among bus drivers, 51% were seropositive compared to 44% seropositive among the other public transport workers. The difference was not significant. The seroprevalence was higher than the national seroprevalence in Sweden during the same period (18.3% in non-vaccinated people aged 20-64 years). The logistic regression model using Wald forward selection showed that men had a higher risk of being seropositive (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.3 - 5.8) and there was a higher risk with increasing number of people in the household (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1 - 1.6).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings could imply an occupational risk for COVID-19 infection among public transport workers. Infection control measures are warranted during virus epidemics to assure bus drives' safety and reduce transmission in public transport.

Association between COVID-19 infection and work exposure assessed by the Mat-O-Covid job exposure matrix in the CONSTANCES cohort

OBJECTIVES

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought to light a new occupational health threat. We aimed to evaluate the association between COVID-19 infection and work exposure to SARS-CoV-2 assessed by a job-exposure matrix (JEM), in a large population cohort. We also estimated the population-attributable fraction among exposed subjects.

METHODS

We used the SAPRIS-SERO sample of the CONSTANCES cohort, limited to subjects actively working, and with a job code available and a questionnaire on extra work activities. The following outcomes were assessed: COVID-19 diagnosis was made by a physician; a seropositivity to the ELISA-S test ('serology strict') and ELISA-S test intermediate with positive ELISA-NP or a positive neutralising antibodies SN ('serology large'). Job exposure was assessed using Mat-O-Covid, an expert-based JEM with an Index used as a continuous variable and a threshold at 13/1000.

RESULTS

The sample included 18 999 subjects with 389 different jobs, 47.7% were men with a mean age of 46.2 years (±9.2 years). The Mat-O-Covid index taken as a continuous variable or with a threshold greater than 13/1000 was associated with all the outcomes in bivariable and multivariable logistic models. ORs were between 1.30 and 1.58, and proportion of COVID-19 attributable to work among exposed participants was between 20% and 40%.

DISCUSSION

Using the Mat-O-Covid JEM applied to a large population, we found a significant association between work exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 infection, though the estimation of attributable fraction among exposed people remained low to moderate. Further studies during other exposed periods and with other methods are necessary.

Occupation and SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among 108 960 workers during the first pandemic wave in Germany

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to identify the occupational risk for a SARS-CoV-2 infection in a nationwide sample of German workers during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (1 February-31 August 2020).

METHODS

We used the data of 108 960 workers who participated in a COVID follow-up survey of the German National Cohort (NAKO). Occupational characteristics were derived from the German Classification of Occupations 2010 (Klassifikation der Berufe 2010). PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections were assessed from self-reports. Incidence rates (IR) and incidence rate ratios (IRR) were estimated using robust Poisson regression, adjusted for person-time at risk, age, sex, migration background, study center, working hours, and employment relationship.

RESULTS

The IR was 3.7 infections per 1000 workers [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.3-4.1]. IR differed by occupational sector, with the highest rates observed in personal (IR 4.8, 95% CI 4.0-5.6) and business administration (IR 3.4, 95% CI 2.8-3.9) services and the lowest rates in occupations related to the production of goods (IR 2.0, 95% CI 1.5-2.6). Infections were more frequent among essential workers compared with workers in non-essential occupations (IRR 1.95, 95% CI 1.59-2.40) and among highly skilled compared with skilled professions (IRR 1.36, 95% CI 1.07-1.72).

CONCLUSIONS

The results emphasize higher infection risks in essential occupations and personal-related services, especially in the healthcare sector. Additionally, we found evidence that infections were more common in higher occupational status positions at the beginning of the pandemic.

Occupations and their impact on the spreading of COVID-19 in urban communities

The current pandemic has disproportionally affected the workforce. To improve our understanding of the role that occupations play in the transmission of COVID-19, we analyse real-world network data that were collected in Bucharest between August 1st and October 31st 2020. The data record sex, age, and occupation of 6895 patients and the 13,272 people they have interacted with, thus providing a social network from an urban setting through which COVID-19 has spread. Quite remarkably, we find that medical occupations have no significant effect on the spread of the virus. Instead, we find common transmission chains to start with infected individuals who hold jobs in the private sector and are connected with non-active alters, such as spouses, siblings, or elderly relatives. We use relational hyperevent models to assess the most likely homophily and network effects in the community transmission. We detect homophily with respect to age and anti-homophily with respect to sex and employability. We note that, although additional data would be welcomed to perform more in-depth network analyses, our findings may help public authorities better target under-performing vaccination campaigns.

COVID‐19 test positivity by occupation using the Delphi US COVID‐19 trends and impact survey, September–November 2020

Background

The potential for work to be a risk factor for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) was recognized early in the pandemic based on the likelihood of work‐related differences in exposures to COVID‐19 in different occupations. Due to intense demands of the pandemic, implementation of recommendations to collect information on occupation in relation to COVID‐19 has been uneven across the United States. The objective of this study was to investigate COVID‐19 test positivity by occupation.

Methods

We analyzed data collected from September 8 to November 30, 2020, by the Delphi Group at Carnegie Mellon University US COVID‐19 Trends and Impact Survey, offered daily to a random sample of US‐based Facebook users aged 18 years or older, who were invited via a banner in their news feed. Our focus was ever testing positive for COVID‐19 in respondents working outside the home for pay in the past 4 weeks.

Results

The major occupational groups of “Production", "Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance,” “Construction and extraction,” “Healthcare support,” and “Food preparation and serving” had the five highest test positivity percentages (16.7%–14.4%). Highest detailed occupational categories (28.6%–19.1%) were “Massage therapist,” “Food processing worker,” “Bailiff, correctional officer, or jailer,” “Funeral service worker,” “First‐line supervisor of production and operating workers,” and “Nursing assistant or psychiatric aide.” Differences in test positivity by occupation remained after adjustment for age, gender, and pre‐existing medical conditions.

Conclusion

Information on differences in test positivity by occupation can aid targeting of messaging for vaccination and testing and mitigation strategies for the current and future respiratory infection epidemics and pandemics. These results, obtained before availability of COVID‐19 vaccines, can form a basis for comparison to evaluate impacts of vaccination and subsequent emergence of viral variants.

The Work Environment during Coronavirus Epidemics and Pandemics: A Systematic Review of Studies Using Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed-Methods Designs

We aimed to provide an overview of how work environment and occupational health are affected, and describe interventions designed to improve the work environment during epidemics and pandemics. The guidelines on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) were followed. The databases Cinahl, Medline, PsycInfo, and Web of Science were searched for population: working population; exposure: coronavirus epidemic or pandemic; and outcome: work environment, in articles published until October 2020. Quality assessment was based on a modified version of the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). After deduplication 3711 articles remained, of which 530 were selected for full-text screening and 119 for quality assessment. After the exclusion of studies that were low quality, 95 remained, of which 85 focused on healthcare personnel and 10 on employees in other industries; 73 used quantitative methods and 22 used qualitative or mixed methods; the majority were based on cross-sectional data. Healthcare staff experienced increased job demands, poor leadership, and lack of resources (personal protective equipment, personnel, and competence). High demands and work with infected patients were associated with negative mental health outcomes. There was a lack of studies assessing interventions, studies from industries other than healthcare, and studies of high quality.

Economic Considerations in COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy and Refusal: A Survey of the Literature

The COVID-19 global pandemic has triggered one of the greatest economic shocks in a century. Effective COVID-19 vaccines have been developed, but a proportion of people either are hesitant or refuse to be vaccinated, facilitated by a global misinformation campaign. If 'herd immunity' cannot be achieved, there is potential not only for ongoing surges in infection, but also for development of new strains of the virus that could evade vaccines and precipitate further health and economic crises. We review the economics of vaccination and of vaccine hesitancy and refusal, and their potential effects on the recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Non-Standard Employment and Unemployment during the COVID-19 Crisis: Economic and Health Findings from a Six-Country Survey Study

The COVID-19 crisis is a global event that has created and amplified social inequalities, including an already existing and steadily increasing problem of employment and income insecurity and erosion of workplace rights, affecting workers globally. The aim of this exploratory study was to review employment-related determinants of health and health protection during the pandemic, or more specifically, to examine several links between non-standard employment, unemployment, economic, health, and safety outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden, Belgium, Spain, Canada, the United States, and Chile, based on an online survey conducted from November 2020 to June 2021. The study focused on both non-standard workers and unemployed workers and examined worker outcomes in the context of current type and duration of employment arrangements, as well as employment transitions triggered by the COVID-19 crisis. The results suggest that COVID-19-related changes in non-standard worker employment arrangements, or unemployment, are related to changes in work hours, income, and benefits, as well as the self-reported prevalence of suffering from severe to extreme anxiety or depression. The results also suggest a link between worker type, duration of employment arrangements, or unemployment, and the ability to cover regular expenses during the pandemic. Additionally, the findings indicate that the type and duration of employment arrangements are related to the provision of personal protective equipment or other COVID-19 protection measures. This study provides additional evidence that workers in non-standard employment and the unemployed have experienced numerous and complex adverse effects of the pandemic and require additional protection through tailored pandemic responses and recovery strategies.

Mat-O-Covid: Validation of a SARS-CoV-2 Job Exposure Matrix (JEM) Using Data from a National Compensation System for Occupational COVID-19

Background. We aimed to assess the validity of the Mat-O-Covid Job Exposure Matrix (JEM) on SARS-CoV-2 using compensation data from the French National Health Insurance compensation system for occupational-related COVID-19. Methods. Deidentified compensation data for occupational COVID-19 in France were obtained between August 2020 and August 2021. The case acceptance was considered as the reference. Mat-O-Covid is an expert-based French JEM on workplace exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Bi- and multivariable models were used to study the association between the exposure assessed by Mat-O-Covid and the reference, as well as the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratios. Results. In the 1140 cases included, there was a close association between the Mat-O-Covid index and the reference (p < 0.0001). The overall predictivity was good, with an AUC of 0.78 and an optimal threshold at 13 per thousand. Using Youden’s J statistic resulted in 0.67 sensitivity and 0.87 specificity. Both positive and negative likelihood ratios were significant: 4.9 [2.4−6.4] and 0.4 [0.3−0.4], respectively. Discussion. It was possible to assess Mat-O-Covid’s validity using data from the national compensation system for occupational COVID-19. Though further studies are needed, Mat-O-Covid exposure assessment appears to be accurate enough to be used in research.

Occupational Profile, Psychosocial Aspects, and Work Ability of Brazilian Workers During COVID-19 Pandemic: IMPPAC Cohort

BACKGROUND

The IMPPAC cohort (Implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on psychosocial aspects and work ability among Brazilian workers) seeks to understand the impact of the pandemic on Brazilian workers. This article describes the occupational profile, psychosocial aspects, and work ability determined during the baseline and follow-up measurements of the cohort.

METHODS

Workers were invited to participate through media advertisements, social networks, and e-mails. From June to September 2020, 1211 workers were included in the cohort. Follow-up measurements finished on October 2021 with 633 workers. Data were collected through standardized questionnaires using Google Forms. Psychosocial aspects were assessed using the COPSOQ II-Br. Work ability was assessed using the Work Ability Index (WAI).

RESULTS

At baseline and follow-up, high proportion of workers were in the risk zone with regard to work pace, emotional work demands, influence on work, work-family conflict, burnout, and stress. Approximately 75% of the workers reported good to excellent work ability at baseline and follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The occupational profile, psychosocial aspects, and work ability of Brazilian workers from the IMPPAC cohort were described. Psychosocial aspects and WAI were similar at baseline and follow-up.

Initiatives Addressing Precarious Employment and Its Effects on Workers' Health and Well-Being: A Systematic Review

The prevalence of precarious employment has increased in recent decades and aspects such as employment insecurity and income inadequacy have intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify, appraise, and synthesise existing evidence pertaining to implemented initiatives addressing precarious employment that have evaluated and reported health and well-being outcomes. We used the PRISMA framework to guide this review and identified 11 relevant initiatives through searches in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and three sources of grey literature. We found very few evaluated interventions addressing precarious employment and its impact on the health and well-being of workers globally. Ten out of 11 initiatives were not purposefully designed to address precarious employment in general, nor specific dimensions of it. Seven out of 11 initiatives evaluated outcomes related to the occupational health and safety of precariously employed workers and six out of 11 evaluated worker health and well-being outcomes. Most initiatives showed the potential to improve the health of workers, although the evaluation component was often described with less detail than the initiative itself. Given the heterogeneity of the 11 initiatives regarding study design, sample size, implementation, evaluation, economic and political contexts, and target population, we found insufficient evidence to compare outcomes across types of initiatives, generalize findings, or make specific recommendations for the adoption of initiatives.

A media surveillance analysis of COVID-19 workplace outbreaks in Canada and the United States

A media surveillance analysis was conducted to identify COVID-19 workplace outbreaks and associated transmission risk for new and emerging occupations. We identified 1,111 unique COVID-19 workplace outbreaks using the Factiva database. Occupations identified in the media articles were coded to the 2016 National Occupational Classification (V1.3) and were compared and contrasted with the same occupation in the Vancouver School of Economics (VSE) COVID Risk/Reward Assessment Tool by risk rating. After nurse aides, orderlies, and patient service associates ( n = 109, very high risk), industrial butchers and meat cutters, and poultry preparers and related workers had the most workplace outbreaks reported in the media ( n = 79) but were rated as medium risk for COVID-19 transmission in the VSE COVID Risk Tool. Outbreaks were also reported among material handlers ( n = 61) and general farm workers ( n = 28), but these occupations were rated medium–low risk and low risk, respectively. Food and beverage services ( n = 72) and cashiers ( n = 60) were identified as high-risk occupations in the VSE COVID Risk Tool. Differences between the media results and the risk tool point to key determinants of health that compound the risk of COVID-19 exposure in the workplace for some occupations and highlight the importance of collecting occupation data during a pandemic.

The Sexual Long COVID (SLC): Erectile Dysfunction as a Biomarker of Systemic Complications for COVID-19 Long Haulers

Introduction

Long term complications of COVID-19, the disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2, involve many organ systems, dramatically worsening the quality of life, and finally contributing to impaired physical functioning. Despite the presence of well-identified pathogenetic mechanisms, the effect of “Long COVID” on sexual health has been only marginally addressed.

Objectives

To provide coverage of the current literature on long COVID, its epidemiology, pathophysiology, and relevance for erectile function. Methods. Comprehensive review of literature pertaining to the epidemiology and pathophysiology of long COVID, and its relevance for erectile function.

Results

Symptoms of long COVID are highly prevalent and involve almost all systems of the human body, with a plethora of clinical manifestations which range from minor nuisances to life-threatening conditions. “Brain fog” and fatigue are the most common complaints, although other neuropsychiatric complications, including sensory dysfunctions, anxiety, depression, and cerebrovascular events have also been reported. The respiratory and cardiovascular systems are also affected, with dyspnea, pulmonary fibrosis, endothelial dysfunction, and myocarditis occurring in some COVID long haulers. A subset of patients might develop endocrine manifestations, including onset of diabetes, thyroid dysfunction, and hypogonadism. Overall, long COVID features many complications which can impair erectile function by multiple pathogenetic mechanisms, and which could require tailored treatment: (i) careful investigation and management from the sexual medicine expert are therefore much needed, (ii) and future research on this topic is warranted.

Conclusion

in COVID-19 long haulers, several complications can adversely affect erectile function which, upon future tailored studies, could be used as biomarker for the severity of the long COVID disease and for its follow-up.

Sansone A, Mollaioli D, Limoncin E et al. The Sexual Long COVID (SLC): Erectile Dysfunction as a Biomarker of Systemic Complications for COVID-19 Long Haulers. Sex Med Rev 2022;10:271–285.

Socio-economic and demographic patterns of mental health complaints among the employed adults in Estonia

Background

Mental health problems follow a distinct socio-economic gradient and contribute to the health inequalities. The study aims to analyse the socio-economic and demographic factors of self-reported mental health complaints (stress, depressiveness, overtiredness, suicidal thoughts) among employed adult population in Estonia.

Methods

Data on 4041 employed respondents (2064 men and 1977 women) aged 20–64 years from nationally representative health surveys from years 2016 and 2018 in Estonia were used for the study. Dependent variables included self-reported stress, depressiveness, overtiredness, and suicidal thoughts. Descriptive statistics and both log-binomial and Poisson regression analysis were used to describe the socio-economic and demographic variations in these mental health complaints.

Results

More than half of the respondents had either stress, depressiveness, overtiredness or suicidal thoughts with 25% reporting two or more of mental health complaints. Lower personal income was associated with higher rates of all mental health complaints (stress, depressiveness, overtiredness, and suicidal thoughts) among employed adults in Estonia. Additionally, lower education was associated with higher prevalence of depressiveness and lower job skills predicted higher prevalence of suicidal thoughts. Higher prevalence ratios for depressiveness and overtiredness were found for women compared to men whereas Estonians had higher prevalence ratios for stress and suicidal thoughts compared to non-Estonians. All mental health complaints were more frequently reported at younger ages (compared to 50-64-year olds) and by not married or cohabiting respondents.

Conclusion

High prevalence of mental health complaints and their socio-economic and demographic patterning refer to considerable inequalities in mental health among employed adults. Policy actions targeting especially younger adults and those with financial difficulties are needed to address these early manifestations of mental health problems.

Long COVID: long-term effects?

The term Long COVID (or Post COVID) describes a condition characterized by persistence of symptoms for at least 12 weeks after the onset of COVID-19. It may last several months but the duration is still matter of observation. The symptoms and the clinical manifestations are clinically heterogeneous and suggesting involvement of multi-organs/systems, including the cardiovascular system. The general recurrent symptoms include fatigue, breathlessness, myalgia, headache, loss of memory, and impaired concentration. Patients report loss of their previous psychophysical performance. Cardiovascular involvement manifests with common symptoms such as palpitations and chest pain, and, less commonly, with events such as late arterial and venous thromboembolisms, heart failure episodes, strokes or transient ischaemic attack, 'myo-pericarditis'. The diagnostic criteria are mainly based on the narrative of the patients. Measurable biomarkers or instrumental findings or clinical events are not yet framed in a shared diagnostic framework. The open question for clinicians and researchers is whether biomarkers, electrocardiogram, non-invasive imaging, and clinical monitoring should be included in a shared diagnostic protocol aimed at defining the diagnostic path and protecting patients at risk of unexpected events.

Return-to-work, disabilities and occupational health in the age of COVID-19

We have read with great interest the two editorials by Burdorf et al: "The COVID-19 pandemic: one year later - an occupational perspective" (1) and "The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic: consequences for occupational health" (2). The authors highlight the importance of the societal consequences of the outbreak and changes in the world of work to manage occupational health. The key points identified - such as individual socio-economic factors, psychological effects and occupations with highest risk of contamination - modify return-to-work approaches. It is estimated that around 800 million people of working age worldwide were living with disabilities before the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. In early January 2021, the cumulative COVID-19 hospitalisation rate reached 207.4/100 000 (18-49-year-olds) and 505.7/100 000 (50-64-year-olds), respectively, in the United States (3). In France, the hospitalisation rate was 411.5/100 000 across all ages (4). A recent cohort study of working-age men who were hospitalised for COVID-19 highlighted the long-term health consequences of such a disease (5). The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic creates new challenges for occupational health, shifting attention away from return-to-work after health problems to resuming work during an outbreak, dealing with lockdown, and taking special account of workers with vulnerabilities (6, 7). We recommend considering three different aspects of occupational medicine during a pandemic. Firstly, for most workers at high-risk of severe COVID-19, the issues of work disability and resuming work had never occurred before the epidemic. Recommendations such as physical and social distancing and wearing a facemask are highly advisable to protect against infection but may not be enough to enable some individuals to resume work. Therefore, decision-making requires individual comprehensive assessments of the underlying medical condition, the SARS-CoV-2 contamination risk associated with either regular work or teleworking, and vaccination opportunities. The second situation concerns workers who have suffered from COVID-19. Preliminary studies suggest that long recovery duration is related to high severity (7), but this is still a matter of debate for patients suffering from "long COVID-19" (5, 8, 9), a condition for which the long-term effects remain unknown. Any long-running recovery must be considered to be a potential sign of long COVID-19. These long-lasting syndromes occur among patients with severe symptoms but have also been reported independently of acute phase severity, hospitalisation and receiving medical oxygen (8, 9). Researchers worldwide are currently investigating such syndromes. Strategies promoting return to work for these workers will need to be implemented and could be similar to programmes developed for other chronic conditions. Moreover, numerous more serious sequelae following critical illness suggest the need for enhanced support by rehabilitation and occupational health specialists. Finally, the consequences of the epidemic must be evaluated over time for people who suffered from functional limitations before COVID-19 as their physical and mental condition may be modified by the epidemic and, specifically, the consequences of lockdown (10). In all of these situations, medical, social, financial and working contexts are key elements. In addition to a medical assessment, the use of scales such as the Work Ability Index (WAI) (11) or the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) (12) can help perform long-term follow-up and provide information about work capacity and workload. It also gives a "back to basics" perspective, urging politicians to move towards a `decent-work-for-all` policy, as advocated by the United Nation`s Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 8, which the WHO has endorsed (13). References 1. Burdorf A, Porru F, Rugulies R. The COVID-19 pandemic: one year later - an occupational perspective. Scand J Work Environ Health - online first. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3956 2. Burdorf A, Porru F, Rugulies R. The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic: consequences for occupational health. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2020;46(3):229-230. https://doi:org/10.5271/sjweh.3893. 3. COVID-19 Hospitalizations [Internet]. Available from: https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/COVIDNet/COVID19_3.html 4. COVID-19 in France, vaccine and allergy management in occupational setting. Descatha A et al. Arch Mal Prof Environ 2021. Accepted for publication. 5. Huang C, Huang L, Wang Y, Li X, Ren L, Gu X, et al. 6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study. Lancet 2021;397(10270):220-32 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32656-8 6. Shaw WS, Main CJ, Findley PA, Collie A, Kristman VL, Gross DP. Opening the Workplace After COVID-19: What Lessons Can be Learned from Return-to-Work Research? J Occup Rehabil. 2020;30(3):299-302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-020-09908-9 7. Taylor T, Das R, Mueller K, Pransky G, Christian J, Orford R, et al. Safely Returning America to Work: Part I: General Guidance for Employers. J Occup Environ Med. 2020;62(9):771-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000001984 8. Carfì A, Bernabei R, Landi F, Gemelli Against COVID-19 Post-Acute Care Study Group. Persistent Symptoms in Patients After Acute COVID-19. JAMA. 2020;324(6):603-5. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.12603 9. Tenforde MW, Kim SS, Lindsell CJ, Billig Rose E, Shapiro NI, Files DC, et al. Symptom Duration and Risk Factors for Delayed Return to Usual Health Among Outpatients with COVID-19 in a Multistate Health Care Systems Network - United States, March-June 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly. 2020;69(30):993-8. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6930e1 10. Chudasama YV, Gillies CL, Zaccardi F, Coles B, Davies MJ, Seidu S, et al. Impact of COVID-19 on routine care for chronic diseases: A global survey of views from healthcare professionals. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2020;14(5):965-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsx.2020.06.042 11. Tuomi K. Eleven-year follow-up of aging workers. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1997;23(1):1-71. 12. Reilly MC, Zbrozek AS, Dukes EM. The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument. PharmacoEconomics. 1993;4(5):353-65. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199304050-00006 13. Organization WH. Health in the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Sixty-Ninth World Health Assembly. Document A. 2016, p69.

Return-to-work, disabilities and occupational health in the age of COVID-19

We have read with great interest the two editorials by Burdorf et al: "The COVID-19 pandemic: one year later - an occupational perspective" (1) and "The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic: consequences for occupational health" (2). The authors highlight the importance of the societal consequences of the outbreak and changes in the world of work to manage occupational health. The key points identified - such as individual socio-economic factors, psychological effects and occupations with highest risk of contamination - modify return-to-work approaches. It is estimated that around 800 million people of working age worldwide were living with disabilities before the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. In early January 2021, the cumulative COVID-19 hospitalisation rate reached 207.4/100 000 (18-49-year-olds) and 505.7/100 000 (50-64-year-olds), respectively, in the United States (3). In France, the hospitalisation rate was 411.5/100 000 across all ages (4). A recent cohort study of working-age men who were hospitalised for COVID-19 highlighted the long-term health consequences of such a disease (5). The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic creates new challenges for occupational health, shifting attention away from return-to-work after health problems to resuming work during an outbreak, dealing with lockdown, and taking special account of workers with vulnerabilities (6, 7). We recommend considering three different aspects of occupational medicine during a pandemic. Firstly, for most workers at high-risk of severe COVID-19, the issues of work disability and resuming work had never occurred before the epidemic. Recommendations such as physical and social distancing and wearing a facemask are highly advisable to protect against infection but may not be enough to enable some individuals to resume work. Therefore, decision-making requires individual comprehensive assessments of the underlying medical condition, the SARS-CoV-2 contamination risk associated with either regular work or teleworking, and vaccination opportunities. The second situation concerns workers who have suffered from COVID-19. Preliminary studies suggest that long recovery duration is related to high severity (7), but this is still a matter of debate for patients suffering from "long COVID-19" (5, 8, 9), a condition for which the long-term effects remain unknown. Any long-running recovery must be considered to be a potential sign of long COVID-19. These long-lasting syndromes occur among patients with severe symptoms but have also been reported independently of acute phase severity, hospitalisation and receiving medical oxygen (8, 9). Researchers worldwide are currently investigating such syndromes. Strategies promoting return to work for these workers will need to be implemented and could be similar to programmes developed for other chronic conditions. Moreover, numerous more serious sequelae following critical illness suggest the need for enhanced support by rehabilitation and occupational health specialists. Finally, the consequences of the epidemic must be evaluated over time for people who suffered from functional limitations before COVID-19 as their physical and mental condition may be modified by the epidemic and, specifically, the consequences of lockdown (10). In all of these situations, medical, social, financial and working contexts are key elements. In addition to a medical assessment, the use of scales such as the Work Ability Index (WAI) (11) or the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) (12) can help perform long-term follow-up and provide information about work capacity and workload. It also gives a "back to basics" perspective, urging politicians to move towards a `decent-work-for-all` policy, as advocated by the United Nation`s Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 8, which the WHO has endorsed (13). References 1. Burdorf A, Porru F, Rugulies R. The COVID-19 pandemic: one year later - an occupational perspective. Scand J Work Environ Health - online first. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3956 2. Burdorf A, Porru F, Rugulies R. The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic: consequences for occupational health. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2020;46(3):229-230. https://doi:org/10.5271/sjweh.3893. 3. COVID-19 Hospitalizations [Internet]. Available from: https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/COVIDNet/COVID19_3.html 4. COVID-19 in France, vaccine and allergy management in occupational setting. Descatha A et al. Arch Mal Prof Environ 2021. Accepted for publication. 5. Huang C, Huang L, Wang Y, Li X, Ren L, Gu X, et al. 6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study. Lancet 2021;397(10270):220-32 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32656-8 6. Shaw WS, Main CJ, Findley PA, Collie A, Kristman VL, Gross DP. Opening the Workplace After COVID-19: What Lessons Can be Learned from Return-to-Work Research? J Occup Rehabil. 2020;30(3):299-302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-020-09908-9 7. Taylor T, Das R, Mueller K, Pransky G, Christian J, Orford R, et al. Safely Returning America to Work: Part I: General Guidance for Employers. J Occup Environ Med. 2020;62(9):771-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000001984 8. Carfì A, Bernabei R, Landi F, Gemelli Against COVID-19 Post-Acute Care Study Group. Persistent Symptoms in Patients After Acute COVID-19. JAMA. 2020;324(6):603-5. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.12603 9. Tenforde MW, Kim SS, Lindsell CJ, Billig Rose E, Shapiro NI, Files DC, et al. Symptom Duration and Risk Factors for Delayed Return to Usual Health Among Outpatients with COVID-19 in a Multistate Health Care Systems Network - United States, March-June 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly. 2020;69(30):993-8. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6930e1 10. Chudasama YV, Gillies CL, Zaccardi F, Coles B, Davies MJ, Seidu S, et al. Impact of COVID-19 on routine care for chronic diseases: A global survey of views from healthcare professionals. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2020;14(5):965-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsx.2020.06.042 11. Tuomi K. Eleven-year follow-up of aging workers. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1997;23(1):1-71. 12. Reilly MC, Zbrozek AS, Dukes EM. The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument. PharmacoEconomics. 1993;4(5):353-65. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199304050-00006 13. Organization WH. Health in the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Sixty-Ninth World Health Assembly. Document A. 2016, p69.

Return-to-work, disabilities and occupational health in the age of COVID-19

We have read with great interest the two editorials by Burdorf et al: "The COVID-19 pandemic: one year later - an occupational perspective" (1) and "The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic: consequences for occupational health" (2). The authors highlight the importance of the societal consequences of the outbreak and changes in the world of work to manage occupational health. The key points identified - such as individual socio-economic factors, psychological effects and occupations with highest risk of contamination - modify return-to-work approaches. It is estimated that around 800 million people of working age worldwide were living with disabilities before the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. In early January 2021, the cumulative COVID-19 hospitalisation rate reached 207.4/100 000 (18-49-year-olds) and 505.7/100 000 (50-64-year-olds), respectively, in the United States (3). In France, the hospitalisation rate was 411.5/100 000 across all ages (4). A recent cohort study of working-age men who were hospitalised for COVID-19 highlighted the long-term health consequences of such a disease (5). The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic creates new challenges for occupational health, shifting attention away from return-to-work after health problems to resuming work during an outbreak, dealing with lockdown, and taking special account of workers with vulnerabilities (6, 7). We recommend considering three different aspects of occupational medicine during a pandemic. Firstly, for most workers at high-risk of severe COVID-19, the issues of work disability and resuming work had never occurred before the epidemic. Recommendations such as physical and social distancing and wearing a facemask are highly advisable to protect against infection but may not be enough to enable some individuals to resume work. Therefore, decision-making requires individual comprehensive assessments of the underlying medical condition, the SARS-CoV-2 contamination risk associated with either regular work or teleworking, and vaccination opportunities. The second situation concerns workers who have suffered from COVID-19. Preliminary studies suggest that long recovery duration is related to high severity (7), but this is still a matter of debate for patients suffering from "long COVID-19" (5, 8, 9), a condition for which the long-term effects remain unknown. Any long-running recovery must be considered to be a potential sign of long COVID-19. These long-lasting syndromes occur among patients with severe symptoms but have also been reported independently of acute phase severity, hospitalisation and receiving medical oxygen (8, 9). Researchers worldwide are currently investigating such syndromes. Strategies promoting return to work for these workers will need to be implemented and could be similar to programmes developed for other chronic conditions. Moreover, numerous more serious sequelae following critical illness suggest the need for enhanced support by rehabilitation and occupational health specialists. Finally, the consequences of the epidemic must be evaluated over time for people who suffered from functional limitations before COVID-19 as their physical and mental condition may be modified by the epidemic and, specifically, the consequences of lockdown (10). In all of these situations, medical, social, financial and working contexts are key elements. In addition to a medical assessment, the use of scales such as the Work Ability Index (WAI) (11) or the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) (12) can help perform long-term follow-up and provide information about work capacity and workload. It also gives a "back to basics" perspective, urging politicians to move towards a `decent-work-for-all` policy, as advocated by the United Nation`s Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 8, which the WHO has endorsed (13). References 1. Burdorf A, Porru F, Rugulies R. The COVID-19 pandemic: one year later - an occupational perspective. Scand J Work Environ Health - online first. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3956 2. Burdorf A, Porru F, Rugulies R. The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic: consequences for occupational health. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2020;46(3):229-230. https://doi:org/10.5271/sjweh.3893. 3. COVID-19 Hospitalizations [Internet]. Available from: https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/COVIDNet/COVID19_3.html 4. COVID-19 in France, vaccine and allergy management in occupational setting. Descatha A et al. Arch Mal Prof Environ 2021. Accepted for publication. 5. Huang C, Huang L, Wang Y, Li X, Ren L, Gu X, et al. 6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study. Lancet 2021;397(10270):220-32 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32656-8 6. Shaw WS, Main CJ, Findley PA, Collie A, Kristman VL, Gross DP. Opening the Workplace After COVID-19: What Lessons Can be Learned from Return-to-Work Research? J Occup Rehabil. 2020;30(3):299-302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-020-09908-9 7. Taylor T, Das R, Mueller K, Pransky G, Christian J, Orford R, et al. Safely Returning America to Work: Part I: General Guidance for Employers. J Occup Environ Med. 2020;62(9):771-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000001984 8. Carfì A, Bernabei R, Landi F, Gemelli Against COVID-19 Post-Acute Care Study Group. Persistent Symptoms in Patients After Acute COVID-19. JAMA. 2020;324(6):603-5. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.12603 9. Tenforde MW, Kim SS, Lindsell CJ, Billig Rose E, Shapiro NI, Files DC, et al. Symptom Duration and Risk Factors for Delayed Return to Usual Health Among Outpatients with COVID-19 in a Multistate Health Care Systems Network - United States, March-June 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly. 2020;69(30):993-8. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6930e1 10. Chudasama YV, Gillies CL, Zaccardi F, Coles B, Davies MJ, Seidu S, et al. Impact of COVID-19 on routine care for chronic diseases: A global survey of views from healthcare professionals. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2020;14(5):965-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsx.2020.06.042 11. Tuomi K. Eleven-year follow-up of aging workers. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1997;23(1):1-71. 12. Reilly MC, Zbrozek AS, Dukes EM. The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument. PharmacoEconomics. 1993;4(5):353-65. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199304050-00006 13. Organization WH. Health in the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Sixty-Ninth World Health Assembly. Document A. 2016, p69.

An Umbrella Review of the Work and Health Impacts of Working in an Epidemic/Pandemic Environment

This umbrella review of reviews examined the evidence on the work and health impacts of working in an epidemic/pandemic environment, factors associated with these impacts, and risk mitigation or intervention strategies that address these factors. We examined review articles published in MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Embase between 2000 and 2020. Data extracted from the included reviews were analyzed using a narrative synthesis. The search yielded 1524 unique citations, of which 31 were included. Included studies were focused on health care workers and the risk of infection to COVID-19 or other respiratory illnesses, mental health outcomes, and health care workers' willingness to respond during a public health event. Reviews identified a variety of individual, social, and organizational factors associated with these work and health outcomes as well as risk mitigation strategies that addressed study outcomes. Only a few reviews examined intervention strategies in the workplace such as physical distancing and quarantine, and none included long-term outcomes of exposure or work during an epidemic/pandemic. Findings suggest a number of critical research and evidence gaps, including the need for reviews on occupational groups potentially exposed to or impacted by the negative work and health effects of COVID-19 in addition to health care workers, the long-term consequences of transitioning to the post-COVID-19 economy on work and health, and research with an equity or social determinants of health lens.

Beyond a Zero-Sum Game: How Does the Impact of COVID-19 Vary by Gender?

Epidemics and pandemics, like COVID-19, are not gender neutral. Much of the current work on gender, sex, and COVID-19, however, has seemed implicitly or explicitly to be attempting to demonstrate that either men or women have been hardest hit, treating differences between women and men as though it is not important to understand how each group is affected by the virus. This approach often leaves out the effect on gender and sexual minorities entirely. Believing that a more nuanced approach is needed now and for the future, we brought together a group of gender experts to answer the question: how are people of different genders impacted by COVID-19 and why? Individuals working in women's, men's, and LGBTQ health and wellbeing wrote sections to lay out the different ways that women, men, and gender and sexual minorities are affected by COVID-19. We demonstrate that there is not one group "most affected," but that many groups are affected, and we need to move beyond a zero-sum game and engage in ways to mutually identify and support marginalized groups.