Ethnic disparities in health & social care workers’ exposure, protection, and clinical management of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK

Discrimination, disadvantage and disempowerment during COVID-19: a qualitative intrasectional analysis of the lived experiences of an ethnically diverse healthcare workforce in the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND

Healthcare workers (HCWs) in the United Kingdom (UK) have faced many challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, some of these arising out of their social positions. Existing literature explicating these challenges (e.g., lack of appropriate PPE, redeployment, understaffing) have highlighted inequities in how these have been experienced by HCWs based on ethnicity, gender or, job role. In this paper, we move a step ahead and examine how the intersection of these social positions have impacted HCWs' experiences of challenges during the pandemic.

METHODS

We collected qualitative data, using interviews and focus groups, from 164 HCWs from different ethnicities, gender, job roles, migration statuses, and regions in the United Kingdom (UK) between December 2020 and July 2021. Interviews and focus groups were conducted online or by telephone, and recorded with participants' permission. Recordings were transcribed and a hybrid thematic analytical approach integrating inductive data-driven codes with deductive ones informed by an intersectional framework was adopted to analyse the transcripts.

RESULTS

Thematic analysis of transcripts identified disempowerment, disadvantage and, discrimination as the three main themes around which HCWs' experiences of challenges were centred, based on their intersecting identities (e.g., ethnicity gender, and/or migration status). Our analysis also acknowledges that disadvantages faced by HCWs were linked to systemic and structural factors at the micro, meso and macro ecosystemic levels. This merging of analysis which is grounded in intersectionality and considers the ecosystemic levels has been termed as 'intrasectionalism'.

DISCUSSION

Our research demonstrates how an intrasectional lens can help better understand how different forms of mutually reinforcing inequities exist at all levels within the healthcare workforce and how these impact HCWs from certain backgrounds who face greater disadvantage, discrimination and disempowerment, particularly during times of crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Intersectionality in nursing research: A scoping review

Background

An intersectional approach to health research provides an analytical foundation to explain the multidimensionality of health status, resource accessibility, privilege, oppression, and current and historical context. The use of intersectionality in health research has known limitations. Its use in health-related fields too often focuses on outcomes, such as health disparities, rather than processes, such as power structures and social determinants.

Objective

This scoping review serves to examine how intersectionality has been implemented by nurses in the peer-reviewed literature. We offer insight into how it may be incorporated to inform future nursing research and healthcare provision.

Design & Methods

Systematic searches of PubMed (n = 257), SCOPUS (n = 807), EMBASE (n = 396), CINAHL (n = 224), and Health Source: Nursing and Academics (n = 491), published since the seminal publication on intersectionality (1989 - 2023), identified 131 research articles that met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data extraction and synthesis were used to describe the breadth and depth of the literature specific to the application of intersectionality in nursing research.

Results

The included studies used intersectionality to examine the intersections of numerous identities, such as race, gender, and immigration status. However, most studies were descriptive/observational in nature, underreported their methods, and conducted deficit-based research instead of strength-based inquiries. Of note, the vast majority of included articles were published within the last five years.

Conclusions

Future researchers using intersectionality as a framework can improve their approach by reporting clear definitions and operationalization of intersectionality. Observational science dominated the included studies; future research should focus on intervention development and evaluation using an intersectional lens. Lastly, caution should be placed on research that focuses solely on deficits among marginalized communities, which places scientists at risk of perpetuating stereotypes or enhancing already-existing stigmas.

Pandemic preparedness with 20/20 vision: Applying an intersectional equity lens to health workforce planning

Human resource for health (HRH) is considered critical for achieving Universal Health Coverage, and the crisis surrounding HRH is now established as a global emergency. Their vital role has been central in the pandemic response. Yet, the discussions and deliberations on the recent pandemic treaty circumscribe HRH discussions to their capacities and protection, and address discrimination mainly in relation to gender. While this paper endorses the case for prioritisation of HRH in global pandemic preparedness planning, it re-frames the HRH crisis in relation to the institutional and structural factors driving HRH shortage, maldistribution and skills-needs misalignment. We critique the supply-and-demand framing of HRH crisis as one that obliviates the systematic inequalities within health systems that underpin health workforce motivations, distribution, satisfaction and performance. We propose an intersectional equity lens to redefine the HRH challenges, understand their underlying drivers and accordingly integrate in the global pandemic preparedness plans.

Risk and protective factors for severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among healthcare workers: A test-negative case-control study in Québec, Canada

OBJECTIVES

In Québec, Canada, we evaluated the risk of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection associated with (1) the demographic and employment characteristics among healthcare workers (HCWs) and (2) the workplace and household exposures and the infection prevention and control (IPC) measures among patient-facing HCWs.

DESIGN

Test-negative case-control study.

SETTING

Provincial health system.

PARTICIPANTS

HCWs with PCR-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosed between November 15, 2020, and May 29, 2021 (ie, cases), were compared to HCWs with compatible symptoms who tested negative during the same period (ie, controls).

METHODS

Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of infection were estimated using regression logistic models evaluating demographic and employment characteristics (all 4,919 cases and 4,803 controls) or household and workplace exposures and IPC measures (2,046 patient-facing cases and 1,362 controls).

RESULTS

COVID-19 risk was associated with working as housekeeping staff (aOR, 3.6), as a patient-support assistant (aOR, 1.9), and as nursing staff (aOR, 1.4), compared to administrative staff. Other risk factors included being unexperienced (aOR, 1.5) and working in private seniors' homes (aOR, 2.1) or long-term care facilities (aOR, 1.5), compared to acute-care hospitals. Among patient-facing HCWs, exposure to a household contact was reported by 9% of cases and was associated with the highest risk of infection (aOR, 7.8). Most infections were likely attributable to more frequent exposure to infected patients (aOR, 2.7) and coworkers (aOR, 2.2). Wearing an N95 respirator during contacts with COVID-19 patients (aOR, 0.7) and vaccination (aOR, 0.2) were the measures associated with risk reduction.

CONCLUSION

In the context of the everchanging SARS-CoV-2 virus with increasing transmissibility, measures to ensure HCW protection, including vaccination and respiratory protection, and patient safety will require ongoing evaluation.

Occupational role and COVID-19 among foreign-born healthcare workers in Sweden: a registry-based study

BACKGROUND

Many studies report that foreign-born healthcare workers (HCWs) in high-income countries have an elevated risk of COVID-19. However, research has not yet specifically evaluated the distribution of COVID-19 among foreign-born workers in different healthcare work groups. We examined the risk of COVID-19 infection and hospitalization among foreign-born HCWs in different occupational roles in Sweden.

METHODS

We linked occupational data (2019) of 783 950 employed foreign-born workers (20-65 years) to COVID-19 data registered between 1 January 2020 and 30 September 2021. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) of COVID-19 infection and hospitalization in eight healthcare occupational groups vs. non-HCWs and assessed whether region of birth modified the association between healthcare occupations and COVID-19.

RESULTS

All HCWs had a higher risk of COVID-19 outcomes than non-HCWs, but the risk differed by occupational role. Hospital-based assistant nurses had the highest risk (infection: HR 1.78; 95% CI 1.72-1.85; hospitalization: HR 1.79; 95% CI 1.52-2.11); allied HCWs had the lowest risk (infection: HR 1.22; 95% CI 1.10-1.35; hospitalization: HR 0.98; 95% CI 0.59-1.63). The relative hazard of the outcomes varied across foreign-born workers from different regions. For example, the relative risk of COVID-19 infection associated with being a physician compared to a non-HCW was 31% higher for African-born than European-born workers.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of COVID-19 among foreign-born HCWs differed by occupational role and immigrant background. Public health efforts that target occupational exposures as well as incorporate culturally responsive measures may help reduce COVID-19 risk among foreign-born HCWs.