Expanding Paid Sick Leave as a Public Health Tool in the Covid-19 Pandemic

Time of leaving work pregnancy results during COVID-19 pandemic. The MOACC-19 cohort from Spain

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way pregnancies have been controlled as well as working conditions. In countries with paid leave of work, leaving earlier has been a relevant measure for controlling the pandemic. No study has been published on factors associated with earlier leaving work in pregnancy and the consequences it could have on pregnancy outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to identify woman and pregnancy characteristics associated with leaving work earlier and its consequences on pregnancy results.

METHOD

A cohort study was carried out in Cantabria, Northern Spain, including 760 women who were pregnant in 2020 and were working at the beginning of their pregnancy. Data on pregnancy characteristics and results were obtained from medical records and gestational age at leaving work was self-reported. In a logistic regression analysis, leaving work before 26th week of pregnancy was the main effect variable.

RESULTS

Several factors were associated with lower probability of leaving work before 26th week, including university studies (OR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.36, 0.68), having presential work (OR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.40, 0.81), women born in non-European countries (OR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.30, 1.01) and non-smokers (OR for smokers = 1.79, 95% CI: 1.12, 2.87). Neither type of delivery, gestational age at delivery nor other pregnancy results were associated with the gestational age of leaving work.

CONCLUSION

Several pregnancy and women characteristics were associated with leaving work earlier in the COVID-19 pandemic, although it was not associated with any pregnancy outcome.

"What's going on?" Racism, COVID-19, and centering the voices of Black youth

This study examined the impact of COVID-19 stress and experiences of racism on COVID-19 adaptability and activism among Black youth. The protective role of perceived peer and adult social support were examined. Data were analyzed from 123 Black youth (M_age  = 15.44, 63% girls) from a school district in the Midwest. The findings revealed that more social support from adults increased Black youth adaptability (e.g., "ability to think through possible options to assist in the COVID-19 pandemic"). Perceived lower social support from adults predicted higher engagement in high-risk activism, and higher levels of peer social support were associated with higher levels of high-risk activism. Further, Black youth reporting higher levels of racism and adult social support were more likely to report higher levels of COVID-19 adaptability. Black youth reporting higher racism and peer social support engaged in high-risk activism. Black youth who reported high levels of racism and low perceived adult social support reported higher engagement in high-risk activism. Research and practice implications that support Black youth during the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact of racism and COVID-19 stress on well-being and activism are discussed.

Global work in a rapidly changing world: Implications for MNEs and individuals

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a great “reset” and has challenged many assumptions about work and life in general. Our focus in this paper is on the future of global work in the context of multinational enterprises (MNEs). We take a phenomenon-based approach to describe the important trends and challenges affecting the where, who, how and why of global work. As we highlight implications for organizations and individuals, we offer a set of research questions to guide future research and inform IHRM practitioners.

Vaccines alone will not prevent COVID-19 outbreaks among migrant workers-the example of meat processing plants

BACKGROUND

Migrant populations in high-income countries have faced myriad health and social inequities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Migrants often work in frontline essential services that expose them to COVID-19. Migrant workers in meat processing plants have endured large COVID-19 outbreaks across multiple countries.

OBJECTIVES

We examine current scientific evidence around COVID-19 transmission, outcomes, and prevention for migrant workers and highlight meat processing plants as an example.

SOURCES

We performed a series of PubMed searches between January 1, 2020 and January 12, 2022.

CONTENT

Migrant workers in high-income countries often work in occupations at high risk for COVID-19 transmission, contract COVID-19 at higher rates, and experience worse outcomes than native-born counterparts. For example, meat processing plants represent almost ideal environments for rapid and large-scale SARS-CoV-2 viral transmission; often, large migrant workforces confined to small workspaces perform physically demanding work in noisy environments that require shouting to communicate, increasing workers' respiratory rates and the quantity of aerosolized droplets expelled and thus increasing viral transmission risk. Although enhanced vaccination outreach programs remain an important equity approach for migrant worker safety, they alone are insufficient. The emergence and rapid spread of multiple increasingly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern with variable vaccine escape properties, including Omicron in November 2021, highlight the importance of improved infection prevention and control strategies to protect migrant workers. Across countries, strategies such as improving ventilation and mask quality in many high-risk occupational settings are already required by employment law. Universal mandatory vaccination program should also be considered.

IMPLICATIONS

COVID-19 transmission prevention for migrant workers requires an aggressive multicomponent plan that includes (a) improved on-site ventilation and infection prevention and control strategies; (b) improved social supports such as paid sick leave; (c) mobile vaccination clinics and community engagement to overcome vaccine hesitancy and barriers; and (d) consideration of universal mandatory vaccination programs.

Looking back and moving forward: Addressing health inequities after COVID-19

We will likely look back on 2020 as a turning point. The pandemic put a spotlight on existing societal issues, accelerated the pace of change in others, and created some new ones too. For example, concerns about inequalities in health by income and race are not new, but they became more apparent to a larger number of people during 2020. The speed and starkness of broadening societal conversation, including beyond the direct effects of COVID-19, create an opportunity and motivation to reassess our understanding of health. Perhaps more importantly, it is an opportunity to reduce inequities in who has access to, who uses, and who benefits from the resources that promote health and well-being. To this end, we offer three questions to guide thinking about health and health inequities after 2020: (1) what do we mean by "health" and "health inequality and inequity"? (2) what are the structures and policies we put in place to support or promote health, and how effective are they? And (3) who has the power to shape structures and policies, and whose interests do those structures and policies serve?

Twenty Important Research Questions in Microbial Exposure and Social Equity

Social and political policy, human activities, and environmental change affect the ways in which microbial communities assemble and interact with people. These factors determine how different social groups are exposed to beneficial and/or harmful microorganisms, meaning microbial exposure has an important socioecological justice context. Therefore, greater consideration of microbial exposure and social equity in research, planning, and policy is imperative. Here, we identify 20 research questions considered fundamentally important to promoting equitable exposure to beneficial microorganisms, along with safeguarding resilient societies and ecosystems. The 20 research questions we identified span seven broad themes, including the following: (i) sociocultural interactions; (ii) Indigenous community health and well-being; (iii) humans, urban ecosystems, and environmental processes; (iv) human psychology and mental health; (v) microbiomes and infectious diseases; (vi) human health and food security; and (vii) microbiome-related planning, policy, and outreach. Our goal was to summarize this growing field and to stimulate impactful research avenues while providing focus for funders and policymakers.

The Distance Between Us: the COVID-19 Pandemic's Effects on Burnout Among Resident Physicians

Entering the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic, we reflect on how this public health crisis has amplified burnout in the medical profession. In particular, the pandemic has had a significant impact on medical residents. Recognizing trainee burnout as a side effect of the pandemic is crucial and highlights the need for programmatic change to support medical trainees. We reviewed the literature and propose multiple interventions to improve trainee well-being, targeting individual, peer-to-peer, and system levels. The pandemic has highlighted the importance of institutional support for medical trainees to prevent burnout and protect the pipeline of future physicians.

Racial and ethnic disparity in clinical outcomes among patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection in a large US electronic health record database

BACKGROUND

Racial and ethnic minority groups have been disproportionately affected by the US coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic; however, nationwide data on COVID-19 outcomes stratified by race/ethnicity and adjusted for clinical characteristics are sparse. This study analyzed the impacts of race/ethnicity on outcomes among US patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study of patients with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis in the electronic health record from 01 February 2020 through 14 September 2020. Index encounter site, hospitalization, and mortality were assessed by race/ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black [Black], non-Hispanic White [White], non-Hispanic Asian [Asian], or Other/unknown). Associations between racial/ethnic categories and study outcomes adjusted for patient characteristics were evaluated using logistic regression.

FINDINGS

Among 202,908 patients with confirmed COVID-19, patients from racial/ethnic minority groups were more likely than White patients to be hospitalized on initial presentation (Hispanic: adjusted odds ratio 1·690, 95% CI 1·620-1·763; Black: 1·810, 1·743-1·880; Asian: 1·503, 1·381-1·636) and during follow-up (Hispanic: 1·700, 1·638-1·764; Black: 1·578, 1·526-1·633; Asian: 1·391, 1·288-1·501). Among hospitalized patients, adjusted mortality risk was lower for Black patients (0·881, 0·809-0·959) but higher for Asian patients (1·205, 1·000-1·452).

INTERPRETATION

Racial/ethnic minority patients with COVID-19 had more severe disease on initial presentation than White patients. Increased mortality risk was attenuated by hospitalization among Black patients but not Asian patients, indicating that outcome disparities may be mediated by distinct factors for different groups. In addition to enacting policies to facilitate equitable access to COVID-19-related care, further analyses of disaggregated population-level COVID-19 data are needed.

Déterminants individuels et sociaux du test de dépistage du SRAS-CoV-2 et de l’obtention d’un résultat positif en Ontario, au Canada: une étude populationnelle

Contexte:

Optimiser la réponse de la santé publique pour diminuer le fardeau de la COVID-19 nécessite la caractérisation de l’hétérogénéité du risque posé par la maladie à l’échelle de la population. Cependant, l’hétérogénéité du dépistage du SRAS-CoV-2 peut fausser les estimations selon le modèle d’étude analytique utilisé. Notre objectif était d’explorer les biais collisionneurs dans le cadre d’une vaste étude portant sur les déterminants de la maladie et d’évaluer les déterminants individuels, environnementaux et sociaux du dépistage et du diagnostic du SRAS-CoV-2 parmi les résidents de l’Ontario, au Canada.

Méthodes:

Nous avons exploré la présence potentielle de biais collisionneurs et caractérisé les déterminants individuels, environnementaux et sociaux de l’obtention d’un test de dépistage et d’un résultat positif à la présence de l’infection au SRAS-CoV-2 à l’aide d’analyses transversales parmi les 14,7 millions de personnes vivant dans la collectivité en Ontario, au Canada. Parmi les personnes ayant obtenu un diagnostic, nous avons utilisé des études analytiques distinctes afin de comparer les prédicteurs pour les personnes d’obtenir un résultat de test de dépistage positif plutôt que négatif, pour les personnes symptomatiques d’obtenir un résultat de test de dépistage positif plutôt que négatif et pour les personnes d’obtenir un résultat de test de dépistage positif plutôt que de ne pas obtenir un résultat positif (c.-à-d., obtenir un résultat de test de dépistage négatif ou ne pas obtenir de test de dépistage). Nos analyses comprennent des tests de dépistage réalisés entre le 1er mars et le 20 juin 2020.

Résultats:

Sur 14 695 579 personnes, nous avons constaté que 758 691 d’entre elles ont passé un test de dépistage du SRAS-CoV-2, parmi lesquelles 25 030 (3,3 %) ont obtenu un résultat positif. Plus la probabilité d’obtenir un test de dépistage s’éloignait de zéro, plus la variabilité généralement observée dans la probabilité d’un diagnostic était grande parmi les modèles d’études analytiques, particulièrement en ce qui a trait aux facteurs individuels. Nous avons constaté que la variabilité dans l’obtention d’un test de dépistage était moins importante en fonction des déterminants sociaux dans l’ensemble des études analytiques. Les facteurs tels que le fait d’habiter dans une région ayant une plus haute densité des ménages (rapport de cotes corrigé 1,86; intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 % 1,75–1,98), une plus grande proportion de travailleurs essentiels (rapport de cotes corrigé 1,58; IC à 95 % 1,48–1,69), une population atteignant un plus faible niveau de scolarité (rapport de cotes corrigé 1,33; IC à 95 % 1,26–1,41) et une plus grande proportion d’immigrants récents (rapport de cotes corrigé 1,10; IC à 95 % 1,05–1,15), étaient systématiquement corrélés à une probabilité plus importante d’obtenir un diagnostic de SRAS-CoV-2, peu importe le modèle d’étude analytique employé.

Interprétation:

Lorsque la capacité de dépister est limitée, nos résultats suggèrent que les facteurs de risque peuvent être estimés plus adéquatement en utilisant des comparateurs populationnels plutôt que des comparateurs de résultat négatif au test de dépistage. Optimiser la lutte contre la COVID-19 nécessite des investissements dans des interventions structurelles déployées de façon suffisante et adaptées à l’hétérogénéité des déterminants sociaux du risque, dont le surpeuplement des ménages, l’occupation professionnelle et le racisme structurel.

Using the PRAPARE Tool to Examine Those Tested and Testing Positive for COVID-19 at a Community Health Center

The PRAPARE (Protocol for Responding to and Assessing Patients' Assets, Risks, and Experiences) tool is an instrument that has been used to assess social determinants of health within community health centers in the US. We sought to examine the association between PRAPARE scores and getting tested for and testing positive with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. We used medical record data collected from a community health center in the US between March-August 2020. Employing logistic regression analyzes, we explored the association between demographic factors, history of screening positive for depression, and PRAPARE scores and patients' odds of getting tested and testing positive for COVID-19. While variables such as ethnicity mirrored similar findings from other sources, we found the PRAPARE score to be associated with increased odds of being tested for COVID-19; however, it was not significantly associated with testing positive. These findings can help health care workers and health educators craft messages to explain screening protocols for communicable diseases, such as COVID-19, to best reach vulnerable populations.

Paid sick leave benefits among essential frontline workers serving people experiencing homelessness in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic

Objectives

This study examined the prevalence and factors associated with paid sick leave benefits among direct service providers who work with people experiencing homelessness.

Study design

Cross-sectional study using an online survey disseminated during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada.

Methods

Survey data from 572 direct service providers working in the homeless, supportive housing, and harm reduction service sectors were analyzed for this study. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to examine predictors of paid sick leave benefits.

Results

One hundred one (17.7%) participants did not have any paid sick leave benefits. In the univariate models, paid sick leave was associated with older age, greater family income, full-time work, specific employment settings (supportive housing and not emergency shelters or harm reduction programs), having a regular medical doctor, and fewer occupational impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Older age, full-time work, and non-receipt of emergency financial benefits remained statistically significant predictors in the multivariate model.

Conclusions

Although the majority of service providers working with people experiencing homelessness have some amount of paid sick leave benefits, there is a precariously employed subset of individuals who are younger and working part-time in the sector. Temporary expansion of paid sick leave and removal of waiting periods for new employees to qualify for benefits are recommended.

The missing season: The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on influenza

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, many have worried that the additional burden of seasonal influenza would create a devastating scenario, resulting in overwhelmed healthcare capacities and further loss of life. However, many were pleasantly surprised: the 2020 Southern Hemisphere and 2020-2021 Northern Hemisphere influenza seasons were entirely suppressed. The potential causes and impacts of this drastic public health shift are highly uncertain, but provide lessons about future control of respiratory diseases, especially for the upcoming influenza season.

Individual and social determinants of SARS-CoV-2 testing and positivity in Ontario, Canada: a population-wide study

BACKGROUND

Optimizing the public health response to reduce the burden of COVID-19 necessitates characterizing population-level heterogeneity of risks for the disease. However, heterogeneity in SARS-CoV-2 testing may introduce biased estimates depending on analytic design. We aimed to explore the potential for collider bias in a large study of disease determinants, and evaluate individual, environmental and social determinants associated with SARS-CoV-2 testing and diagnosis among residents of Ontario, Canada.

METHODS

We explored the potential for collider bias and characterized individual, environmental and social determinants of being tested and testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection using cross-sectional analyses among 14.7 million community-dwelling people in Ontario, Canada. Among those with a diagnosis, we used separate analytic designs to compare predictors of people testing positive versus negative; symptomatic people testing positive versus testing negative; and people testing positive versus people not testing positive (i.e., testing negative or not being tested). Our analyses included tests conducted between Mar. 1 and June 20, 2020.

RESULTS

Of 14 695 579 people, we found that 758 691 were tested for SARS-CoV-2, of whom 25 030 (3.3%) had a positive test result. The further the odds of testing from the null, the more variability we generally observed in the odds of diagnosis across analytic design, particularly among individual factors. We found that there was less variability in testing by social determinants across analytic designs. Residing in areas with the highest household density (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.75-1.98), highest proportion of essential workers (adjusted OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.48-1.69), lowest educational attainment (adjusted OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.26-1.41) and highest proportion of recent immigrants (adjusted OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05-1.15) were consistently related to increased odds of SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis regardless of analytic design.

INTERPRETATION

Where testing is limited, our results suggest that risk factors may be better estimated using population comparators rather than test-negative comparators. Optimizing COVID-19 responses necessitates investment in and sufficient coverage of structural interventions tailored to heterogeneity in social determinants of risk, including household crowding, occupation and structural racism.

Individual and social determinants of SARS-CoV-2 testing and positivity in Ontario, Canada: a population-wide study

BACKGROUND

Optimizing the public health response to reduce the burden of COVID-19 necessitates characterizing population-level heterogeneity of risks for the disease. However, heterogeneity in SARS-CoV-2 testing may introduce biased estimates depending on analytic design. We aimed to explore the potential for collider bias in a large study of disease determinants, and evaluate individual, environmental and social determinants associated with SARS-CoV-2 testing and diagnosis among residents of Ontario, Canada.

METHODS

We explored the potential for collider bias and characterized individual, environmental and social determinants of being tested and testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection using cross-sectional analyses among 14.7 million community-dwelling people in Ontario, Canada. Among those with a diagnosis, we used separate analytic designs to compare predictors of people testing positive versus negative; symptomatic people testing positive versus testing negative; and people testing positive versus people not testing positive (i.e., testing negative or not being tested). Our analyses included tests conducted between Mar. 1 and June 20, 2020.

RESULTS

Of 14 695 579 people, we found that 758 691 were tested for SARS-CoV-2, of whom 25 030 (3.3%) had a positive test result. The further the odds of testing from the null, the more variability we generally observed in the odds of diagnosis across analytic design, particularly among individual factors. We found that there was less variability in testing by social determinants across analytic designs. Residing in areas with the highest household density (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.75-1.98), highest proportion of essential workers (adjusted OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.48-1.69), lowest educational attainment (adjusted OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.26-1.41) and highest proportion of recent immigrants (adjusted OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05-1.15) were consistently related to increased odds of SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis regardless of analytic design.

INTERPRETATION

Where testing is limited, our results suggest that risk factors may be better estimated using population comparators rather than test-negative comparators. Optimizing COVID-19 responses necessitates investment in and sufficient coverage of structural interventions tailored to heterogeneity in social determinants of risk, including household crowding, occupation and structural racism.

COVID-19, Social Determinants Past, Present, and Future, and African Americans' Health

As the COVID-19 pandemic progresses, more African Americans than whites are falling ill and dying from the virus and more are losing livelihoods from the accompanying recession. The virus thereby exploits structural disadvantages, rooted partly in historical and contemporary anti-Black sentiments, working against African Americans. These include higher rates of comorbid illness and more limited health care access, higher rates of disadvantageous labor market positioning and community and housing conditions, greater exposure to long-term care residence, and higher incarceration rates. COVID-19 also exposes African Americans' greater vulnerability to recession, and possibly greater susceptibility to accompanying behavioral health problems. If they are left unaddressed, the very vulnerabilities COVID-19 exploits may perpetuate themselves. However, continuing and supplementing health and economic COVID mitigation policies can disproportionately benefit African Americans and reduce short- and long-term adverse effects. The greater impact of COVID-19 on African Americans demonstrates the consequences of pervasive social and economic inequality and marks this as a critical time to prevent further compounding of adverse effects.