A Physician's Guide for Workers' Return to Work During COVID-19 Pandemic

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Factors influencing medium- and long-term occupational impact following COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Significant numbers of individuals struggle to return to work following acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The UK Military developed an integrated medical and occupational pathway (Defence COVID-19 Recovery Service, DCRS) to ensure safe return to work for those with initially severe disease or persistent COVID-19 sequalae. Medical deployment status (MDS) is used to determine ability to perform job role without restriction ('fully deployable', FD) or with limitations ('medically downgraded', MDG).

AIMS

To identify which variables differ between those who are FD and MDG 6 months after acute COVID-19. Within the downgraded cohort, a secondary aim is to understand which early factors are associated with persistent downgrading at 12 and 18 months.

METHODS

Individuals undergoing DCRS had comprehensive clinical assessment. Following this, their electronic medical records were reviewed and MDS extracted at 6, 12 and 18 months. Fifty-seven predictors taken from DCRS were analysed. Associations were sought between initial and prolonged MDG.

RESULTS

Three hundred and twenty-five participants were screened, with 222 included in the initial analysis. Those who were initially downgraded were more likely to have post-acute shortness of breath (SoB), fatigue and exercise intolerance (objective and subjective), cognitive impairment and report mental health symptoms. The presence of fatigue and SoB, cognitive impairment and mental health symptoms was associated with MDG at 12 months, and the latter two, at 18 months. There were also modest associations between cardiopulmonary function and sustained downgrading.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding the factors that are associated with initial and sustained inability to return to work allows individualized, targeted interventions to be utilized.

Ethical leadership supports safety voice by increasing risk perception and reducing ethical ambiguity: Evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic

Misconduct by business and political leaders during the pandemic is feared to have impacted people's adherence to protective measures that would help to safeguard against the spread of COVID-19. Addressing this concern, this article theorizes and tests a model linking ethical leadership with workplace risk communication-a practice referred to as 'safety voice' in the research literature. Our study, conducted with 511 employees from UK companies, revealed that ethical leadership is positively associated with greater intention to engage in safety voice regarding COVID-19. We also find that this association is mediated by relations with the perceived health risk of COVID-19 and ambiguity about ethical decision making in the workplace. These findings therefore underscore the importance of good ethical conduct by leaders for ensuring that health and safety risks are well understood and communicated effectively by organizational members particularly during crises. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of our study and highlight further opportunities for future research to address the ethical dimensions of leadership, risk management, and organizational risk communication.

Lessons Learned from the COVID-19 Pandemic and How Blood Operators Can Prepare for the Next Pandemic

Humans interact with virus-infected animal hosts, travel globally, and maintain social networks that allow for novel viruses to emerge and develop pandemic potential. There are key lessons-learned from the coronavirus diseases 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic that blood operators can apply to the next pandemic. Warning signals to the COVID-19 pandemic included outbreaks of Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus-1 (SARS-CoV-1) and Middle East respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus (MERS-CoV) in the prior two decades. It will be critical to quickly determine whether there is a risk of blood-borne transmission of a new pandemic virus. Prior to the next pandemic blood operators should be prepared for changes in activities, policies, and procedures at all levels of the organization. Blood operators can utilize "Plan-Do-Study-Act" cycles spanning from: vigilance for emerging viruses, surveillance activities and studies, operational continuity, donor engagement and trust, and laboratory testing if required. Occupational health and donor safety issues will be key areas of focus even if the next pandemic virus is not transfusion transmitted. Blood operators may also be requested to engage in new activities such as the development of therapeutics or supporting public health surveillance activities. Activities such as scenario development, tabletop exercises, and drills will allow blood operators to prepare for the unknowns of the next pandemic.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of interventions in non-healthcare-related workplaces to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection relative to other interventions, or no intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS), Clinicaltrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to 14 September 2021. We will conduct an update of this review in six months.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

Elimination of exposure interventions We included one study examining an intervention that focused on elimination of hazards. This study is an open-label, cluster-randomised, non-inferiority trial, conducted in England in 2021. The study compared standard 10-day self-isolation after contact with an infected person to a new strategy of daily rapid antigen testing and staying at work if the test is negative (test-based attendance). The trialists hypothesised that this would lead to a similar rate of infections, but lower COVID-related absence. Staff (N = 11,798) working at 76 schools were assigned to standard isolation, and staff (N = 12,229) at 86 schools to the test-based attendance strategy.  The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of symptomatic PCR-positive SARS-COV-2 infection rate ratio ((RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 2.21; 1 study, very low-certainty evidence)). The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of any PCR-positive SARS-COV-2 infection (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.21; 1 study, very low-certainty evidence). COVID-related absenteeism rates were 3704 absence days in 566,502 days-at-risk (6.5 per 1000 days at risk) in the control group and 2932 per 539,805 days-at-risk (5.4 per 1000 days at risk) in the intervention group (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25). The certainty of the evidence was downgraded to low, due to imprecision. Uptake of the intervention was 71 % in the intervention group, but not reported for the control intervention.  The trial did not measure other outcomes, SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, all-cause mortality, quality of life, and hospitalisation. We found one ongoing RCT about screening in schools, using elimination of hazard strategies. Personal protective equipment We found one ongoing non-randomised study on the effects of closed face shields to prevent COVID-19 transmission. Other intervention categories We did not find studies in the other intervention categories.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

COVID-19 infection and the broader impacts of the pandemic on healthcare workers

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) disease or COVID-19 pandemic is associated with more than 230 million cases and has challenged healthcare systems globally. Many healthcare workers (HCWs) have acquired the infection, often through their workplace, with a significant number dying. The epidemiology of COVID-19 infection in HCWs continues to be explored, with manifold exposure risks identified, leading to COVID-19 being recognised as an occupational disease for HCWs. The physical illness due to COVID-19 in HCWs is similar to the general population, with some HCWs experiencing a long-term illness, which may impact their ability to return to work. HCWs have also been affected by the immense workplace and psychosocial disruption caused by the pandemic. The impacts on the psychological well-being of HCWs globally have been profound, with high prevalence estimates for mental health symptoms, including emotional exhaustion. Globally, governments, healthcare organisations and employers have key responsibilities, including: to be better prepared for crises with comprehensive disaster response management plans, and to protect and preserve the health workforce from the physical and psychological impacts of the pandemic. While prioritising HCWs in vaccine rollouts globally has been critical, managing exposures and outbreaks occurring in healthcare settings remains challenging and continues to lead to substantial disruption to the health workforce. Safeguarding healthcare workforces during crises is critical as we move forward on the new path of 'COVID normal'.

Seroprevalence of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies among Municipal Staff in the Municipality of Prishtina

BACKGROUND

Some studies have assessed the seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in different populations. Very few studies have explored seroprevalence in municipal workers, an important and potentially high-risk population. This study aims to determine the prevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in municipal workers, with the additional examination of the association of prevalence with various demographic, health-related, and epidemiological factors.

METHODS

We surveyed and tested for seroprevalence 418 public servants from the municipality of Prishtina, the capital of Kosovo. The primary prespecified outcome was the seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, IgG, and IgM. Additional outcomes were crude and adjusted odds ratios of seroprevalence by different factors.

RESULTS

21.1% of municipal workers tested positive for either IgM or IgG. Of these, 9.6% were positive for IgM and 19.4% for IgG. Data showed high levels of adherence to protective measures, e.g., social distancing in the office, but calculation of ORs did not show a significant difference between those reporting adherence to such measures and those reporting nonadherence. Of other examined factors, significantly lower odds were observed for smokers (0.52, 95% CI 0.28, 0.97), while municipal workers with infected family members had elevated odds of seropositivity according to both crude (2.19, 95% CI 1.34, 3.59) and adjusted (2.00, 95% CI 1.17, 3.41) ORs.

CONCLUSIONS

Most answers from public servants demonstrated compliance to social-distancing policies in the workplace, but analysis of crude and adjusted odds ratios did not suggest a significant effect between municipal workers who followed these guidelines and those who did not. Results from this study help Kosovo policy makers in understanding the level of prevalence of COVID-19 in municipal workers and the effect of different factors on such prevalence. Results from the study could inform future decisions on the design and application of protective measures for municipal workers. Our findings should encourage further research to assess the extent of the spread of COVID-19 to other essential workers in Kosovo, including retail workers.

Reduction in COVID-19 prevalence in healthcare workers in a university hospital in southern Brazil after the start of vaccination

INTRODUCTION

The quick spread of SARS-CoV-2 led to the development of vaccines that are capable of reducing infection and the number of more severe COVID-19 cases.

AIM

To assess COVID-19 prevalence among healthcare workers (HCWs) after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study on the prevalence of COVID-19 diagnosis among 7523 HCWs vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 with CoronaVac and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in a university hospital, in southern Brazil, between January 18 and March 18, 2021.The variables evaluated were: sex, age, work area, role, source of infection, previous diagnosis of COVID-19, date of vaccine administration, type of vaccine, and need for hospitalization. The statistical analysis used Poisson regression and Fisher's exact test with SPSS software version 25, and a level of significance set at 5%.

RESULTS

813 vaccinated HCWs showed symptoms suggestive of COVID-19, of whom 35.4% (288) had a detectable result after undergoing RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2. There was a reduction of 62% in new cases of COVID-19 among HCWs in the institution 7 weeks after the start of vaccine rollout.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that the vaccines used by the institution reduced the number of COVID-19 cases among healthcare workers, demonstrating the effectiveness of the vaccines.