Observational studyThe Lancet. Public health2020
Risk of COVID-19 among front-line health-care workers and the general community: a prospective cohort study.
Observational study in The Lancet. Public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 1,167 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
COVID-19 Symptom Tracker
Novel Use of an Existing Vaccine (BCG) Alliance: The NUEVA Trial
Comparison of a Virtual Reality Versus an E-Module on Efficacy of Donning and Doffing PPE: A Randomized Control Trial
Who cites it
1,167 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 2,283 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrated Clinical and Social Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Korea: A Combined Systematic and Narrative Review.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Pooled it
- Night-shift work and susceptibility to infectious diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy of simulation-based training for airway management in preparing hospitals for the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Workplace interventions to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection outside of healthcare settings.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among health care professionals in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2023Pooled it
- Repurposed drug studies on the primary prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the pandemic: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open respiratory research · 2023Pooled it
- Diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive SARS-CoV-2 screening tests: a national prospective analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Trial
- Effectiveness of Virtual Reality Training in Teaching Personal Protective Equipment Skills: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2024Trial
- Infection prevention and control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic in sub-Saharan Africa: a multinational cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Mortality Risks by Occupation During the Early Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic in New York City.American journal of industrial medicine · 2026Article
- COVID-19 Vaccine Knowledge, Practice, and Attitudes Among Hemodialysis Patients in Egypt, Kenya, and Cameroon: A Multicenter Study.Kidney medicine · 2026Article
- Infection prevention and control adherence among SARS-CoV-2 infected healthcare workers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: lessons for future outbreaks.Tropical medicine and health · 2026Article
- SALGINTR: development and early evaluation of a low-cost cloud-based digital participatory surveillance system for influenza-like Illness among physicians in Türkiye - a proof of concept.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Article
- The impact of ethnicity on longitudinal humoral and cellular immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 booster vaccination.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Electronic measurement of frequency and duration of close nurse-patient contacts during patient care in intensive and intermediate care units: a cross-sectional observational study.Infection prevention in practice · 2026Article
- Adverse Reactions and Vaccination Preferences Following COVID-19 and Influenza Vaccination Among Healthcare Workers: A Cross-Sectional Survey.The Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- Lessons from Two Early COVID-19 Hospital Outbreaks in Germany to Inform Strategies for Controlling Emerging Nosocomial Outbreaks of Highly Transmissible Respiratory Viruses.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Vaccines as a psychological shield: the role of vaccine acceptance in mitigating COVID-19 obsession, burnout, and death anxiety among medical personnel.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Differential Odds of COVID-19 Infection Associated With Household and Workplace Exposures in US Health Care Personnel.Journal of occupational and environmental medicine · 2026Article
1,107 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
32 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundData for front-line health-care workers and risk of COVID-19 are limited. We sought to assess risk of COVID-19 among front-line health-care workers compared with the general community and the effect of personal protective equipment (PPE) on risk.
methodsWe did a prospective, observational cohort study in the UK and the USA of the general community, including front-line health-care workers, using self-reported data from the COVID Symptom Study smartphone application (app) from March 24 (UK) and March 29 (USA) to April 23, 2020. Participants were voluntary users of the app and at first use provided information on demographic factors (including age, sex, race or ethnic background, height and weight, and occupation) and medical history, and subsequently reported any COVID-19 symptoms. We used Cox proportional hazards modelling to estimate multivariate-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of our primary outcome, which was a positive COVID-19 test. The COVID Symptom Study app is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04331509.
findingsAmong 2 035 395 community individuals and 99 795 front-line health-care workers, we recorded 5545 incident reports of a positive COVID-19 test over 34 435 272 person-days. Compared with the general community, front-line health-care workers were at increased risk for reporting a positive COVID-19 test (adjusted HR 11·61, 95% CI 10·93-12·33). To account for differences in testing frequency between front-line health-care workers and the general community and possible selection bias, an inverse probability-weighted model was used to adjust for the likelihood of receiving a COVID-19 test (adjusted HR 3·40, 95% CI 3·37-3·43). Secondary and post-hoc analyses suggested adequacy of PPE, clinical setting, and ethnic background were also important factors.
interpretationIn the UK and the USA, risk of reporting a positive test for COVID-19 was increased among front-line health-care workers. Health-care systems should ensure adequate availability of PPE and develop additional strategies to protect health-care workers from COVID-19, particularly those from Black, Asian, and minority ethnic backgrounds. Additional follow-up of these observational findings is needed.
fundingZoe Global, Wellcome Trust, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, National Institutes of Health Research, UK Research and Innovation, Alzheimer's Society, National Institutes of Health, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.