Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33466436›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

Vulnerable Workers and COVID-19: Insights from a Survey of Members of the International Commission for Occupational Health.

Jacques Tamin, Oluranti Samuel, Anna Suraya, Ikenna D Ebuenyi, Nisha Naicker, Minha Rajput-Ray

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Stress and Bio-Ethical Issues Perceived by Romanian Healthcare Practitioners in the COVID-19 Era.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  7. Unemployment Syndrome during COVID-19: A Comparison of Three Population Groups.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jacques TaminCentre for Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Manchester, Oxford Rd, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.
Oluranti SamuelDepartment of Sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Lagos State University, Ojo, Lagos State 10001, Nigeria.
Anna SurayaFaculty of Public Health, Binawan University, East Jakarta, Jakarta 13630, Indonesia.
Ikenna D EbuenyiAssisting Living & Learning (ALL) Institute, Department of Psychology, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-3329-6296
Nisha NaickerNational Institute for Occupational Health, National Health Laboratory Services, Johannesburg 2000, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0001-7223-7881
Minha Rajput-RayNNEdPro, Global Centre for Nutrition and Health, Global Centre for Nutrition and Health, St John's Innovation Centre, Cambridge CB4 0WS, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted on the health and wellbeing of populations directly through infection, as well as through serious societal and economic consequences such as unemployment and underemployment. The consequences could be even more severe for those more vulnerable to the disease, such as the elderly and those with underlying health conditions. Indeed, there is evidence that such vulnerable populations are disproportionately affected in terms of both, their health and the socioeconomic impact. The aim of our study was to determine whether occupational health (OH) professionals thought that the COVID-19 pandemic might further disadvantage any particular group(s) of vulnerable workers globally, and if so, which group(s). A cross-sectional study was carried out with a sample of OH professionals by means of an online questionnaire which was shared via email within the ICOH (International Commission for Occupational Health) community. Data was collected over a period of two weeks in May 2020 and 165 responses from 52 countries were received. In this paper, the responses relating to questions about vulnerable workers are reported and discussed. Globally, our responders felt that those in less secure jobs (precarious employment (79%) and informal work (69%)), or unemployed (63%), were the most at risk of further disadvantage from this pandemic. The majority felt that their governments could act to mitigate these effects. There were suggestions of short-term alleviation such as financial and social support, as well as calls for fundamental reviews of the underlying inequalities that leave populations so vulnerable to a crisis such as COVID-19.

Indexed as

Occupational HealthPandemicsCOVID-19Cross-Sectional StudiesHumansRisk FactorsSocioeconomic FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesVulnerable PopulationsCOVID-19 pandemicdisadvantaged populationspovertypublic health practicesocial determination of healthsocial justicevulnerable populationsworkers

Identifiers

PMID33466436
PMCPMC7796473

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.