Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34347855›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Impact of essential workers in the context of social distancing for epidemic control.

William R Milligan, Zachary L Fuller, Ipsita Agarwal, Michael B Eisen, Molly Przeworski, Guy Sella

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 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
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Factors Associated with Impact of Event Scores Among Ontario Education Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

William R MilliganDepartment of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York City, New York, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-2836-5402
Zachary L FullerDepartment of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York City, New York, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-4765-9227
Ipsita AgarwalDepartment of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York City, New York, United States of America.
Michael B EisenHoward Hughes Medical Institute, University of California, Berkeley, California, United States of America.
Molly PrzeworskiDepartment of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York City, New York, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-5369-9009
Guy SellaDepartment of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York City, New York, United States of America.
Columbia University · USHoward Hughes Medical Institute · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

New emerging infectious diseases are identified every year, a subset of which become global pandemics like COVID-19. In the case of COVID-19, many governments have responded to the ongoing pandemic by imposing social policies that restrict contacts outside of the home, resulting in a large fraction of the workforce either working from home or not working. To ensure essential services, however, a substantial number of workers are not subject to these limitations, and maintain many of their pre-intervention contacts. To explore how contacts among such "essential" workers, and between essential workers and the rest of the population, impact disease risk and the effectiveness of pandemic control, we evaluated several mathematical models of essential worker contacts within a standard epidemiology framework. The models were designed to correspond to key characteristics of cashiers, factory employees, and healthcare workers. We find in all three models that essential workers are at substantially elevated risk of infection compared to the rest of the population, as has been documented, and that increasing the numbers of essential workers necessitates the imposition of more stringent controls on contacts among the rest of the population to manage the pandemic. Importantly, however, different archetypes of essential workers differ in both their individual probability of infection and impact on the broader pandemic dynamics, highlighting the need to understand and target intervention for the specific risks faced by different groups of essential workers. These findings, especially in light of the massive human costs of the current COVID-19 pandemic, indicate that contingency plans for future epidemics should account for the impacts of essential workers on disease spread.

Indexed as

Infection ControlPhysical DistancingWorkforceCOVID-19EpidemicsHealth PersonnelHumansModels, StatisticalNew York CityOccupationsPandemicsQuarantineRisk FactorsVulnerable Populations

Identifiers

PMID34347855
PMCPMC8336873
OpenAlexW3187464801

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.