ArticleAnnals of work exposures and health2023
Validation of a COVID-19 Job Exposure Matrix (COVID-19-JEM) for Occupational Risk of a SARS-CoV-2 Infection at Work: Using Data of Dutch Workers.
Article in Annals of work exposures and health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Capturing occupational risk of airborne disease: An international job-exposure matrix based on five exposure factors.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2025Article
- COVID-19 Risk Assessment Among Vulnerable Small Business Owners in El Paso County, Texas.Journal of occupational and environmental medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Potential Work-related Exposure to SARS-CoV-2 by Standard Occupational Grouping Based on Pre-lockdown Working Conditions in France.Safety and health at work · 2023Article
- Associations between an international COVID-19 job exposure matrix and SARS-CoV-2 infection among 2 million workers in Denmark.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2023Article
- Occupational risks associated with severe COVID-19 disease and SARS-CoV-2 infection - a Swedish national case-control study conducted from October 2020 to December 2021.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2023Article
- Occupational risks for infection with influenza A and B: a national case-control study covering 1 July 2006-31 December 2019.Occupational and environmental medicine · 2023Article
- The impact of occupational exposures on infection rates during the COVID-19 pandemic: a test-negative design study with register data of 207 034 Dutch workers.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2023Article
- Post-COVID condition or "long COVID", return-to work, and occupational health research.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2023Article
- Exploring the relationship between job characteristics and infection: Application of a COVID-19 job exposure matrix to SARS-CoV-2 infection data in the United Kingdom.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesA COVID-19 Job Exposure Matrix (COVID-19-JEM) has been developed, consisting of four dimensions on transmission, two on mitigation measures, and two on precarious work. This study aims to validate the COVID-19-JEM by (i) comparing risk scores assigned by the COVID-19-JEM with self-reported data, and (ii) estimating the associations between the COVID-19-JEM risk scores and self-reported COVID-19.
methodsData from measurements 2 (July 2020, n = 7690) and 4 (March 2021, n = 6794) of the Netherlands Working Conditions Survey-COVID-19 (NWCS-COVID-19) cohort study were used. Responses to questions related to the transmission risks and mitigation measures of Measurement 2 were used to calculate self-reported risk scores. These scores were compared with the COVID-19-JEM attributed risk scores, by assessing the percentage agreement and weighted kappa (κ). Based on Measurement 4, logistic regression analyses were conducted to estimate the associations between all COVID-19-JEM risk scores and self-reported COVID-19 (infection in general and infected at work).
resultsThe agreement between the COVID-19-JEM and questionnaire-based risk scores was good (κ ≥ 0.70) for most dimensions, except work location (κ = 0.56), and face covering (κ = 0.41). Apart from the precarious work dimensions, higher COVID-19-JEM assigned risk scores had higher odds ratios (ORs; ranging between 1.28 and 1.80) on having had COVID-19. Associations were stronger when the infection were thought to have happened at work (ORs between 2.33 and 11.62).
conclusionsGenerally, the COVID-19-JEM showed a good agreement with self-reported infection risks and infection rates at work. The next step is to validate the COVID-19-JEM with objective data in the Netherlands and beyond.
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.