Observational studyJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine2022
SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among 77,587 healthcare workers: a national observational longitudinal cohort study in Wales, United Kingdom, April to November 2020.
Observational study in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robot doctors on the front line.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo better understand the risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among healthcare workers, leading to recommendations for the prioritisation of personal protective equipment, testing, training and vaccination.
designObservational, longitudinal, national cohort study.
settingOur cohort were secondary care (hospital-based) healthcare workers employed by NHS Wales (United Kingdom) organisations from 1 April 2020 to 30 November 2020.
participantsWe included 577,756 monthly observations among 77,587 healthcare workers. Using linked anonymised datasets, participants were grouped into 20 staff roles. Additionally, each role was deemed either patient-facing, non-patient-facing or undetermined. This was linked to individual demographic details and dates of positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests.
main outcome measuresWe used univariable and multivariable logistic regression models to determine odds ratios (ORs) for the risk of a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test.
resultsPatient-facing healthcare workers were at the highest risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection with an adjusted OR (95% confidence interval [CI]) of 2.28 (95% CI 2.10-2.47). We found that after adjustment, foundation year doctors (OR 1.83 [95% CI 1.47-2.27]), healthcare support workers [OR 1.36 [95% CI 1.20-1.54]) and hospital nurses (OR 1.27 [95% CI 1.12-1.44]) were at the highest risk of infection among all staff groups. Younger healthcare workers and those living in more deprived areas were at a higher risk of infection. We also observed that infection rates varied over time and by organisation.
conclusionsThese findings have important policy implications for the prioritisation of vaccination, testing, training and personal protective equipment provision for patient-facing roles and the higher risk staff groups.
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.