ArticleBMC public health2022
Occupational characteristics associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in the UK Biobank during August-November 2020: a cohort study.
Article in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identifying direct risk factors in UK Biobank via simultaneous Bayesian-frequentist model-averaged hypothesis testing using Doublethink.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Occupation and COVID-19: Lessons From the Pandemic.The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice · 2024Article
- 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
- 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
- UK biobank: Enhanced assessment of the epidemiology and long-term impact of coronavirus disease-2019.Cambridge prisms. Precision medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOccupational exposures may play a key role in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection risk. We used a job-exposure matrix linked to the UK Biobank to measure occupational characteristics and estimate associations with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test.
methodsPeople reporting job titles at their baseline interview in England who were < 65 years of age in 2020 were included. Healthcare workers were excluded because of differential access to testing. Jobs were linked to the US Occupational Information Network (O*NET) job exposure matrix. O*NET-based scores were examined for occupational physical proximity, exposure to diseases/infection, working outdoors exposed to weather, and working outdoors under cover (score range = 1-5). Jobs were classified as remote work using two algorithms. SARS-CoV-2 test results were evaluated between August 5th-November 10th, 2020, when the UK was released from lockdown. Cox regression was used to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs), accounting for age, sex, race, education, neighborhood deprivation, assessment center, household size, and income.
resultsWe included 115,451 people with job titles, of whom 1746 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. A one-point increase in physical proximity score was associated with 1.14 times higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 (95%CI = 1.05-1.24). A one-point increase in the exposure to diseases/infections score was associated with 1.09 times higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 (95%CI = 1.02-1.16). People reporting jobs that could not be done remotely had higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 regardless of the classification algorithm used (aHRs = 1.17 and 1.20). Outdoors work showed an association with SARS-CoV-2 (exposed to weather aHR = 1.06, 95%CI = 1.01-1.11; under cover aHR = 1.08, 95%CI = 1.00-1.17), but these associations were not significant after accounting for whether work could be done remotely.
conclusionPeople in occupations that were not amenable to remote work, required closer physical proximity, and required more general exposure to diseases/infection had higher risk of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. These findings provide additional evidence that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an occupational disease, even outside of the healthcare setting, and indicate that strategies for mitigating transmission in in-person work settings will remain important.
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.