Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37066842›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of work, environment & health2023

Between-occupation differences in work-related COVID-19 mitigation strategies over time: Analysis of the Virus Watch Cohort in England and Wales.

Sarah Beale, Alexei Yavlinsky, Susan Hoskins, Vincent Nguyen, Thomas Byrne, Wing Lam Erica Fong, Jana Kovar, Martie Van Tongeren, Robert W Aldridge, Andrew Hayward and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Occupation and SARS-CoV-2 in Europe: a review.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2024
    Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah BealeInstitute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, London, UK, WC1E 7HB. sarah.beale.19@ucl.ac.uk.
Alexei Yavlinsky
Susan Hoskins
Vincent Nguyen
Thomas Byrne
Wing Lam Erica Fong
Jana Kovar
Martie Van Tongeren
Robert W Aldridge
Andrew Hayward
Virus Watch
University College London · GBHealth Data Research UK · GBManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/V028375/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesCOVID-19 mitigations have had a profound impact on workplaces, however, multisectoral comparisons of how work-related mitigations were applied are limited. This study aimed to investigate (i) occupational differences in the usage of key work-related mitigations over time and (ii) workers' perceptions of these mitigations.

methodsEmployed/self-employed Virus Watch study participants (N=6279) responded to a mitigation-related online survey covering the periods of December 2020-February 2022. Logistic regression was used to investigate occupation- and time-related differences in the usage of work-related mitigation methods. Participants' perceptions of mitigation methods were investigated descriptively using proportions.

resultsUsage of work-related mitigation methods differed between occupations and over time, likely reflecting variation in job roles, workplace environments, legislation and guidance. Healthcare workers had the highest predicted probabilities for several mitigations, including reporting frequent hand hygiene [predicted probability across all survey periods 0.61 (95% CI 0.56-0.66)] and always wearing face coverings [predicted probability range 0.71 (95% CI 0.66-0.75) - 0.80 (95% CI 0.76-0.84) across survey periods]. There were significant cross-occupational trends towards reduced mitigations during periods of less stringent national restrictions. The majority of participants across occupations (55-88%) agreed that most mitigations were reasonable and worthwhile even after the relaxation of national restrictions; agreement was lower for physical distancing (39-44%).

conclusionsWhile usage of work-related mitigations appeared to vary alongside stringency of national restrictions, agreement that most mitigations were reasonable and worthwhile remained substantial. Further investigation into the factors underlying between-occupational differences could assist pandemic planning and prevention of workplace COVID-19 transmission.

Indexed as

COVID-19HumansOccupationsSARS-CoV-2WalesWorkplace

Identifiers

PMID37066842
PMCPMC10713985
OpenAlexW4366083175

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.