Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38124150›Full record

ArticleOccupational and environmental medicine2024

Potential contribution of vaccination uptake to occupational differences in risk of SARS-CoV-2: analysis of the ONS COVID-19 Infection Survey.

Sarah Rhodes, Evangelia Demou, Jack Wilkinson, Mark Cherrie, Rhiannon Edge, Matthew Gittins, Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi, Theocharis Kromydas, William Mueller, Neil Pearce and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Occupational and environmental medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Occupation and SARS-CoV-2 in Europe: a review.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2024
    Review
  4. Article
  5. 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 5 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah RhodesCentre for Biostatistics, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK Sarah.A.Rhodes@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5837-801X
Evangelia DemouMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8616-525X
Jack WilkinsonCentre for Biostatistics, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3513-4677
Mark CherrieInstitute of Occupational Medicine, Edinburgh, UK.
Rhiannon EdgeLancaster University, Lancaster, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5349-783X
Matthew GittinsCentre for Biostatistics, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9888-1197
Srinivasa Vittal KatikireddiMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6593-9092
Theocharis KromydasMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
William MuellerInstitute of Occupational Medicine, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8712-736X
Neil PearceFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygeine and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9938-7852
Martie van TongerenCentre for Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1205-1898
University of Manchester · GBMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit · GBInstitute of Occupational Medicine · GBLancaster University · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00022/2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess variation in vaccination uptake across occupational groups as a potential explanation for variation in risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

designWe analysed data from the UK Office of National Statistics COVID-19 Infection Survey linked to vaccination data from the National Immunisation Management System in England from 1 December 2020 to 11 May 2022. We analysed vaccination uptake and SARS-CoV-2 infection risk by occupational group and assessed whether adjustment for vaccination reduced the variation in risk between occupational groups.

resultsEstimated rates of triple vaccination were high across all occupational groups (80% or above), but were lowest for food processing (80%), personal care (82%), hospitality (83%), manual occupations (84%) and retail (85%). High rates were observed for individuals working in health (95% for office based, 92% for those in patient-facing roles) and education (91%) and office-based workers not included in other categories (90%). The impact of adjusting for vaccination when estimating relative risks of infection was generally modest (ratio of hazard ratios across all occupational groups reduced from 1.37 to 1.32), but was consistent with the hypothesis that low vaccination rates contribute to elevated risk in some groups.

conclusionsVariation in vaccination coverage might account for a modest proportion of occupational differences in infection risk. Vaccination rates were uniformly very high in this cohort, which may suggest that the participants are not representative of the general population. Accordingly, these results should be considered tentative pending the accumulation of additional evidence.

Indexed as

COVID-19occupational health

Identifiers

PMID38124150
PMCPMC10850636
OpenAlexW4389627516

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.