ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2024
Differential risk of healthcare workers versus the general population during outbreak, war and pandemic crises.
Article in European journal of epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mortality risk for healthcare workers and journalists in the Gaza Strip over 2023-24.European journal of public health · 2026Observational
- Editorial: Voices from the frontline: the lived experiences of healthcare professionals in the workplace.Frontiers in sociology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Healthcare workers may have different risk for severe outcomes compared with the general population during diverse crises. This paper introduces the concept of healthcare worker versus population hazard (HPH), the risk of an outcome of interest in active healthcare workers compared with the general population they serve. HPH can be expressed with relative risk (HPH(r)) and absolute risk difference (HPH(a)) metrics. Illustrative examples are drawn from infectious outbreaks, war, and the COVID-19 pandemic on death outcomes. HPH can be extreme for lethal outbreaks (HPH(r) = 30 to 143, HPH(a) = 8 to 91 per 1000 for Ebola deaths in 3 Western African countries in 2013-5), and modestly high in relative terms and very high in absolute terms for protracted, major armed conflicts (HPH(r) = 1.38 and HPH(a) = 10.2 for Syria during 2011-2024). Conversely, healthcare workers had 8-12-fold lower risk than the population they served for pandemic excess deaths (physicians in USA) or COVID-19 deaths (physicians in Ontario, healthcare workers in Finland), while healthcare workers in Indonesia did not have this advantage for COVID-19 deaths versus the general population. HPH is susceptible to data inaccuracies in numbers of at-risk populations and of outcomes of interest. Importantly, inferences about healthcare worker risk can be misleading, if deaths of retired healthcare workers contaminate the risk calculations- as in the case of misleading early perceptions of exaggerated COVID-19 risk for healthcare professionals. HPH can offer useful insights for risk assessment to healthcare professionals, the general public, and policy makers and may be useful to monitor for planning and interventions during crises.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39565536What 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.