ArticleBMC public health2024
COVID-19 infection and later risk of sickness absence by socioeconomic status: a cohort study.
Article in BMC public health, 2024. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic was a significant health risk and resulted in increased sickness absence during the pandemic. This study examines whether a history of COVID-19 infection is associated with a higher risk of subsequent sickness absence.
methodsIn this prospective cohort study, 32,124 public sector employees responded to a survey on COVID-19 infection and lifestyle factors in 2020 and were linked to sickness absence records before (2019) and after (2021-2022) the survey. Study outcome was annual sickness absence defined as the total number of sickness absence days and the number of short sickness absence spells (< 10 days) and long sickness absence spells (10-365 days). We used negative binomial regression adjusting for sex, age, employment characteristics, body mass index, health behaviors in 2020 and sickness absence in 2019. We examined differences in sickness absence between socioeconomic statuses (SES), measured by occupational titles from employers' records.
resultsA self-reported COVID-19 infection in 2020 was associated with higher subsequent risk of sickness absence in 2021: Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR) compared to those not reporting COVID-19 was 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10-1.37 for sickness absence days, 1.29, 1.20-1.38 for short sickness absence spells and 1.20, 1.04-1.37 for long spells. The association was strongest in employees with intermediate SES: 1.45, 1.20-1.77 days, 1.42, 1.26-1.61 short spells, and 1.30, 1.03-1.64 long spells. For employees with low and high SES, an association was observed only for short spells.
conclusionsEmployees who reported contracting first-wave COVID-19 infection had higher rates of sickness absence in the following year. This excess risk was most consistently observed in employees with intermediate socioeconomic status (e.g. office workers, registered nurses, and social workers).
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.