ArticlePloS one2025
Impact of SARS-CoV-2 on healthcare and essential workers: A longitudinal study of PROMIS-29 outcomes.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
importanceThe mandatory service of essential workers during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with high job stress, increased SARS-CoV-2 exposure, and limited time for recovery following infection. Understanding outcomes for frontline workers can inform planning for future pandemics.
objectiveTo compare patient-reported outcomes by employment type and SARS-CoV-2 status.
designData from the INSPIRE registry, which enrolled COVID-positive and COVID-negative adults between 12/7/2020-8/29/2022 was analyzed. Patient-reported outcomes were collected quarterly over 18 months.
settingParticipants were recruited across eight US sites.
participantsEmployed INSPIRE participants who completed a short (3-month) and long-term (12-18 month) survey. EXPOSURE: SARS-CoV-2 index status and employment type (essential healthcare worker [HCW], essential non-HCW, and non-essential worker ["general worker"]). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: PROMIS-29 (mental and physical health summary) and PROMIS Cognitive SF-CF 8a (cognitive function) scores were assessed at baseline, short-term (3-months), and long-term (12-18 months) timepoints using GEE modeling.
resultsOf the 1,463 participants: 53.5% were essential workers (51.4% HCWs, 48.6% non-HCWs) and 46.5% were general workers. Most associations between outcomes and employment type became non-significant after adjusting for sociodemographics, comorbidities, COVID-19 vaccination, and SARS-CoV-2 variant period. However, among COVID-negative participants, essential HCWs had higher cognitive scores at baseline (β: 3.91, 95% CI [1.32, 6.50]), short term: (β: 3.49, 95% CI: [0.80, 6.18]) and long-term: (β: 3.72, 95% CI: [0.98, 6.46]) compared to general workers. Among COVID-positive participants, essential non-HCWs had significantly worse long-term physical health summary scores (β:-1.22, 95% CI: [-2.35, -0.09]) compared to general workers. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Differences in outcomes by worker status were largely explained by baseline characteristics. However, compared to general workers, essential HCW status had higher cognitive function in the absence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at all timepoints, while essential non-HCWs were most vulnerable to poor recovery in long-term physical health following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Preparation efforts for future pandemics may consider enhanced protection and post-infection resources for frontline 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.