ArticlePloS one2025
Emergency temporary standards and COVID-19 trends among Oregon farmworkers.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, migrant and seasonal farmworkers were deemed essential due to their central roles in US agricultural operations. However, employer-provided housing and transportation conditions increased their risks of SARS-CoV-2 exposure, and some states implemented emergency temporary standards (ETSs) at the insistence of farmworker advocates. Despite numerous studies examining the effectiveness of policy interventions (e.g., workplace closures) for mitigating SARS-CoV-2 transmission, limited research has specifically examined the effectiveness of interventions aimed at protecting farmworkers from COVID-19.
methodsWe used an interrupted time series analysis to estimate how two ETSs and one executive order issued in Oregon impacted COVID-19 trends from March 1, 2020, to February 27, 2021, for the overall population and among agricultural labor groups in Oregon.
resultsOur models show that the ETS and executive order, which specifically targeted farmworker housing, transportation, and worksites, did not demonstrate any significant effects on the numbers of COVID-19 cases or associated deaths. However, the other ETS, which targeted all workplaces, was associated with statistically significant decreases in COVID-19 cases among the general population (-142.36214, p-value<0.0001), producers (-1.67128, p-value = 0.0009), hired workers (-2.39413, p-value = 0.0014), unpaid workers (-1.01572, p-value = 0.0003), and migrant workers (-0.60017, p-value = 0.0166). None of the three policy changes were found to have any statistically significant impacts on the numbers of COVID-19-associated deaths.
conclusionsThe ETS targeting all workplaces was more effective for reducing COVID-19 transmission than the ETS or executive order specifically targeting farmworkers, indicating that the design, communication, and implementation of ETSs targeting farmworkers should be re-evaluated.
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.