ArticleJournal of migration and health2026
Essential worker status, gender, and migration background disparities in COVID-19: An intersectional approach.
Article in Journal of migration and health, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: COVID-19 disproportionately hit women, immigrants, ethno-racial minorities, and essential workers. This study examines disparities in SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity by gender and migration background in France (late 2020) and assesses how much essential worker status explains them. Methods: We grouped 30,018 workers from the EpiCoV cohort into four categories defined by gender and migration background. Worker status included seven categories: non-essential workers; high- and low-class healthcare workers (HCWs), social and educational workers (SEWs), and other essential workers (OEWs). We assessed SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence across gender and migration-background groups. Non-linear decomposition analysis quantified the extent to which significant seropositivity differences were driven by unequal representation in essential occupations and varying infection risk within similar essential occupations. Results: SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity was lowest among men without a migration background, higher among women without a migration background, and highest among individuals with a migration background. Compared to men without a migration background, seropositivity was 1.6 percentage points higher among women without a migration background (43.7% attributed to overrepresentation among HCWs and 5.8% to greater risk within low-class HCWs), and 6.9 percentage points higher among women with a migration background (31.5% driven by their overrepresentation among HCWs and low-class SEWs, and 19.4% by stronger risks across low-class essential jobs). The 5.3-point seropositivity gap between women with and without a migration background was 33.4% attributable to stronger infection risks among low-class SEWs and low-class OEWs. Conclusions: Women bore a double burden exacerbated by their migration background: overrepresentation in certain essential jobs and elevated COVID-19 risk within these occupations.
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.