Between-occupation differences in work-related COVID-19 mitigation strategies over time: Analysis of the virus watch cohort in England and Wales

Source avec lien : medRxiv, En ligne. 10.1101/2022.10.31.22281732

Cette étude avait pour but d’étudier les différences professionnelles dans l’utilisation des principales mesures d’atténuation liées au travail au fil du temps, et d’étudier les perceptions des travailleurs sur ces mesures.

Background: COVID-19 pandemic mitigations have had a profound impact on workplaces, however, multisectoral comparison of how work-related mitigations were applied across different phases of the pandemic are limited. This study aimed to investigate occupational differences in the usage of key work-related mitigations over time, and to investigate workers' perceptions of these mitigations. Methods: A survey covering the periods of late December 2020-February 2022 was developed and disseminated online to employed or self-employed participants in the Virus Watch study (n=6,279 respondents). Logistic regression was used to investigate occupation- and time-related differences in the usage of work-related mitigation methods. Responses regarding workers' perceptions of mitigation methods were investigated descriptively using proportions. Findings: Usage of work-related mitigation methods differed between occupations and over time, likely reflecting variation in job roles, workplace environments, legislation and guidance. Healthcare workers had the highest predicted probabilities for several mitigations, including frequent hand and surface hygiene (up to 0.61 [0.56, 0.66]), wearing face coverings (up to 0.80 [0.76, 0.84]), and employers providing face coverings for workers (0.96 [0.94, 0.98]) and other people on worksites (0.90 [0.87, 0.93]). There was a cross-occupational trend towards reduced mitigations during periods of less stringent national restrictions. The majority of workers across occupations (55-88%) agreed that most mitigations were reasonable and worthwhile; agreement was lower for physical distancing (39-44%). Interpretation: While usage of work-related mitigations appeared to vary alongside stringency of national restrictions, agreement that most mitigations were reasonable and worthwhile remained substantial. Further investigation into the factors underlying between-occupational differences could assist pandemic planning and prevention of workplace COVID-19 transmission.Competing Interest StatementAH serves on the UK New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group and is a member of the COVID-19 transmission sub-group of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE). The other authors report no conflicts of interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported by funding from the PROTECT COVID-19 National Core Study on transmission and environment, managed by the Health and Safety Executive on behalf of HM Government. The Virus Watch study is supported by the MRC Grant Ref: MC_PC 19070 awarded to UCL on 30 March 2020 and MRC Grant Ref: MR/V028375/1 awarded on 17 August 2020. The study also received $15,000 of Facebook advertising credit to support a pilot social media recruitment campaign on 18th August 2020. This study was also supported by the Wellcome Trust through a Wellcome Clinical Research Career Development Fellowship to RA [206602]. SB and TB are supported by an MRC doctoral studentship (MR/N013867/1). The funders had no role in study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation, in the writing of this report.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The Virus Watch study was approved by the Hampstead NHS Health Research Authority Ethics Committee: 20/HRA/2320, and conformed to the ethical standards set out in the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants provided informed consent for all aspects of the study.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studi s must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesWe aim to share aggregate data from this project on our website and via a « Findings so far » section on our website – We also share some individual record level data on the Office of National Statistics Secure Research Service. In sharing the data we will work within the principles set out in the UKRI Guidance on best practice in the management of research data. Access to use of the data whilst research is being conducted will be managed by the Chief Investigators (ACH and RWA) in accordance with the principles set out in the UKRI guidance on best practice in the management of research data. We will put analysis code on publicly available repositories to enable their reuse.

Lisez l’article

Laisser un commentaire