Charlotte E Rutter, Martie van Tongeren, Tony Fletcher, Sarah Rhodes, Yiqun Chen, Ian Hall, Nicholas Warren, Neil Pearce
{"title":"Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection at a UK electricity-generating company: a test-negative design case-control study.","authors":"Charlotte E Rutter, Martie van Tongeren, Tony Fletcher, Sarah Rhodes, Yiqun Chen, Ian Hall, Nicholas Warren, Neil Pearce","doi":"10.1136/oemed-2023-109184","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Identify workplace risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection, using data collected by a UK electricity-generating company.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a test-negative design case-control study, we estimated the OR of infection by job category, site, test reason, sex, vaccination status, vulnerability, site outage and site COVID-19 weekly risk rating, adjusting for age, test date and test type.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From an original 80 077 COVID-19 tests, there were 70 646 included in the final analysis. Most exclusions were due to being visitor tests (5030) or tests after an individual first tested positive (2968).Women were less likely to test positive than men (OR=0.71; 95% CI 0.58 to 0.86). Test reason was strongly associated with positivity and although not a cause of infection itself, due to differing test regimes by area, it was a strong confounder for other variables. Compared with routine tests, tests due to symptoms were highest risk (94.99; 78.29 to 115.24), followed by close contact (16.73; 13.80 to 20.29) and broader-defined work contact 2.66 (1.99 to 3.56). After adjustment, we found little difference in risk by job category, but some differences by site with three sites showing substantially lower risks, and one site showing higher risks in the final model.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In general, infection risk was not associated with job category. Vulnerable individuals were at slightly lower risk, tests during outages were higher risk, vaccination showed no evidence of an effect on testing positive, and site COVID-19 risk rating did not show an ordered trend in positivity rates.</p>","PeriodicalId":19459,"journal":{"name":"Occupational and Environmental Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"184-190"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11103344/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Occupational and Environmental Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2023-109184","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: Identify workplace risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection, using data collected by a UK electricity-generating company.
Methods: Using a test-negative design case-control study, we estimated the OR of infection by job category, site, test reason, sex, vaccination status, vulnerability, site outage and site COVID-19 weekly risk rating, adjusting for age, test date and test type.
Results: From an original 80 077 COVID-19 tests, there were 70 646 included in the final analysis. Most exclusions were due to being visitor tests (5030) or tests after an individual first tested positive (2968).Women were less likely to test positive than men (OR=0.71; 95% CI 0.58 to 0.86). Test reason was strongly associated with positivity and although not a cause of infection itself, due to differing test regimes by area, it was a strong confounder for other variables. Compared with routine tests, tests due to symptoms were highest risk (94.99; 78.29 to 115.24), followed by close contact (16.73; 13.80 to 20.29) and broader-defined work contact 2.66 (1.99 to 3.56). After adjustment, we found little difference in risk by job category, but some differences by site with three sites showing substantially lower risks, and one site showing higher risks in the final model.
Conclusions: In general, infection risk was not associated with job category. Vulnerable individuals were at slightly lower risk, tests during outages were higher risk, vaccination showed no evidence of an effect on testing positive, and site COVID-19 risk rating did not show an ordered trend in positivity rates.
期刊介绍:
Occupational and Environmental Medicine is an international peer reviewed journal covering current developments in occupational and environmental health worldwide. Occupational and Environmental Medicine publishes high-quality research relating to the full range of chemical, physical, ergonomic, biological and psychosocial hazards in the workplace and to environmental contaminants and their health effects. The journal welcomes research aimed at improving the evidence-based practice of occupational and environmental research; including the development and application of novel biological and statistical techniques in addition to evaluation of interventions in controlling occupational and environmental risks.