Katharina M A Gabriel, Christin Schröder, Rebecca Wolf, Ulrich Bolm-Audorff, Camilla Kienast, Joanna Smolinska, Gabriela Petereit-Haack, Andreas Seidler
{"title":"SARS-CoV-2 infection risk by non-healthcare occupations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Katharina M A Gabriel, Christin Schröder, Rebecca Wolf, Ulrich Bolm-Audorff, Camilla Kienast, Joanna Smolinska, Gabriela Petereit-Haack, Andreas Seidler","doi":"10.1186/s12995-025-00462-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>During the COVID-19 pandemic, several industries were deemed essential. However, information on infection risk in occupational settings outside of healthcare workers and medical staff (HCWs) remain scarce. Thus, a systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted to compile the risk of infection to SARS-CoV-2 in non-healthcare workers (non-HCWs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We screened three databases (EMBASE, PubMed, medRχiv) for studies on SARS-CoV-2 infection risk in working population. Several stages of severity (infection, hospitalisation, admission to intensive care unit (ICU), mortality) were eligible. Occupational specifications were harmonised according to the German classification of professions (KldB). All reported risk estimators were considered. Studies were analysed for their risk of bias. Results of random-effects meta-analyses were assessed for their evidence according to GRADE. Subgroup analyses were run for 'outcome', 'comparison group', and 'risk of bias'.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 9,081 publications identified, 25 were recognised as eligible, mainly describing the first year of the pandemic. For 20 occupations, we were able to carry out meta-analyses on KldB-4-level by integrating all stages of severity. Nine occupations were identified with a statistically significantly increased risk of infection for SARS-CoV-2, four of which had a relative risk (RR) of > 2: Occupations in meat processing (RR = 3.58 [95%-CI 1.46; 8.77]), occupations in building cleaning services (RR = 2.55 [95%-CI 1.51; 4.31]), occupations in cargo handling (RR = 2.52 [95%-CI 2.27; 2.79]) and cooks (RR = 2.53 [95%-CI 1.75; 3.67]). The certainty of evidence of eight results was found moderate or high.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The first systematic review and meta-analysis of occupational SARS-CoV-2 infection risk in occupations other than HCWs revealed a considerably elevated risk in individual related services as well as in commercial services.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42021297572.</p>","PeriodicalId":48903,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology","volume":"20 1","pages":"17"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12096541/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12995-025-00462-9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, several industries were deemed essential. However, information on infection risk in occupational settings outside of healthcare workers and medical staff (HCWs) remain scarce. Thus, a systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted to compile the risk of infection to SARS-CoV-2 in non-healthcare workers (non-HCWs).
Methods: We screened three databases (EMBASE, PubMed, medRχiv) for studies on SARS-CoV-2 infection risk in working population. Several stages of severity (infection, hospitalisation, admission to intensive care unit (ICU), mortality) were eligible. Occupational specifications were harmonised according to the German classification of professions (KldB). All reported risk estimators were considered. Studies were analysed for their risk of bias. Results of random-effects meta-analyses were assessed for their evidence according to GRADE. Subgroup analyses were run for 'outcome', 'comparison group', and 'risk of bias'.
Results: Of 9,081 publications identified, 25 were recognised as eligible, mainly describing the first year of the pandemic. For 20 occupations, we were able to carry out meta-analyses on KldB-4-level by integrating all stages of severity. Nine occupations were identified with a statistically significantly increased risk of infection for SARS-CoV-2, four of which had a relative risk (RR) of > 2: Occupations in meat processing (RR = 3.58 [95%-CI 1.46; 8.77]), occupations in building cleaning services (RR = 2.55 [95%-CI 1.51; 4.31]), occupations in cargo handling (RR = 2.52 [95%-CI 2.27; 2.79]) and cooks (RR = 2.53 [95%-CI 1.75; 3.67]). The certainty of evidence of eight results was found moderate or high.
Conclusions: The first systematic review and meta-analysis of occupational SARS-CoV-2 infection risk in occupations other than HCWs revealed a considerably elevated risk in individual related services as well as in commercial services.
期刊介绍：
Aimed at clinicians and researchers, the Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology is a multi-disciplinary, open access journal which publishes original research on the clinical and scientific aspects of occupational and environmental health.
With high-quality peer review and quick decision times, we welcome submissions on the diagnosis, prevention, management, and scientific analysis of occupational diseases, injuries, and disability. The journal also covers the promotion of health of workers, their families, and communities, and ranges from rehabilitation to tropical medicine and public health aspects.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
