Sara De Matteis, Dario Consonni, Ana Espinosa, Rafael de Cid, Natalia Blay Magriña, Gemma Castaño-Vinyals, Marianna Karachaliou, Miguel Angel Alba Hidalgo, Kyriaki Papantoniou, Judith Garcia, Manolis Kogevinas, Kurt Straif
{"title":"Occupational determinants of Long COVID in the population-based COVICAT cohort.","authors":"Sara De Matteis, Dario Consonni, Ana Espinosa, Rafael de Cid, Natalia Blay Magriña, Gemma Castaño-Vinyals, Marianna Karachaliou, Miguel Angel Alba Hidalgo, Kyriaki Papantoniou, Judith Garcia, Manolis Kogevinas, Kurt Straif","doi":"10.1136/oemed-2025-110398","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Occupational factors affect SARS-CoV-2 infection risk, but the occupational factors associated with Long COVID (LC) are unknown. We aimed to address this issue using individual data in a population-based cohort.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In the prospective COVICAT study, 2020-2023, Catalonia, Spain, we examined the association between occupational determinants and LC. Among subjects with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, those employed in the pandemic and with occupational information were analysed. Different metrics, including four job-exposure matrices, were used to evaluate individual occupational risk factors for LC (postinfection symptoms ≥3 months). Poisson models were used to estimate adjusted risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 2054 workers (1308 women, 746 men) aged 40-69 years, 486 developed LC (23.7%). Workers in jobs at high COVID-19 risk according to all metrics including health/social care, education, retail, transport and security showed higher LC risk. The main drivers of increased risk were close contact with colleagues and the public (RR up to 1.50; 95% CI 1.18 to 1.91), no social distance at workplace (up to 1.46; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.84), rare or no use of facemask (1.41; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.83) and commute by public transport (1.58; 95% CI 1.20 to 2.08). Working on-site during the pandemic was also associated with a higher LC risk compared with teleworking (1.57; 95% CI 1.19 to 2.09). Individual non-occupational risk factors for LC included female sex, comorbidities, obesity, number and severity of acute infections; vaccination and older age were protective.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In a population-based cohort, several occupational factors increased LC risk. Focused preventive strategies are warranted to avoid the associated public health burden. LC should be recognised and compensated as an occupational disease.</p>","PeriodicalId":19459,"journal":{"name":"Occupational and Environmental Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"579-588"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Occupational and Environmental Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2025-110398","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: Occupational factors affect SARS-CoV-2 infection risk, but the occupational factors associated with Long COVID (LC) are unknown. We aimed to address this issue using individual data in a population-based cohort.
Methods: In the prospective COVICAT study, 2020-2023, Catalonia, Spain, we examined the association between occupational determinants and LC. Among subjects with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, those employed in the pandemic and with occupational information were analysed. Different metrics, including four job-exposure matrices, were used to evaluate individual occupational risk factors for LC (postinfection symptoms ≥3 months). Poisson models were used to estimate adjusted risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs.
Results: Among 2054 workers (1308 women, 746 men) aged 40-69 years, 486 developed LC (23.7%). Workers in jobs at high COVID-19 risk according to all metrics including health/social care, education, retail, transport and security showed higher LC risk. The main drivers of increased risk were close contact with colleagues and the public (RR up to 1.50; 95% CI 1.18 to 1.91), no social distance at workplace (up to 1.46; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.84), rare or no use of facemask (1.41; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.83) and commute by public transport (1.58; 95% CI 1.20 to 2.08). Working on-site during the pandemic was also associated with a higher LC risk compared with teleworking (1.57; 95% CI 1.19 to 2.09). Individual non-occupational risk factors for LC included female sex, comorbidities, obesity, number and severity of acute infections; vaccination and older age were protective.
Conclusions: In a population-based cohort, several occupational factors increased LC risk. Focused preventive strategies are warranted to avoid the associated public health burden. LC should be recognised and compensated as an occupational disease.
目的:职业因素影响SARS-CoV-2感染风险,但与长COVID (LC)相关的职业因素尚不清楚。我们的目标是使用基于人群的队列中的个人数据来解决这个问题。方法:在2020-2023年西班牙加泰罗尼亚的前瞻性COVICAT研究中,我们研究了职业决定因素与LC之间的关系。分析有SARS-CoV-2感染史的受试者、有SARS-CoV-2感染史的受试者和有SARS-CoV-2职业信息的受试者。不同的指标,包括四种工作暴露矩阵,用于评估LC的个体职业风险因素(感染后症状≥3个月)。泊松模型用于估计校正风险比(rr)和95% ci。结果:在40 ~ 69岁的2054名劳动者中,女性1308人,男性746人,486人发生LC(23.7%)。根据包括卫生/社会护理、教育、零售、运输和安全在内的所有指标,从事COVID-19高风险工作的工人显示出更高的LC风险。风险增加的主要驱动因素是与同事和公众的密切接触(RR高达1.50;95% CI 1.18至1.91)、工作场所没有社交距离(RR高达1.46;95% CI 1.16至1.84)、很少或不使用口罩(1.41;95% CI 1.09至1.83)和乘坐公共交通工具上下班(1.58;95% CI 1.20至2.08)。与远程办公相比,大流行期间在现场工作也与更高的LC风险相关(1.57;95%可信区间为1.19至2.09)。LC的个体非职业危险因素包括女性、合并症、肥胖、急性感染的数量和严重程度;接种疫苗和年龄较大具有保护作用。结论:在以人群为基础的队列中,几个职业因素增加了LC的风险。有必要采取重点突出的预防战略,以避免相关的公共卫生负担。LC应作为一种职业病予以承认和赔偿。
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.