{"title":"Risk of COVID-19 in Health Professionals: A Case-Control Study, Portugal.","authors":"Héloïse Lucaccioni, Cristina Costa, Mariana Perez Duque, Sooria Balasegaram, Rita Sá Machado","doi":"10.1159/000519472","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Health professionals face higher occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2. We aimed to estimate the risk of COVID-19 test positivity in health professionals compared to non-health professionals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a test-negative case-control study using Portuguese national surveillance data (January to May 2020). Cases were suspected cases who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2; controls were suspected cases who tested negative. We used multivariable logistic regression modelling to estimate the odds ratio of a positive COVID-19 test (RT-PCR; primary outcome), comparing health professionals and non-health professionals (primary exposure), and adjusting for the confounding effect of demographic, clinical, and epidemiological characteristics, and the modification effect of the self-reported epidemiological link (i.e., self-reported contact with a COVID-19 case or person with COVID-19-like symptoms).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Health professionals had a 2-fold higher risk of a positive COVID-19 test result (aOR = 1.89, 95% CI 1.69-2.11). However, this association was strongly modified by the self-report of an epidemiological link such that, among cases who did report an epidemiological link, being a health professional was a protective factor (aOR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.82-0.98).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings suggest that health professionals might be primarily infected by unknown contacts, plausibly in the healthcare setting, but also that their occupational exposure does not systematically translate into a higher risk of transmission. We suggest that this could be interpreted in light of different types and timing of exposure, and variability in risk perception and associated preventive behaviours.</p>","PeriodicalId":37244,"journal":{"name":"Portuguese Journal of Public Health","volume":"39 3","pages":"137-144"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/82/77/pjp-0039-0137.PMC9059035.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Portuguese Journal of Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000519472","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Introduction: Health professionals face higher occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2. We aimed to estimate the risk of COVID-19 test positivity in health professionals compared to non-health professionals.
Methods: We conducted a test-negative case-control study using Portuguese national surveillance data (January to May 2020). Cases were suspected cases who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2; controls were suspected cases who tested negative. We used multivariable logistic regression modelling to estimate the odds ratio of a positive COVID-19 test (RT-PCR; primary outcome), comparing health professionals and non-health professionals (primary exposure), and adjusting for the confounding effect of demographic, clinical, and epidemiological characteristics, and the modification effect of the self-reported epidemiological link (i.e., self-reported contact with a COVID-19 case or person with COVID-19-like symptoms).
Results: Health professionals had a 2-fold higher risk of a positive COVID-19 test result (aOR = 1.89, 95% CI 1.69-2.11). However, this association was strongly modified by the self-report of an epidemiological link such that, among cases who did report an epidemiological link, being a health professional was a protective factor (aOR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.82-0.98).
Conclusion: Our findings suggest that health professionals might be primarily infected by unknown contacts, plausibly in the healthcare setting, but also that their occupational exposure does not systematically translate into a higher risk of transmission. We suggest that this could be interpreted in light of different types and timing of exposure, and variability in risk perception and associated preventive behaviours.