Risk of COVID-19 in Health Professionals: A Case-Control Study, Portugal.

Q3 Medicine
Portuguese Journal of Public Health Pub Date : 2022-01-21 eCollection Date: 2022-02-01 DOI:10.1159/000519472
Héloïse Lucaccioni, Cristina Costa, Mariana Perez Duque, Sooria Balasegaram, Rita Sá Machado
{"title":"Risk of COVID-19 in Health Professionals: A Case-Control Study, Portugal.","authors":"Héloïse Lucaccioni,&nbsp;Cristina Costa,&nbsp;Mariana Perez Duque,&nbsp;Sooria Balasegaram,&nbsp;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.

卫生专业人员感染新冠肺炎的风险:病例对照研究,葡萄牙。
引言:卫生专业人员面临更高的严重急性呼吸系统综合征冠状病毒2型的职业暴露。我们旨在评估卫生专业人员与非卫生专业人员相比新冠肺炎检测阳性的风险。方法:我们使用葡萄牙国家监测数据(2020年1月至5月)进行了一项测试阴性病例对照研究。病例为严重急性呼吸系统综合征冠状病毒2型检测呈阳性的疑似病例;对照组为检测呈阴性的疑似病例。我们使用多变量逻辑回归模型来估计新冠肺炎检测阳性(RT-PCR;主要结果)的比值比,比较卫生专业人员和非卫生专业人员(主要接触),并调整人口统计学、临床和流行病学特征的混淆效应,以及自我报告的流行病学联系(即自我报告的与新冠肺炎病例或有新冠肺炎样症状的人的接触)的修改效果。结果:卫生专业人员新冠肺炎检测结果呈阳性的风险高出2倍(aOR=1.89,95%置信区间1.69-2.11)。然而,流行病学联系的自我报告强烈改变了这种关联,因此,在报告流行病学联系的病例中,健康专业人员是一个保护因素(aOR=0.90,95%CI 0.82-0.98)。结论:我们的研究结果表明,健康专业人员可能主要由未知接触者感染,这似乎是在医疗环境中,但他们的职业暴露并没有系统地转化为更高的传播风险。我们认为,这可以根据不同的暴露类型和时间,以及风险感知和相关预防行为的可变性来解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Portuguese Journal of Public Health
Portuguese Journal of Public Health Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
审稿时长
55 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信