英国一家发电公司感染 SARS-CoV-2 的风险因素:试验阴性设计病例对照研究。

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Charlotte E Rutter, Martie van Tongeren, Tony Fletcher, Sarah Rhodes, Yiqun Chen, Ian Hall, Nicholas Warren, Neil Pearce
{"title":"英国一家发电公司感染 SARS-CoV-2 的风险因素:试验阴性设计病例对照研究。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

目的:利用英国发电公司收集的数据,确定工作场所感染 SARS-CoV-2 的风险因素:利用英国一家发电公司收集的数据,确定工作场所感染 SARS-CoV-2 的风险因素:方法:我们利用一项检测阴性设计的病例对照研究,按工作类别、地点、检测原因、性别、疫苗接种状况、易感性、地点停电和地点 COVID-19 每周风险评级估算了感染的 OR 值,并对年龄、检测日期和检测类型进行了调整:在最初的 80 077 次 COVID-19 检测中,有 70 646 次被纳入最终分析。大多数被排除的原因是访客检测(5030 例)或首次检测呈阳性后的检测(2968 例)。检测原因与检测结果呈阳性密切相关,尽管检测原因本身并不是感染的原因,但由于不同地区的检测制度不同,检测原因也是影响其他变量的一个重要混杂因素。与常规检测相比,因症状而检测的风险最高(94.99;78.29 至 115.24),其次是密切接触(16.73;13.80 至 20.29)和更广泛定义的工作接触 2.66(1.99 至 3.56)。经过调整后,我们发现不同工作类别的风险差异不大,但不同地点的风险存在一些差异,在最终模型中,三个地点的风险大大降低,一个地点的风险较高:总的来说,感染风险与工作类别无关。易感人群的风险略低,停电期间的检测风险较高,接种疫苗没有证据表明对检测呈阳性有影响,站点 COVID-19 风险评级没有显示出阳性率的有序趋势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection at a UK electricity-generating company: a test-negative design case-control study.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
Occupational and Environmental Medicine 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
2.00%
发文量
98
审稿时长
2 months
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.
×
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