Search

Abstract Background Previous research has highlighted links between occupation and risk of COVID-19 transmission and suggests that occupational risk is influenced by covariates including socio-economic status, and deprivation. This study examined the perspectives of local authority teams of how changes in policy and advice, as set out in the UK government report ‘Living with COVID,’ affected COVID-19 transmission risk, response and resilience in workplace settings in Greater Manchester, an area that was disproportionately affected by the pandemic. Methods The project, which took place between August and November 2022, undertook a mixed methods approach to incorporate wide-ranging reflections of changes following the publication of ‘Living with COVID’. Quantitative data was collected from local employers (n = 149) and employees (n = 397) using online surveys, and qualitative interview data was collected from Greater Manchester local authority teams (n = 19). Results The research highlighted the inequitable impact of the pandemic on those already experiencing health inequalities, including people on more precarious employment contracts or those who were unable to work from home during the pandemic. The study found that the facilitators that helped local authorities to support employers to manage transmission included clear, detailed and timely national and local guidance, good communication, partnership working, funding, and timely access to data. Barriers to supporting employers included contradictory or confusing national guidance, structural inequalities, lack of funding, and delayed access to data. Interview participants reported that they were now utilising lessons learnt during the pandemic, along with the that partnerships developed, in order to tackle wider health issues and to prepare for future pandemics or health crises. Conclusion The findings of the study, which concur with previously published research conducted as part of the PROTECT project, highlight the importance of active reflection on the lessons learned during the course of the pandemic. The study draws on PH and EH teams’ perspectives of managing COVID-19 transmission, in an area that was disproportionately affected by the pandemic, in order to add to our understanding of the best ways to ensure preparedness for future pandemics or health crises at a national level.

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on the operations and functionality of the public transport sector in the UK. This paper reflects on the experience of this sector through the pandemic period, and considers recommendations for any future mitigations required for either new COVID-19 waves or a different public health emergency. Methods Semi-structured interviews were carried out with public transport experts, organisational leaders, workers and passengers in two phases: Phase 1 from January to May 2021, and Phase 2 from December 2021 to February 2022. Interviews were analysed thematically. Results Using the ‘What? So What? Now What?’ reflective model, ideas are drawn out to describe (a) what changes occurred, (b) what effects these changes had on service provision as well as perceptions of risk and mitigation and (c) what lessons have been learned and how these findings can feed into pandemic preparedness for the future. Respondent reflections focussed on the importance of communication, leadership, and maintaining compliance. Conclusions The wealth of experience gained through the COVID-19 pandemic in the public transport sector is extremely valuable. Through reflection on this experience, specific recommendations are made relating to these factors, covering: maintaining links across industry, access to information and data, understanding of mitigation effectiveness, improving messaging, challenges of behavioural mitigations, and clear lines of accountability. The recommendations made on the basis of this reflective process will help to improve public health strategy within the public transport sector.

Abstract Background UK local authorities that experienced sustained high levels of COVID-19 between 1st March 2020 and 28th February 2021 were described by the UK Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies as areas of enduring prevalence. This research was carried out in order to examine the views of local authority Directors of Public Health, who played a crucial role in the local response to COVID-19, on reasons for sustained high levels of prevalence in some areas, alongside an investigation of the mitigation strategies that they implemented during the course of the pandemic. Methods Interviews were conducted with Directors of Public Health in 19 local authority areas across England, between July and November 2021. This included nine areas identified as areas of enduring prevalence and ten ‘comparison’ areas. Results The outcomes of this study suggests that the geographical differences in prevalence rates are strongly influenced by health inequalities. Structural factors including deprivation, employment, and housing, due to their disproportionate impact on specific groups, converged with demographic factors, including ethnicity and age, and vaccination rates, and were identified as the main drivers of enduring prevalence. There are key differences in these drivers both within and, to a lesser extent, between local authorities. Other than these structural barriers, no major differences in facilitators or barriers to COVID-19 mitigation were identified between areas of varying prevalence. The main features of successful mitigation strategies were a locally tailored approach and partnership working involving local authority departments working with local health, community, voluntary and business organisations. Conclusions This study is the first to add the voices of Directors of Public Health, who played a crucial role in the local COVID-19 response. Areas of enduring prevalence existed during the pandemic which were caused by a complex mix of structural factors related to inequalities. Participants advised that more research is needed on the effectiveness of mitigation strategies and other measures to reduce the impact of structural inequalities, to better understand the factors that drive prevalence. This would include an assessment of how these factors combine to predict transmission and how this varies between different areas.

Abstract Background Workers across different occupations vary in their risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, but the direct contribution of occupation to this relationship is unclear. This study aimed to investigate how infection risk differed across occupational groups in England and Wales up to April 2022, after adjustment for potential confounding and stratification by pandemic phase. Methods Data from 15,190 employed/self-employed participants in the Virus Watch prospective cohort study were used to generate risk ratios for virologically- or serologically-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection using robust Poisson regression, adjusting for socio-demographic and health-related factors and non-work public activities. We calculated attributable fractions (AF) amongst the exposed for belonging to each occupational group based on adjusted risk ratios (aRR). Results Increased risk was seen in nurses (aRR = 1.44, 1.25–1.65; AF = 30%, 20–39%), doctors (aRR = 1.33, 1.08–1.65; AF = 25%, 7–39%), carers (1.45, 1.19–1.76; AF = 31%, 16–43%), primary school teachers (aRR = 1.67, 1.42- 1.96; AF = 40%, 30–49%), secondary school teachers (aRR = 1.48, 1.26–1.72; AF = 32%, 21–42%), and teaching support occupations (aRR = 1.42, 1.23–1.64; AF = 29%, 18–39%) compared to office-based professional occupations. Differential risk was apparent in the earlier phases (Feb 2020—May 2021) and attenuated later (June—October 2021) for most groups, although teachers and teaching support workers demonstrated persistently elevated risk across waves. Conclusions Occupational differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection risk vary over time and are robust to adjustment for socio-demographic, health-related, and non-workplace activity-related potential confounders. Direct investigation into workplace factors underlying elevated risk and how these change over time is needed to inform occupational health interventions.

Abstract Background Workplace transmission is a significant contributor to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreaks. Previous studies have found that infectious illness presenteeism could contribute to outbreaks in occupational settings and identified multiple occupational and organisational risk factors. Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, it is imperative to investigate presenteeism particularly in relation to respiratory infectious disease (RID). Hence, this rapid review aims to determine the prevalence of RID-related presenteeism, including COVID-19, and examines the reported reasons and associated risk factors. Methods The review followed a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) search approach and focused on studies published in English and Chinese. Database searches included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database (CNKI) and preprint databases MedRxiv and BioRxiv. Results The search yielded 54 studies, of which four investigated COVID-19-related presenteeism. Prevalence of work presenteeism ranged from 14.1 to 55% for confirmed RID, and 6.6 to 100% for those working with suspected or subclinical RID. The included studies demonstrated that RID-related presenteeism is associated with occupation, sick pay policy, age, gender, health behaviour and perception, vaccination, peer pressure and organisational factors such as presenteeism culture. Conclusions This review demonstrates that presenteeism or non-adherence to isolation guidance is a real concern and can contribute to workplace transmissions and outbreaks. Policies which would support workers financially and improve productivity, should include a range of effective non-pharmaceutical inventions such as workplace testing, promoting occupational health services, reviewing pay and bonus schemes and clear messaging to encourage workers to stay at home when ill. Future research should focus on the more vulnerable and precarious occupational groups, and their inter-relationships, to develop comprehensive intervention programs to reduce RID-related presenteeism.

Abstract Background Brain tumor etiology is poorly understood. Based on their ability to pass through the blood–brain barrier, it has been hypothesized that exposure to metals may increase the risk of brain cancer. Results from the few epidemiological studies on this issue are limited and inconsistent. Methods We investigated the relationship between glioma risk and occupational exposure to five metals - lead, cadmium, nickel, chromium and iron- as well as to welding fumes, using data from the seven-country INTEROCC study. A total of 1800 incident glioma cases and 5160 controls aged 30–69 years were included in the analysis. Lifetime occupational exposure to the agents was assessed using the INTEROCC JEM, a modified version of the Finnish job exposure matrix FINJEM. Results In general, cases had a slightly higher prevalence of exposure to the various metals and welding fumes than did controls, with the prevalence among ever exposed ranging between 1.7 and 2.2% for cadmium to 10.2 and 13.6% for iron among controls and cases, respectively. However, in multivariable logistic regression analyses, there was no association between ever exposure to any of the agents and risk of glioma with odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) ranging from 0.8 (0.7–1.0) for lead to 1.1 (0.7–1.6) for cadmium. Results were consistent across models considering cumulative exposure or duration, as well as in all sensitivity analyses conducted. Conclusions Findings from this large-scale international study provide no evidence for an association between occupational exposure to any of the metals under scrutiny or welding fumes, and risk of glioma.