No abstract

Introduction: Healthcare workers are believed to be at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The extent of that increased risk compared to the general population and the groups most at risk have not been extensively studied. Methods: A prospective observational study of health and social care workers in NHS Tayside (Scotland, UK) from May to September 2020. The Siemens SARS-CoV-2 total antibody assay was used to establish seroprevalence in this cohort. Patients provided clinical information including demographics and workplace information. Controls, matched for age and sex to the general Tayside population, were studied for comparison. Results: A total of 2062 health and social care workers were recruited for this study. The participants were predominantly female (81.7%) and 95.2% were white. 299 healthcare workers had a positive antibody test (14.5%). 11 out of 231 control sera tested positive (4.8%). Healthcare workers therefore had an increased likelihood of a positive test (odds ratio 3.4 95% CI 1.85-6.16, p<0.0001). Dentists, healthcare assistants and porters were the job roles most likely to test positive. Those working in front-line roles with COVID-19 patients were more likely to test positive (17.4% vs. 13.4%, p=0.02). 97.1% of patients who had previously tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR had positive antibodies, compared to 11.8% of individuals with a symptomatic illness who had tested negative. Anosmia was the symptom most associated with the presence of detectable antibodies. Conclusion: In this study, healthcare workers were three times more likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 than the general population. The seroprevalence data in different populations identified in this study will be useful to protect healthcare staff during future waves of the pandemic.

Background: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are believed to be at increased risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. It is not known to what extent the natural production of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 is protective against re-infection. Methods: A prospective observational study of HCWs in Scotland (UK) from May to September 2020 was performed. The Siemens SARS-CoV-2 total antibody assay was used to establish seroprevalence in this cohort. Controls, matched for age and sex to the general local population, were studied for comparison. New infections (up to 2 December 2020) post antibody testing were recorded to determine whether the presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies protects against re-infection. Results: A total of 2063 health and social care workers were recruited for this study. At enrolment, 300 HCWs had a positive antibody test (14.5%). 11 out of 231 control sera tested positive (4.8%). HCWs therefore had an increased likelihood of a positive test (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.85-6.16; p<0.0001). Dentists were most likely to test positive. 97.3% of patients who had previously tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcriptase (RT)-PCR had positive antibodies. 18.7% had an asymptomatic infection. There were 38 new infections with SARS-CoV-2 in HCWs who were previously antibody negative, and one symptomatic RT-PCR-positive re-infection. The presence of antibodies was therefore associated with an 85% reduced risk of re-infection with SARS-CoV-2 (hazard ratio 0.15, 95% CI 0.06-0.35; p=0.026). Conclusion: HCWs were three times more likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 than the general population. Almost all infected individuals developed an antibody response, which was 85% effective in protecting against re-infection with SARS-CoV-2. @ERSpublicationsIn this study, healthcare workers were three times more likely to test positive for #SARSCoV2 than the general population. Almost all infected individuals developed an antibody response, and this was 85% effective in protecting against re-infection.

BackgroundHealthcare workers (HCW) are believed to be at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. It is not known to what extent the natural production of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 is protective against re-infection.MethodsA prospective observational study of HCW's in Scotland (UK) from May to September 2020. The Siemens SARS-CoV-2 total antibody assay was used to establish seroprevalence in this cohort. Controls, matched for age and sex to the general local population, were studied for comparison. New infections (up to 2/12/2020) post antibody testing were recorded to determine if the presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies protect against re-infection.ResultsA total of 2063 health and social care workers were recruited for this study. At enrolment 300 HCW had a positive antibody test (14.5%). 11/231 control sera tested positive (4.8%). HCW therefore had an increased likelihood of a positive test (Odds ratio 3.4 95% CI 1.85–6.16, p<0.0001). Dentists were most likely to test positive. 97.3% of patients who had previously tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR had positive antibodies. 18.7% had an asymptomatic infection. There were 38 new infections with SARS-CoV-2 in HCW who were previously antibody negative and one symptomatic RT-PCR positive re-infection. The presence of antibodies was therefore associated with an 85% reduced risk of re-infection with SARS-CoV-2 (HR 0.15, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.35, p=0.026).ConclusionHCW were three times more likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 than the general population. Almost all infected individuals developed an antibody response which was 85% effective in protecting against re-infection with SARS-CoV-2.

Background: People who have obesity often experience problematic eating behaviours, contributing towards their excessive weight gain. Aims: Understanding problematic eating behaviours and their association to self-compassion, mindfulness and mindful eating is important for the development of future interventions that improve weight-loss and weight-regulation. Methods: One hundred and one participants attending their first session of a 6-session dietetic programme within a Tier 3 medical weight management service in the West Midlands, UK were recruited to complete questionnaires on self-compassion, mindfulness, mindful eating and eating behaviours, such as, emotional, restrained, external, fat and sugar consumption and grazing. Results: The findings suggested all three constructs, self-compassion, mindfulness and mindful eating were significantly and negatively associated with grazing and emotional eating, but mindful eating was the only construct that also displayed a significant and negative association with other eating behaviours that are often barriers to successful weight regulation, such as external eating and fat consumption. Further investigation suggested mindful eating had an indirect effect on fat consumption and grazing via external eating. Conclusion: Whilst, self-compassion, mindfulness and mindful eating displayed a negative relationship with grazing and emotional eating, mindful eating also displayed a negative relationship with fat consumption and external eating. Possible explanations and directions for future work are discussed with an emphasis on the need for more empirical work.