Workplace interventions to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection outside of healthcare settings

Pizarro, Ana Beatriz; Persad, Emma; Durão, Solange; Nußbaumer-Streit, Barbara; Engela-Volker, Jean S; McElvenny, Damien; Rhodes, Sarah; Stocking, Katie; Fletcher, Tony; Martin, Craig A.; Noertjojo, Kukuh; Sampson, Olivia; Verbeek, Jos; Jørgensen, Karsten Juhl; Bruschettini, Matteo

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd015112.pub2

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 79 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistent with these findings, we found that Hong Kong people with higher socioeconomic status reported more perceived benefits, whereas those with lower socioeconomic status reported more perceived harms from the COVID-19 outbreak ( 21 ). Our search of PubMed using the keywords “benefits” and “harms” and “socioeconomic” and “COVID-19” up to 5 June 2022 yielded seven reports (excluding our own) that investigated both potential benefits and harms of COVID-19 ( 6 , 22 – 27 ). However, these reports were based largely on qualitative data or casual observations; none directly compared both perceived benefits and harms and their socioeconomic disparities between early and later waves of outbreak amid the pandemic.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Substantial increase in perceived benefits over harms of COVID-19 outbreak but persistent socioeconomic disparities: Comparison of two cross-sectional surveys in Hong Kong from 2020 to 2021

Leung

Gong

Sit

et al. 2022

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundWe have reported both perceived benefits and harms of the COVID-19 outbreak and their socioeconomic disparities amid the pandemic in Hong Kong. We further investigated whether such perceptions and disparities had changed after 10 months.MethodsUnder the Hong Kong Jockey Club SMART Family-Link Project, we conducted two cross-sectional surveys online on perceived personal and family benefits and harms of the COVID-19 outbreak in Hong Kong adults in May 2020 (after Wave 2 was under control; N = 4,891) and in February and March 2021 (after Wave 4 was under control; N = 6,013). We collected sociodemographic information, including sex, age, education, household income, and housing. Using multivariate models of analysis of covariance (MANCOVA), we compared perceived benefits and harms and socioeconomic disparities between the two surveys.ResultsAdjusting for sex and age, the prevalence of 17 out of 18 perceived personal and family benefits of COVID-19 outbreak increased (Ps < 0.001). Six of 11 perceived personal and family harms decreased (Ps < 0.001) and 4 increased (Ps < 0.001). The total number of perceived personal and family benefits increased substantially (Ps < 0.001), whereas that of perceived personal harms decreased (P = 0.01) and family harms remained stable (P > 0.05). Socioeconomic disparities, however, persisted—more perceived benefits in those with higher socioeconomic status (Ps < 0.001) and more perceived harms in those with lower (Ps ≤ 0.005).ConclusionWe have first reported that perceived personal and family benefits of the COVID-19 outbreak increased substantially over 10 months amid the pandemic, while perceived personal and family harms were lower and stable, respectively. Socioeconomic disparities of the perceived benefits and harms persisted, which need to be monitored and addressed urgently.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Substantial increase in perceived benefits over harms of COVID-19 outbreak but persistent socioeconomic disparities: Comparison of two cross-sectional surveys in Hong Kong from 2020 to 2021

Leung

Gong

Sit

et al. 2022

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The reviews looking at active surveillance measures [24, 25, 27, 33, 108] found that: routine testing of residents and staff independent of symptoms may reduce the number of infections and hospitalizations in long‐term care facilities. Routine testing may also reduce the number of deaths among residents, but it is uncertain whether it reduces deaths among staff or whether it increases or decreases the probability of outbreaks.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… Test‐based attendance policy in schools may result in little to no difference in absence rates compared with standard 10‐day self‐isolation among school and college staff (one high confidence review) [25]. …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… It is uncertain whether a test‐based attendance policy affects rates of symptomatic infection or any PCR‐positive SARS‐CoV‐2 infection compared with standard 10‐day self‐isolation among school and college staff (one high‐confidence review, GRADE applied) [25]. …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the 94 reviews assessed using AMSTAR 2, eight (9%; seven rapid and one systematic review) were rated as having high or moderate confidence ratings on AMSTAR 2 [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]. The majority were rated as critically low (n = 73, 78%) or low (n = 13, 14%) (Appendix S3).…”

Section: Methodological Assessment Of Included Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The effects of public health and social measures (PHSM) implemented during the COVID‐19 pandemic: An overview of systematic reviews

Fadlallah,

El‐Jardali,

Karroum

et al. 2024

Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionTo systematically review the effectiveness and unintended health and socioeconomic consequences of public health and social measures (PHSM) aimed at reducing the scale and risk of transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19).MethodsThis review followed guidance about overviews of reviews in the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions and used the Epistemonikos database's COVID‐19 Living Overview of Evidence repository as a primary search source. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) checklist.ResultsA total of 94 reviews were included, of which eight (9%) had “moderate” to “high” confidence ratings on the AMSTAR 2. Of 16 reviews (17%) reporting applying the GRADE framework, none found high certainty evidence for any of our outcomes of interest. Across the 94 reviews, the most frequently examined PHSM were personal protection (n = 18, 19%). Within multicomponent interventions, so‐called “lockdown” was the most frequently examined component (n = 39, 41%). The most frequently reported outcome category was non‐COVID‐19‐related health outcomes (n = 58, 62%). Only five (5%) reviews reported on socioeconomic outcomes. Findings from the eight reviews with moderate or high confidence ratings on AMSTAR 2 are narratively summarized. There is low‐certainty evidence that multicomponent interventions may reduce the transmission of COVID‐19 in different settings. For active surveillance and response measures, low‐certainty evidence suggests that routine testing of residents and staff in long‐term care facilities may reduce the number of infections, hospitalizations, and deaths among residents. We found very low‐certainty evidence about the effectiveness of personal protection measures, travel‐related control measures, and environmental measures. Unintended consequences were rarely examined by those eight reviews.ConclusionWe found predominantly low‐ to very low‐certainty evidence regarding the effectiveness and unintended consequences of PHSM in controlling the risk and scale of COVID‐19 transmission. There is a need to improve the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews.

show abstract