TY - JOUR
T1 - Between-occupation differences in work-related COVID-19 mitigation strategies over time
T2 - Analysis of the Virus Watch Cohort in England and Wales
AU - on behalf of the Virus Watch Collaborative
AU - Beale, Sarah
AU - Yavlinsky, Alexei
AU - Hoskins, Susan
AU - Nguyen, Vincent
AU - Byrne, Thomas
AU - Fong, Wing Lam Erica
AU - Kovar, Jana
AU - Tongeren, Martie Van
AU - Aldridge, Robert W.
AU - Hayward, Andrew
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 All rights reserved.
PY - 2023/7/1
Y1 - 2023/7/1
N2 - Objectives COVID-19 mitigations have had a profound impact on workplaces, however, multisectoral comparisons of how work-related mitigations were applied are limited. This study aimed to investigate (i) occupational differences in the usage of key work-related mitigations over time and (ii) workers’ perceptions of these mitigations. Methods Employed/self-employed Virus Watch study participants (N=6279) responded to a mitigation-related online survey covering the periods of December 2020–February 2022. Logistic regression was used to investigate occupation- and time-related differences in the usage of work-related mitigation methods. Participants’ perceptions of mitigation methods were investigated descriptively using proportions. Results Usage of work-related mitigation methods differed between occupations and over time, likely reflecting variation in job roles, workplace environments, legislation and guidance. Healthcare workers had the highest predicted probabilities for several mitigations, including reporting frequent hand hygiene [predicted probability across all survey periods 0.61 (95% CI 0.56–0.66)] and always wearing face coverings [predicted probability range 0.71 (95% CI 0.66–0.75) – 0.80 (95% CI 0.76–0.84) across survey periods]. There were significant crossoccupational trends towards reduced mitigations during periods of less stringent national restrictions. The majority of participants across occupations (55–88%) agreed that most mitigations were reasonable and worthwhile even after the relaxation of national restrictions; agreement was lower for physical distancing (39–44%). Conclusions While usage of work-related mitigations appeared to vary alongside stringency of national restrictions, agreement that most mitigations were reasonable and worthwhile remained substantial. Further investigation into the factors underlying between-occupational differences could assist pandemic planning and prevention of workplace COVID-19 transmission.
AB - Objectives COVID-19 mitigations have had a profound impact on workplaces, however, multisectoral comparisons of how work-related mitigations were applied are limited. This study aimed to investigate (i) occupational differences in the usage of key work-related mitigations over time and (ii) workers’ perceptions of these mitigations. Methods Employed/self-employed Virus Watch study participants (N=6279) responded to a mitigation-related online survey covering the periods of December 2020–February 2022. Logistic regression was used to investigate occupation- and time-related differences in the usage of work-related mitigation methods. Participants’ perceptions of mitigation methods were investigated descriptively using proportions. Results Usage of work-related mitigation methods differed between occupations and over time, likely reflecting variation in job roles, workplace environments, legislation and guidance. Healthcare workers had the highest predicted probabilities for several mitigations, including reporting frequent hand hygiene [predicted probability across all survey periods 0.61 (95% CI 0.56–0.66)] and always wearing face coverings [predicted probability range 0.71 (95% CI 0.66–0.75) – 0.80 (95% CI 0.76–0.84) across survey periods]. There were significant crossoccupational trends towards reduced mitigations during periods of less stringent national restrictions. The majority of participants across occupations (55–88%) agreed that most mitigations were reasonable and worthwhile even after the relaxation of national restrictions; agreement was lower for physical distancing (39–44%). Conclusions While usage of work-related mitigations appeared to vary alongside stringency of national restrictions, agreement that most mitigations were reasonable and worthwhile remained substantial. Further investigation into the factors underlying between-occupational differences could assist pandemic planning and prevention of workplace COVID-19 transmission.
KW - Infection control
KW - Infection prevention
KW - Occupational health
KW - Pandemic
KW - SARS-CoV-2
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85164230262&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.5271/sjweh.4092
DO - 10.5271/sjweh.4092
M3 - Article
C2 - 37066842
AN - SCOPUS:85164230262
SN - 0355-3140
VL - 49
SP - 350
EP - 362
JO - Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health
JF - Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health
IS - 5
ER -