Michael Zhang1,2. 1. Administration Division, Southern Nevada Health District, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The disease burden of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is not uniform across occupations. Although healthcare workers are well-known to be at increased risk, data for other occupations are lacking. In lieu of this, models have been used to forecast occupational risk using various predictors, but no model heretofore has used data from actual case numbers. This study assesses the differential risk of COVID-19 by occupation using predictors from the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) database and correlating them with case counts published by the Washington State Department of Health to identify workers in individual occupations at highest risk of COVID-19 infection. METHODS: The O*NET database was screened for potential predictors of differential COVID-19 risk by occupation. Case counts delineated by occupational group were obtained from public sources. Prevalence by occupation was estimated and correlated with O*NET data to build a regression model to predict individual occupations at greatest risk. RESULTS: Two variables correlate with case prevalence: disease exposure (r = 0.66; p = 0.001) and physical proximity (r = 0.64; p = 0.002), and predict 47.5% of prevalence variance (p = 0.003) on multiple linear regression analysis. The highest risk occupations are in healthcare, particularly dental, but many nonhealthcare occupations are also vulnerable. CONCLUSIONS: Models can be used to identify workers vulnerable to COVID-19, but predictions are tempered by methodological limitations. Comprehensive data across many states must be collected to adequately guide implementation of occupation-specific interventions in the battle against COVID-19.
BACKGROUND: The disease burden of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is not uniform across occupations. Although healthcare workers are well-known to be at increased risk, data for other occupations are lacking. In lieu of this, models have been used to forecast occupational risk using various predictors, but no model heretofore has used data from actual case numbers. This study assesses the differential risk of COVID-19 by occupation using predictors from the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) database and correlating them with case counts published by the Washington State Department of Health to identify workers in individual occupations at highest risk of COVID-19infection. METHODS: The O*NET database was screened for potential predictors of differential COVID-19 risk by occupation. Case counts delineated by occupational group were obtained from public sources. Prevalence by occupation was estimated and correlated with O*NET data to build a regression model to predict individual occupations at greatest risk. RESULTS: Two variables correlate with case prevalence: disease exposure (r = 0.66; p = 0.001) and physical proximity (r = 0.64; p = 0.002), and predict 47.5% of prevalence variance (p = 0.003) on multiple linear regression analysis. The highest risk occupations are in healthcare, particularly dental, but many nonhealthcare occupations are also vulnerable. CONCLUSIONS: Models can be used to identify workers vulnerable to COVID-19, but predictions are tempered by methodological limitations. Comprehensive data across many states must be collected to adequately guide implementation of occupation-specific interventions in the battle against COVID-19.
Authors: Pepa Bruce; Kate Ainscough; Lee Hatter; Irene Braithwaite; Lindsay R Berry; Mark Fitzgerald; Thomas Hills; Kathy Brickell; David Cosgrave; Alex Semprini; Susan Morpeth; Scott Berry; Peter Doran; Paul Young; Richard Beasley; Alistair Nichol Journal: Trials Date: 2022-06-27 Impact factor: 2.728
Authors: Sean P M Rice; Leah S Greenspan; Talya N Bauer; Jarred Rimby; Todd E Bodner; Ryan Olson Journal: Ann Work Expo Health Date: 2022-03-15 Impact factor: 2.779
Authors: Ethan D Fechter-Leggett; Kathleen B Fedan; Jean M Cox-Ganser; Martin I Meltzer; Bishwa B Adhikari; Chad H Dowell Journal: Health Secur Date: 2022-02-01
Authors: Chioma Adanma Nwaru; Ailiana Santosa; Stefan Franzén; Fredrik Nyberg Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2022-01-07 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Linda Matisāne; Linda Paegle; Maija Eglīte; Lāsma Akūlova; Asnate Anna Linde; Ivars Vanadziņš; Iveta Mietule; Jeļena Lonska; Lienīte Litavniece; Iluta Arbidāne; Sarmīte Rozentāle; Ieva Grīntāle Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-13 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Javier Llorca; Carolina Lechosa-Muñiz; Lorena Lasarte-Oria; Rocío Cuesta-González; Marcos López-Hoyos; Pilar Gortázar; Inés Gómez-Acebo; Trinidad Dierssen-Sotos; María J Cabero-Pérez Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-12 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Jesse Bonwitt; Ruth W Deya; Dustin W Currie; Beth Lipton; Melinda Huntington-Frazier; Sara Jaye Sanford; Aley Joseph Pallickaparambil; Julia Hood; Agam K Rao; Kaitlin Kelly-Reif; Sara E Luckhaupt; Sargis Pogosjans; Scott Lindquist; Jeff Duchin; Vance Kawakami Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2021-06-25 Impact factor: 17.586