Vulnerable Workers and COVID-19: Insights from a Survey of Members of the International Commission for Occupational Health.
COVID-19 pandemic
disadvantaged populations
poverty
public health practice
social determination of health
social justice
vulnerable populations
workers
Journal
International journal of environmental research and public health
ISSN: 1660-4601
Titre abrégé: Int J Environ Res Public Health
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101238455
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 01 2021
05 01 2021
Historique:
received:
06
12
2020
revised:
30
12
2020
accepted:
31
12
2020
entrez:
20
1
2021
pubmed:
21
1
2021
medline:
23
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted on the health and wellbeing of populations directly through infection, as well as through serious societal and economic consequences such as unemployment and underemployment. The consequences could be even more severe for those more vulnerable to the disease, such as the elderly and those with underlying health conditions. Indeed, there is evidence that such vulnerable populations are disproportionately affected in terms of both, their health and the socioeconomic impact. The aim of our study was to determine whether occupational health (OH) professionals thought that the COVID-19 pandemic might further disadvantage any particular group(s) of vulnerable workers globally, and if so, which group(s). A cross-sectional study was carried out with a sample of OH professionals by means of an online questionnaire which was shared via email within the ICOH (International Commission for Occupational Health) community. Data was collected over a period of two weeks in May 2020 and 165 responses from 52 countries were received. In this paper, the responses relating to questions about vulnerable workers are reported and discussed. Globally, our responders felt that those in less secure jobs (precarious employment (79%) and informal work (69%)), or unemployed (63%), were the most at risk of further disadvantage from this pandemic. The majority felt that their governments could act to mitigate these effects. There were suggestions of short-term alleviation such as financial and social support, as well as calls for fundamental reviews of the underlying inequalities that leave populations so vulnerable to a crisis such as COVID-19.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33466436
pii: ijerph18010346
doi: 10.3390/ijerph18010346
pmc: PMC7796473
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Aug 10;15(8):
pubmed: 30103403
Occup Med (Lond). 2020 Jul 17;70(5):315-316
pubmed: 32359148
Occup Med (Lond). 2017 Dec 2;67(8):593-595
pubmed: 29211909
Occup Med (Lond). 2020 Jul 17;70(5):335-337
pubmed: 32352523
BMJ. 2020 Sep 21;370:m3577
pubmed: 32958470
Occup Med (Lond). 2020 Jul 17;70(5):345-346
pubmed: 32432325
Saf Health Work. 2020 Sep;11(3):275-283
pubmed: 32837740
Bioethics. 2013 Jun;27(5):271-9
pubmed: 22420910
Occup Med (Lond). 2020 Jul 17;70(5):359-363
pubmed: 32406513
BMJ. 2020 Sep 21;370:m3600
pubmed: 32958471
BMJ Glob Health. 2020 Jul;5(7):
pubmed: 32641292
Med Health Care Philos. 2013 Aug;16(3):499-506
pubmed: 22752640
BMJ Glob Health. 2020 Aug;5(8):
pubmed: 32830130
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Nov 03;17(21):
pubmed: 33153162
Occup Med (Lond). 2020 Jul;70(5):292
pubmed: 32879558
Occup Med (Lond). 2020 Jul 17;70(5):338-342
pubmed: 32449751