Ethnicity and risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection among the healthcare workforce: Results of a retrospective cohort study in rural United Kingdom.
COVID-19
Ethnicity
Health profession
Risk factors
SARS-CoV-2
United Kingdom
Journal
International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases
ISSN: 1878-3511
Titre abrégé: Int J Infect Dis
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 9610933
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2022
Sep 2022
Historique:
received:
10
02
2022
revised:
06
05
2022
accepted:
06
05
2022
pubmed:
16
5
2022
medline:
9
9
2022
entrez:
15
5
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The reason why Black and South Asian healthcare workers are at a higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection remain unclear. We aimed to quantify the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare staff who belong to the ethnic minority and elucidate pathways of infection. A one-year follow-up retrospective cohort study has been conducted among National Health Service employees who were working at 123 facilities in Lincolnshire, UK. Overall, 13,366 professionals were included. SARS-CoV-2 incidence per person-year was 5.2% (95% CI: 3.6-7.6%) during the first COVID-19 wave (January-August 2020) and 17.2% (13.5-22.0%) during the second wave (September 2020-February 2021). Compared with White staff, Black and South Asian employees were at higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection during both the first wave (hazard ratio, HR 1.58 [0.91-2.75] and 1.69 [1.07-2.66], respectively) and the second wave (HR 2.09 [1.57-2.76] and 1.46 [1.24-1.71]). Higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection persisted even after controlling for age, sex, pay grade, residence environment, type of work, and time exposure at work. Higher adjusted risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection were also found among lower-paid health professionals. Black and South Asian health workers continue to be at higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection than their White counterparts. Urgent interventions are required to reduce SARS-CoV-2 infection in these ethnic groups.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The reason why Black and South Asian healthcare workers are at a higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection remain unclear. We aimed to quantify the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare staff who belong to the ethnic minority and elucidate pathways of infection.
METHODS
METHODS
A one-year follow-up retrospective cohort study has been conducted among National Health Service employees who were working at 123 facilities in Lincolnshire, UK.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Overall, 13,366 professionals were included. SARS-CoV-2 incidence per person-year was 5.2% (95% CI: 3.6-7.6%) during the first COVID-19 wave (January-August 2020) and 17.2% (13.5-22.0%) during the second wave (September 2020-February 2021). Compared with White staff, Black and South Asian employees were at higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection during both the first wave (hazard ratio, HR 1.58 [0.91-2.75] and 1.69 [1.07-2.66], respectively) and the second wave (HR 2.09 [1.57-2.76] and 1.46 [1.24-1.71]). Higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection persisted even after controlling for age, sex, pay grade, residence environment, type of work, and time exposure at work. Higher adjusted risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection were also found among lower-paid health professionals.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Black and South Asian health workers continue to be at higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection than their White counterparts. Urgent interventions are required to reduce SARS-CoV-2 infection in these ethnic groups.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35569751
pii: S1201-9712(22)00281-8
doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2022.05.013
pmc: PMC9098657
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
115-122Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Références
Lancet Respir Med. 2021 Mar;9(3):251-259
pubmed: 33341155
BMJ. 2020 Jun 8;369:m2264
pubmed: 32513658
Elife. 2020 Aug 21;9:
pubmed: 32820721
J Public Health (Oxf). 2022 Jun 27;44(2):234-245
pubmed: 33200200
BMJ Open. 2021 Mar 16;11(3):e045384
pubmed: 33727275
Lancet. 2021 May 8;397(10286):1711-1724
pubmed: 33939953
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Sep;20(9):1034-1042
pubmed: 32422204
PLoS Med. 2021 Nov 5;18(11):e1003823
pubmed: 34739480
Front Med (Lausanne). 2021 Mar 12;8:636160
pubmed: 33777979
BMJ Open. 2020 Nov 19;10(11):e040402
pubmed: 33444201
Sci Rep. 2021 Jun 2;11(1):11555
pubmed: 34078992
Lancet. 2020 May 2;395(10234):e77-e78
pubmed: 32333843
BMJ. 2021 Feb 26;372:n513
pubmed: 33637577
Lancet Public Health. 2020 Sep;5(9):e475-e483
pubmed: 32745512
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2021 Oct;75(10):970-974
pubmed: 33883198
PeerJ. 2021 Feb 04;9:e10891
pubmed: 33604201
Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2022 Feb;13:100284
pubmed: 34927120
Clin Med (Lond). 2021 Jan;21(1):e5-e8
pubmed: 33479076
J Migr Health. 2021;3:100041
pubmed: 33903857
Thorax. 2020 Dec;75(12):1089-1094
pubmed: 32917840
EClinicalMedicine. 2021 Apr;34:100835
pubmed: 33880438
J Dent Res. 2021 Oct;100(11):1220-1227
pubmed: 34077690
Clin Med (Lond). 2021 May;21(3):e290-e294
pubmed: 33757988
Lancet. 2020 Jul 25;396(10246):e6-e7
pubmed: 32653078