scholarly journals COVID-19 infections among Healthcare Workers and Transmission within Households

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin L. Schwartz ◽  
Camille Achonu ◽  
Sarah A. Buchan ◽  
Kevin A. Brown ◽  
Brenda Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Population ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Nosocomial Transmission ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Testing Bias

AbstractImportanceProtecting healthcare workers (HCWs) from COVID-19 is a priority to maintain a safe and functioning healthcare system. The risk of transmitting COVID-19 to family members is a source of stress for many.ObjectiveTo describe and compare HCW and non-HCW COVID-19 cases in Ontario, Canada, as well as the frequency of COVID-19 among HCWs’ household members.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsUsing reportable disease data at Public Health Ontario which captures all COVID-19 cases in Ontario, Canada, we conducted a population-based cross-sectional study comparing demographic, exposure, and clinical variables between HCWs and non-HCWs with COVID-19 as of 14 May 2020. We calculated rates of infections over time and determined the frequency of within household transmissions using natural language processing based on residential address.Exposures and OutcomesWe contrasted age, gender, comorbidities, clinical presentation (including asymptomatic and presymptomatic), exposure histories including nosocomial transmission, and clinical outcomes between HCWs and non-HCWs with confirmed COVID-19.ResultsThere were 4,230 (17.5%) HCW COVID-19 cases in Ontario, of whom 20.2% were nurses, 2.3% were physicians, and the remaining 77.4% other specialties. HCWs were more likely to be between 30-60 years of age and female. HCWs were more likely to present asymptomatically (8.1% versus 7.0%, p=0.010) or with atypical symptoms (17.8% versus 10.5%, p<0.001). The mortality among HCWs was 0.2% compared to 10.5% of non-HCWs. HCWs commonly had exposures to a confirmed case or outbreak (74.1%), however only 3.1% were confirmed to be nosocomial. The rate of new infections was 5.5 times higher in HCWs than non-HCWs, but mirrored the epidemic curve. We identified 391 (9.8%) probable secondary household transmissions and 143 (3.6%) acquisitions. Children < 19 years comprised 14.6% of secondary cases compared to only 4.2% of the primary cases.Conclusions and RelevanceHCWs represent a disproportionate number of COVID-19 cases in Ontario but with low confirmed numbers of nosocomial transmission. The data support substantial testing bias and under-ascertainment of general population cases. Protecting HCWs through appropriate personal protective equipment and physical distancing from colleagues is paramount.Key PointsQuestionWhat are the differences between healthcare workers and non-healthcare workers with COVID-19?FindingsIn this population-based cross-sectional study there were 4,230 healthcare workers comprising 17.5% of COVID-19 cases. Healthcare workers were diagnosed with COVID-19 at a rate 5.5 times higher than the general population with 0.8% of all healthcare workers, compared to 0.1% of non-healthcare workers.MeaningHigh healthcare worker COVID-19 burden highlights the importance of physical distancing from colleagues, appropriate personal protective equipment, as well as likely substantial testing bias and under-ascertainment of COVID-19 in the general population.

scholarly journals Knowledge and experience of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study in Tema, Ghana

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 1022
Author(s):  
Mercy N. A. Opare-Addo ◽  
Josephine Mensah ◽  
Janice Osei Donkor ◽  
Amos Amoako-Adusei ◽  
Angela Opoku-Bona
Keyword(s):  
News Media ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Sufficient Knowledge ◽  
Level Of Knowledge

Background: Coronavirus Disease 2019 is a pandemic caused by a novel human coronavirus previously known as 2019-nCov. Healthcare workers are essential in the response to and management of such infectious diseases.  Methods: A hospital-based cross-sectional study was conducted at Tema General Hospital, Ghana. Data was collected from healthcare workers using a structured questionnaire. Descriptive statistics was done for all socio-demographic characteristics of respondents. Level of knowledge about coronavirus disease and factors influencing participants’ willingness to work were summarized as frequencies, percentages and charts. Chi-square test was used to test for association between level of knowledge and all independent variables.  Results: A total of 157 healthcare workers participated in this study. The news media (135, 85.99%) was the commonest source of information for participants. Almost half of participants (47.8%) had been tested for coronavirus disease, and 91.08% had sufficient knowledge about the disease. Occupation (p=0.047) was significantly associated with participants’ level of knowledge. A total of 46.49% disagreed with adequacy of personal protective equipment provided, with 70.06% admitting they have had to use their own personal protective equipment at work. A sense of duty (20, 31.8%) and motivation (14, 22.2%) positively influenced participants’ ability to work while challenges faced included fear of contracting and transmitting the virus (98.7%) and stigmatization (70.7%).  Conclusions: The healthcare workers had sufficient knowledge about coronavirus disease. Insufficient personal protective equipment was evident during the pandemic. Measures must be established to ensure that barriers to work are eliminated while factors that enhance work output are encouraged.

scholarly journals Knowledge, attitude and reported practice regarding donning and doffing of personal protective equipment among frontline healthcare workers against COVID-19 in Nepal: A cross-sectional study

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (11) ◽  
pp. e0000066
Author(s):  
Sagar Pandey ◽  
Sujan Poudel ◽  
Ashok Gaire ◽  
Ritu Poudel ◽  
Prabin Subedi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Good Practice ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
High Rate ◽  
P Value ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Frontline Healthcare Workers

Background Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a respiratory infection with a high rate of transmission primarily via airborne route and direct contact. Proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is a proven and effective way to prevent COVID-19 spread in healthcare settings. This study was done aiming to assess the knowledge, attitude, and reported practice, and identify the associated factors regarding donning and doffing of PPE among frontline healthcare workers in Nepal. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted from 25th April to 30th July 2021 among 205 frontline healthcare workers of Nepal selected randomly from among the contacts of the investigators. A structured self-administered questionnaire prepared in google form was used as a study tool and shared via social media to the participants to obtain information on socio-demographic and workplace characteristics along with their knowledge, attitude, and reported practice regarding donning and doffing of PPE. Result A total of 79.5% of participants had satisfactory knowledge while 75.6% had satisfactory practice scores regarding donning and doffing of PPE. Factors such as the profession of the participants (p-value = 0.048), their workplace (p-value = 0.005), provision of PPE at workplace (p-value = 0 .009), and availability of designated space at workplace for methodical donning and doffing of PPE (p-value = 0.010) were significantly associated with satisfactory knowledge score whereas availability of designated space at workplace for donning and doffing of PPE was significantly associated with good practice score (p-value = 0.009). Conclusion This study demonstrated an overall good knowledge, attitude, and reported practice regarding donning and doffing of PPE among frontline healthcare workers in Nepal. However, the reported shortcomings like poor knowledge regarding the sequence of donning and doffing and corresponding flawed practice behaviors need to be addressed.

scholarly journals Mask and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Associated Headache: A Cross-Sectional Study among the COVID-Time Physicians in Bangladesh

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 12-22
Author(s):  
K M Nazmul Islam Joy ◽  
Reaz Mahmud ◽  
Md Golam Rabbani ◽  
Md Khairul Islam ◽  
Rajesh Saha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional

scholarly journals Impact of enhanced personal protective equipment on the physical and mental well-being of healthcare workers during COVID-19

2020 ◽  
pp. postgradmedj-2020-139150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramanathan Swaminathan ◽  
Bimantha Perera Mukundadura ◽  
Shashi Prasad
Keyword(s):  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Mental Well Being

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated the use of enhanced personal protective equipment (PPE) in healthcare workers in patient-facing roles. We describe the impact on the physical and mental well-being of healthcare professionals who use enhanced PPE consistently.MethodsWe conducted a single-centre, cross-sectional study among healthcare professionals who use enhanced PPE. A web-based questionnaire was disseminated to evaluate the effects on individuals’ physical and mental well-being. Physical and mental impact was assessed through a visual analogue scale.ResultsProspective analysis of the views of 72 respondents is reported. 63.9% were women and 36.1% were men. Physical impact included exhaustion, headache, skin changes, breathlessness and a negative impact on vision. Communication difficulties, somnolence, negative impact on overall performance and difficulties in using surgical instrumentation were reported.ConclusionOur study demonstrates the undeniable negative impact on the front-line healthcare workers using enhanced PPE and lays the ground for larger multicentric assessments given for it to potentially be the norm for the foreseeable future.

scholarly journals Seroprevalence of the SARS-CoV-2 antibody in healthcare workers: a multicentre cross-sectional study in 10 Colombian cities

2021 ◽  
pp. oemed-2021-107487
Author(s):  
Jeadran Nevardo Malagón-Rojas ◽  
Marcela Mercado-Reyes ◽  
Yezith G Toloza-Pérez ◽  
Eliana L Parra Barrera ◽  
Marien Palma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Strong Association ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Risk Of Infection ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Automated Immunoassay

BackgroundHealthcare workers are at increased risk of infection due to occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2-infected patients. The objective of this study was to determine the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers in Colombia.MethodsThis study is a cross-sectional study focused on estimating the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in healthcare workers from 65 hospitals in 10 cities in Colombia during the second semester of 2020. The seroprevalence was determined using an automated immunoassay (Abbott SARS-CoV-2 CLIA IgG). The study included a survey to establish the sociodemographic variables and the risk of infection. A multivariate model was used to evaluate the association between the results of seroprevalence and risk factors.ResultsThe global seroprevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 was 35% (95% Bayesian CI 33% to 37%). All the personnel reported the use of protective equipment. General services personnel and nurses presented the highest ratios of seroprevalence among the healthcare workers. Low socioeconomic strata have shown a strong association with seropositivity.ConclusionThis study estimates the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers. Even though all the personnel reported the use of protective equipment, the seroprevalence in the general services personnel and nurses was high. Also, a significant difference by cities was observed.

scholarly journals Activation of professional and personal network relations when experiencing a symptom: a population-based cross-sectional study

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. e017620 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra Elnegaard ◽  
Rikke Sand Andersen ◽  
Anette Fischer Pedersen ◽  
Dorte Ejg Jarbøl
Keyword(s):  
General Population ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Network Activation ◽  
Personal Relations ◽  
Professional Network ◽  
Symptom Experiences

ObjectiveTo describe patterns of disclosure of symptoms experienced among people in the general population to persons in their personal and/or professional network.DesignA population-based cross-sectional study. Data were collected from a web-based survey.SettingThe general population in Denmark.Participants100 000 individuals randomly selected, representative of the adult Danish population aged ≥20 years were invited. Approximately 5% were not eligible for inclusion. 49 706 (men=23 240; women=26 466) of 95 253 eligible individuals completed the questionnaire; yielding a response rate of 52.2%. Individuals completing all questions regarding social network relations form the study base (n=44 313).Primary and secondary outcome measuresActivation of personal and/or professional relations when experiencing a symptom.ResultsThe 44 313 individuals reported in total 260 079 symptom experiences within the last 4 weeks. No professional network relation was used in two-thirds of all reported symptoms. The general practitioner (GP) was the most frequently reported professional relation activated (22.5%). People reporting to have available personal relations were slightly less inclined to contact the GP (21.9%) when experiencing a symptom compared with people with no reported personal relations (26.8%). The most commonly activated personal relations were spouse/partner (56.4%) and friend (19.6%). More than a quarter of all reported symptom experiences was not shared with anyone, personal nor professional. The symptom experiences with the lowest frequency of network activation were symptoms such as black stool, constipation, change in stool texture and frequent urination.ConclusionThis study emphasises variation in the activation of network relations when experiencing a symptom. Symptoms were shared with both personal and professional relations, but different patterns of disclosures were discovered. For symptoms derived from the urogenital or colorectal region, the use of both personal and professional relations was relatively small, which might indicate reticence to involve other people when experiencing symptoms of that nature.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document