O-148 Differences and similarities of occupational risk factors for COVID-19 across waves of the pandemic; extended follow-up of the COVICAT cohort. (14th March 2023)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Straif, Kurt; Espinosa, Ana; Castaño-Vinyals, Gemma; Karachaliou, Marianna; Alba Hidalgo, Miguel Angel; Papantoniou, Kyriaki; Garcia-Aymerich, Judith; Cid, Rafael de; Goldberg, Ximena; Kogevinas, Manolis
• Is Part Of: Occupational and environmental medicine. Volume 80(2023)Supplement 1
• Page Start: A63
• Page End: A63
• Publication Date: 2023-03-14
• Subjects: Medicine, Industrial -- Periodicals; Environmental health -- Periodicals; 616.980305
• DOI: 10.1136/OEM-2023-EPICOH.155
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1351-0711

Abstract

Abstract : Introduction: During the first pandemic lockdown in Spain certain workers have been at increased risk of COVID-19. Results from published studies are heterogeneous, possibly due to differences in public health interventions, availability of personal protective equipment (PPE), virulence of variants of concern, population-wide immunity or methodological issues. Methods: The COVICAT study (IEC approved) pooled ongoing population-based cohort studies from Catalonia. Occupational analyses of COVICAT were restricted to working age and included 8, 422 participants, of which 3, 563 were tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies during the first wave; study participants were re-contacted in mid-2021. Participants responded to a web-based or telephone survey including questions on socio-demographics, pre-pandemic health, behavioural and environmental risk factors. Occupational questions covered mode of work, job title, PPE, and mode of commuting. COVID-19 cases were defined by self-reported symptoms or hospitalisation and SARS CoV-2 seropositivity. Association of type of work, job titles and job-exposure matrix (JEM) with COVID-19 was assed using log-binomial models adjusted for potential confounders, such as age, sex, education, deprivation index, population density and survey type. Analyses for the extended follow-up were stratified by pandemic waves. Results: The relative risk (RR) for COVID-19 for working at the usual workplace compared to telework was 1.83 (95% CI: 1.41, 2.38), and 1.63 (95% CI: 1.05, 2.52) among the serology study participants. The RR by job title was increased for all health care workers and highest for personal health care workers in health services (6.19; 3.71, 10.33); PPE was associated with a stronger protective effect by increasing protection level. Using public transport for commuting was associated with a 50% increase in COVID risk. Results for the extended follow-up will be presented. Conclusions: The extended follow-up of the COVICAT cohort provides data to illuminate occupational risk factors for COVID-19 infection over time, which may contribute to explain heterogeneities across countries.