SARS-CoV-2 exposures of healthcare workers from primary care, long-term care facilities and hospitals: a nationwide matched case-control study

  1. Martin Belan
  2. Tiffany Charmet
  3. Laura Schaeffer
  4. Sarah Tubiana
  5. Xavier Duval
  6. Jean-Christophe Lucet
  7. Arnaud Fontanet
  8. Gabriel Birgand
  9. Solen Kernéis

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/j.cmi.2022.05.038
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.02.26.22271545: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: Data Collection: Participants received online information about the study and gave consent for participation by completing the self-administered questionnaire.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    RandomizationThe final study population was obtained by randomly selecting cases and controls with a 1:1 ratio by exact case-control matching for 10-year age-category distribution, sex and residential region.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    The main limitations of the study are the low response rate of cases and controls and the use of an online questionnaire, which may have resulted in selection biases towards younger participants, more comfortable with internet and French language. Second, the underrepresentation of some professional categories impaired subgroup analyses, despite specific occupational exposures, e.g., physiotherapists or speech therapists. Third, the data used were relied upon HCW declarations, potentially influenced by social desirability or memorization bias. Fourth, we did not rule out past or current asymptomatic infections among controls [28]. Nevertheless, our population was composed of HCWs, more likely to recognize COVID-19 symptoms and with 3–5-fold higher access to tests than the general population, then lowering the risk of classification bias [1]. Finally, the study took place between April and July 2021, during the third COVID-19 wave in France. HCWs might have been better prepared and protected than during the first wave, especially regarding PPE, and the Delta and Omicron variants emerged in France after the end of the study period. Omicron transmissibility is much higher than previous variants, which may affect the relative weights of transmission sources and appropriate PPE [29]. In conclusion, our study results indicated that, for HCWs, COVID-19 patient-facing activities increased the risk of getting infected, while colleague-related and mostly community exposures appear to r...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: We found the following clinical trial numbers in your paper:

    IdentifierStatusTitle
    NCT04607941RecruitingStudy of Socio-demographic Factors, Behaviors and Practices …

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2022.02.26.22271545 on medRxiv