Risk of COVID-19 among front-line health-care workers and the general community: a prospective cohort study

  1. Long H Nguyen
  2. David A Drew
  3. Mark S Graham
  4. Amit D Joshi
  5. Chuan-Guo Guo
  6. Wenjie Ma
  7. Raaj S Mehta
  8. Erica T Warner
  9. Daniel R Sikavi
  10. Chun-Han Lo
  11. Sohee Kwon
  12. Mingyang Song
  13. Lorelei A Mucci
  14. Meir J Stampfer
  15. Walter C Willett
  16. A Heather Eliassen
  17. Jaime E Hart
  18. Jorge E Chavarro
  19. Janet W Rich-Edwards
  20. Richard Davies
  21. Joan Capdevila
  22. Karla A Lee
  23. Mary Ni Lochlainn
  24. Thomas Varsavsky
  25. Carole H Sudre
  26. M Jorge Cardoso
  27. Jonathan Wolf
  28. Tim D Spector
  29. Sebastien Ourselin
  30. Claire J Steves
  31. Andrew T Chan
  32. Christine M. Albert
  33. Gabriella Andreotti
  34. Bijal Bala
  35. Bijal A. Balasubramanian
  36. Laura E. Beane-Freeman
  37. John S. Brownstein
  38. Fiona J. Bruinsma
  39. Joe Coresh
  40. Rui Costa
  41. Annie N. Cowan
  42. Anusila Deka
  43. Sandra L. Deming-Halverson
  44. Maria Elena Martinez
  45. Michael E. Ernst
  46. Jane C. Figueiredo
  47. Pedro Fortuna
  48. Paul W. Franks
  49. Laura Beane Freeman
  50. Christopher D. Gardner
  51. Irene M. Ghobrial
  52. Christopher A. Haiman
  53. Janet E. Hall
  54. Jae H. Kang
  55. Brenda Kirpach
  56. Karestan C. Koenen
  57. Laura D. Kubzansky
  58. James V. Lacey, Jr
  59. Loic Le Marchand
  60. Xihong Lin
  61. Pam Lutsey
  62. Catherine R. Marinac
  63. Maria Elena Martinez
  64. Roger L. Milne
  65. Anne M. Murray
  66. Denis Nash
  67. Julie R. Palmer
  68. Alpa V. Patel
  69. Eric Pierce
  70. McKaylee M. Robertson
  71. Lynn Rosenberg
  72. Dale P. Sandler
  73. Shepherd H. Schurman
  74. Kara Sewalk
  75. Shreela V. Sharma
  76. Christopher J. Sidey-Gibbons
  77. Liz Slevin
  78. Jordan W.. Smoller
  79. Claire J. Steves
  80. Maarit I. Tiirikainen
  81. Scott T. Weiss
  82. Lynne R. Wilkens
  83. Feng Zhang

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/s2468-2667(20)30164-x
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.29.20084111: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: At enrollment, participants provided informed consent to the use of aggregated information for research purposes and agreed to applicable privacy policies and terms of use.
    IRB: This observational study was approved by the Partners Human Research Committee (Protocol 2020P000909) and King’s College London Ethics Committee (REMAS ID 18210, LRS-19/20-18210).
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    LHN is supported by the American Gastroenterological Association Research Scholars Award.
    American Gastroenterological Association
    suggested: None
    ATC is the Stuart and Suzanne Steele MGH Research Scholar and Stand Up to Cancer scientist.
    ATC
    suggested: None

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code and data.

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    We acknowledge several limitations. First, full details of some exposures were limited to ensure our survey was brief. For example, we did not ask about specific occupations, experience level, type of PPE used (e.g. surgical masks, respirators, or powered air purifying respirators), receipt of PPE training (e.g. mask fit-testing or donning and doffing), frequency of exposure to patients with COVID-19 infection or aerosolizing procedures (e.g. endoscopy or intubation). Second, our findings are based on self-report. However, alternative exposure measures, such as PPE supply, or assessment of additional outcomes in such a large cohort would have been difficult to collect in a timely manner within the context of a fast-moving pandemic. In future studies, linkage to other sources (e.g. electronic health records) may be possible. Third, our cohort is not a random sampling of the population. Although this limitation is inherent to any study requiring voluntary provision of health information, we acknowledge that data collection through smartphone adoption has comparatively lower penetrance among certain socioeconomic groups, as well as older adults, despite being used by 81% of the U.S. adult population.30 In future studies, we plan more targeted outreach of underrepresented populations, as well as additional collection instruments (web or phone surveys) that may be more accessible. Our primary outcome was based on the report of a positive COVID-19 test. During the study period, thi...

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

    IdentifierStatusTitle
    NCT04331509RecruitingCOVID-19 Symptom Tracker

    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.

    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 10.1101/2020.04.29.20084111v6 on medRxiv
  4. Version published to 10.1101/2020.04.29.20084111v5 on medRxiv
  5. Version published to 10.1101/2020.04.29.20084111v4 on medRxiv
  6. Version published to 10.1101/2020.04.29.20084111v3 on medRxiv
  7. Version published to 10.1101/2020.04.29.20084111v2 on medRxiv
  8. Version published to 10.1101/2020.04.29.20084111v1 on medRxiv