Uptake of SARS-CoV-2 workplace testing programs, March 2020 to March 2021
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Objective
To track uptake of workplace SARS-CoV-2 testing programs using publicly-available data (e.g., press releases), supplementing findings from employer surveys.
Methods
We tracked testing programs reported by 1,159 Canadian and 1,081 international employers across sectors from March 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021. We analyzed trends in uptake of testing programs, including over time and by workplace setting.
Results
9.5% (n=110) of Canadian employers and 24.6% (n=266) of international employers tracked reported testing. The prevalence of reported testing programs was less than 20% in some settings associated with high risk of transmission including retail and customer-facing environments, and indoor and mixed blue collar workplaces.
Conclusions
Publicly-available data suggest that fewer employers are testing than indicated by surveys. Workplace safety in high-risk workplaces could be further improved by implementing testing strategies that deploy both screening and diagnostic tests.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.06.29.21259730: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization We confirmed our classification system’s reliability by randomly sampling ∼5% (n=112) of employers from the shortlist and having two reviewers with experience working with occupational classification systems (ND and SD) independently classify each employer. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Antibodies Sentences Resources We extracted fields including the date of the report, testing modality (antigen, nucleic acid, or antibody), and the monitoring speed (lab-based versus point-of-care). antigen, nucleic acid, or antibody),suggested: NoneResults from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did …
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.06.29.21259730: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization We confirmed our classification system’s reliability by randomly sampling ∼5% (n=112) of employers from the shortlist and having two reviewers with experience working with occupational classification systems (ND and SD) independently classify each employer. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Antibodies Sentences Resources We extracted fields including the date of the report, testing modality (antigen, nucleic acid, or antibody), and the monitoring speed (lab-based versus point-of-care). antigen, nucleic acid, or antibody),suggested: NoneResults 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:Nevertheless, our study has some limitations. First, we aimed to track large employers and our findings should not be generalized to small businesses. Small businesses comprise a large portion of most economies27,28 and can include occupations associated with particularly high risk of transmission (e.g., taxi drivers)29,23. Alternative strategies are required to understand precautions in these workplaces. Second, we likely underestimate the proportion of large employers testing employees because not all employers have an incentive to publicly disclose their efforts. Our findings therefore represent a lower bound of the proportion of employers conducting testing while surveys, which are likely skewed by non-response bias, represent an upper bound6. Our findings highlight opportunities to further implement testing programs in high-risk workplaces and thereby improve workplace safety. In some cases, workforces in these high-risk settings may have low vaccine coverage due to low levels of vaccine confidence, underscoring the importance of including testing among other safety measures. In addition to promoting vaccine uptake, public health officials and occupational health experts should continue to support the adoption of testing in high-risk work environments, guided by a combination of publicly-available data and employer surveys.
Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We found bar graphs of continuous data. We recommend replacing bar graphs with more informative graphics, as many different datasets can lead to the same bar graph. The actual data may suggest different conclusions from the summary statistics. For more information, please see Weissgerber et al (2015).
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.
-
