Epidemiology Characteristics of COVID-19 Infection Amongst Primary Health Care Workers in Qatar: March-October 2020

  1. Mohamed Ghaith Al-Kuwari
  2. Mariam Ali AbdulMalik
  3. Asma Ali Al-Nuaimi
  4. Jazeel Abdulmajeed
  5. Hamad Eid Al-Romaihi
  6. Sandy Semaan
  7. Mujeeb Kandy

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background: COVID-19 transmission was significant among Healthcare workers worldwide. In March 2020, Qatar started reporting numbers of COVID-19 positive cases among workers in Primary Health Care Corporation (PHCC). The study estimates the burden of the aforementioned infections and examines the demographic characteristics associated with the recorded positivity rates.

Method: A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted among Primary healthcare workers between March 1st and October 31st, 2020. The study examined the positivity rate of the different types of Primary healthcare workers and, analyzed the demographic characteristics of the infected persons.

Results: 1,048 (87.4%) of the infected Health Care Workers (HCWs) belonged to the age group below 45 years, and 488 (40.7%) HCWs were females. 450 (37.5%) were HCWs clinical staff working in one of the 27 PHCC Health Centers (HCs) Despite the increased patient footfall and risk environment, the COVID dedicated HCs had an attack rate of 10.1%, which is not significantly different from the average attack rate of 8.9% among staff located in other HCs ( p = 0.26). Storekeepers, engineering & maintenance staff, housekeeping staff, support staff, and security staff (outsourced non-clinical positions) had the highest positivity rates, 100, 67.2, 47.1, 32.4, and 29.5% respectively.

Conclusion: The elevated risk of infection among outsourced non-clinical healthcare workers can be explained by environmental factors such as living conditions. Furthermore, better containment within clinical healthcare workers can be attributed to strict safety training and compliance with preventative measures which is recommended to be implemented across all settings.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.3389/fpubh.2021.679254
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.02.15.21251586: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    The compiled data extract was imported into STATA v 15.1 – (StataCorp. 2017. College Station,
    STATA
    suggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)
    StataCorp
    suggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)

    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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    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.
    • Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.

    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 10.1101/2021.02.15.21251586v1 on medRxiv