Risk Groups for SARS-CoV-2 Infection among Healthcare Workers: Community Versus Hospital Transmission

  1. Fatihan Pınarlık
  2. Zeliha Genç
  3. Mahir Kapmaz
  4. Süda Tekin
  5. Önder Ergönül

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background: We aimed to detect the risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers (HCWs) in 2020 before the vaccination era. Methods: We surveyed SARS-CoV-2 infection among the HCWs in a hospital through screening for antibody levels and the detection of viral RNA by RT-PCR between May 2020 and December 2020. Occupational and non-occupational potential predictors of disease were surveyed for the HCWs included in this study. Results: Among 1925 personnel in the hospital, 1732 were included to the study with a response rate of 90%. The overall infection rate of HCWs was 16.3% at the end of 2020, before vaccinations started. In the multivariate analysis, being janitorial staff (OR: 2.24, CI: 1.21–4.14, p = 0.011), being a medical secretary (OR: 4.17, CI: 2.12–8.18, p < 0.001), having at least one household member with a COVID-19 diagnosis (OR: 8.98, CI: 6.64–12.15, p < 0.001), and number of household members > 3 (OR: 1.67, CI: 1.26–2.22, p < 0.001) were found to be significantly associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Conclusions: Medical secretaries and janitorial staff were under increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The community-hospital gradient can explain the mode of transmission for infection among HCWs. In the setting of this study, community measures were less strict, whereas hospital infection control was adequate and provided necessary personal protective equipment. Increasing risk in larger households and households with diagnosed COVID-19 patient indicates the community-acquired transmission of the infection.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.3390/idr13030067
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.05.20.21257518: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: Ethical Approval: The study was approved by Republic of Turkey Ministry of Health (No:2021-04-16T10_28_09) and study was approved by Koç University Institutional Review Board.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    We screened HCWs for SARS-CoV-2 infection via antibody levels using Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV (Roche Diagnostics) kits and viral RNA using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) to determine current or past infection.
    Anti-SARS-CoV
    suggested: None

    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:
    On the other hand, there were two main limitations of this study. The first one is the recall bias of participants. We limited recall bias by completing the surveys before serological and PCR testing, and also by using the recording system of occupational health unit. Another limitation is that this study covers only one hospital in Turkey and results may have been affected by hospital and country specific characteristics.

    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.
    • 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 10.1101/2021.05.20.21257518v1 on medRxiv