Workplace interventions to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection outside of healthcare settings
Alexandru Marian Constantin,Kukuh Noertjojo,Isolde Sommer,Ana Beatriz Pizarro,Emma Persad,Solange Durao,Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit,Damien M McElvenny,Sarah Rhodes,Craig Martin,Olivia Sampson,Karsten Juhl Jørgensen,Matteo Bruschettini
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd015112.pub3
IF: 8.4
2024-04-12
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Abstract:Although many people infected with SARS‐CoV‐2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) experience no or mild symptoms, some individuals can develop severe illness and may die, particularly older people and those with underlying medical problems. Providing evidence‐based interventions to prevent SARS‐CoV‐2 infection has become more urgent with the potential psychological toll imposed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic. Controlling exposures to occupational hazards is the fundamental method of protecting workers. When it comes to the transmission of viruses, workplaces should first consider control measures that can potentially have the most significant impact. According to the hierarchy of controls, one should first consider elimination (and substitution), then engineering controls, administrative controls, and lastly, personal protective equipment. This is the first update of a Cochrane review published 6 May 2022, with one new study added. To assess the benefits and harms of interventions in non‐healthcare‐related workplaces aimed at reducing the risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection compared to other interventions or no intervention. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collections, Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register, World Health Organization (WHO) COVID‐19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv to 13 April 2023. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non‐randomised studies of interventions. We included adult workers, both those who come into close contact with clients or customers (e.g. public‐facing employees, such as cashiers or taxi drivers), and those who do not, but who could be infected by coworkers. We excluded studies involving healthcare workers. We included any intervention to prevent or reduce workers' exposure to SARS‐CoV‐2 in the workplace, defining categories of intervention according to the hierarchy of hazard controls (i.e. elimination; engineering controls; administrative controls; personal protective equipment). We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were incidence rate of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection (or other respiratory viruses), SARS‐CoV‐2‐related mortality, adverse events, and absenteeism from work. Our secondary outcomes were all‐cause mortality, quality of life, hospitalisation, and uptake, acceptability, or adherence to strategies. We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess risk of bias, and GRADE methods to evaluate the certainty of evidence for each outcome. We identified 2 studies including a total of 16,014 participants. Elimination‐of‐exposure interventions We included one study examining an intervention that focused on elimination of hazards, which was an open‐label, cluster‐randomised, non‐inferiority trial, conducted in England in 2021. The study compared standard 10‐day self‐isolation after contact with an infected person to a new strategy of daily rapid antigen testing and staying at work if the test is negative (test‐based attendance). The trialists hypothesised that this would lead to a similar rate of infections, but lower COVID‐related absence. Staff (N = 11,798) working at 76 schools were assigned to standard isolation, and staff (N = 12,229) working at 86 schools were assigned to the test‐based attendance strategy. The results between test‐based attendance and standard 10‐day self‐isolation were inconclusive for the rate of symptomatic polymerase chain reaction (PCR)‐positive SARS‐CoV‐2 infection (rate ratio (RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 2.21; 1 study; very low‐certainty evidence). The results between test‐based attendance and standard 10‐day self‐isolation were inconclusive for the rate of any PCR‐positive SARS‐CoV‐2 infection (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.21; 1 study; very low‐certainty evidence). COVID‐related absenteeism rates were 3704 absence days in 566,502 days‐at‐risk (6.5 per 1000 working days) in the control group and 2932 per 539,805 days‐at‐risk (5.4 per 1000 working days) in the intervention group (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to low due to imprecision. Uptake of the intervention was 71% in the intervention group, but not reported for the control intervention. The trial did not measure our other outcomes of SARS‐CoV‐2‐related mortality, adverse events, all‐cause mortality, quality of life, or hospitalisation. We found seven ongoing studies using elimination‐of‐hazard strategies, six RCTs and one non‐randomised trial. Administrative control interventions We found one ongoing RCT that aims to evaluate the efficacy of the Bacillus Calmette‐Guérin (BCG) vaccine in preventing COVID‐19 infection and reducing disease severity. Combinations of eligible interventions We included one non‐randomised study examinin -Abstract Truncated-
medicine, general & internal