ABSTRACT
Objectives Most earlier studies on occupational risk of Covid-19 covering the entire workforce are based on relatively rare outcomes such as hospital admission and mortality. This study examines the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection by occupational group based upon real-time polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR).
Methods The cohort includes 2.4 million Danish employees, 20-69 years of age. All data were retrieved from public registries. The sex-specific incidence rate ratios (IRR) of first-occurring positive RT-PCR test from week 8 of 2020 through week 50 of 2021 were computed by Poisson regression for each 4-digit DISCO-08 job code with more than 100 employees (337 in men; 297 in women). Occupational groups with low risk of workplace infection according to a job exposure matrix constituted the reference group. Risk estimates were adjusted by demographic, social and health characteristics including household size, completed Covid-19 vaccination, pandemic wave and occupation-specific frequency of testing.
Results IRR’s of SARS-CoV-2 infection were elevated in 34 occupations comprising 12 % of male employees and 45 occupations comprising 41 % of female employees. All IRR estimates were below 2.0. Decreased IRRs were observed in 85 occupations in men but none in women.
Discussion We observed a modestly increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among employees in numerous occupations indicating a large potential for preventive actions, especially in the female workforce. Cautious interpretation of observed risk in specific occupations is needed because of methodological issues inherent in analyses of RT-PCR-test results and because of multiple statistical tests.
WHAT IS ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THIS TOPIC?
Epidemiological studies suggest that the workplace contribute to the Covid-19 pandemic
Results are mostly based upon studies of less frequent outcomes as Covid-19 morbidity or mortality which limits inference about risk in specific occupations
WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS
The risk of Covid-19 infection was increased in 34 of 337 occupations in men and in 45 of 297 occupations in women
Some 12% of the Danish male workforce and 41% of the female workforce are at increased risk of Covid-19 infection
HOW THIS RESEARCH MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICY?
Preventive actions targeting the workplace may contribute substantially to alleviate disease occurrence in the ongoing Covid-19 and similar future pandemics.
INTRODUCTION
Less than three years have elapsed since the still ongoing Covid-19 pandemic took its start. During this short time span numerous epidemiological studies have consistently demonstrated that a range of occupations are associated with an increased risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 1-5. The reasons may include higher frequencies of close social contacts at the workplace, caring for infected patients and less possibility to maintain sufficient distancing and efficiently use personal protective equipment 6,7. Other risk factors such as mode of transportation when commuting to work might also be of importance. Previously identified at-risk occupations include health care workers, teachers, bus and taxi drivers, meat packers, retail sale workers, bartenders, and police officers 1-4,8. The majority of studies have investigated risk across occupations using relatively rare outcomes such as Covid-19 related admission to hospital 9-11 or mortality 4,9,10,12-16. However, these approaches fail to address less severe non-hospital demanding cases and may thus underestimate risk of infection. Considering reports on delayed return to work 17 and of post Covid-19 conditions with persistent ill health following cases without acute critical disease 18, this is of importance not the least in occupations with many young and healthy employees who are less likely to be hospitalized but at equal or higher risk of infection.
We have recently reported increased occupational risk of severe Covid-19 in terms of Covid-19 related hospital admission among workers in the healthcare, social care, and transportation sectors 8. Based on the same cohort and time period, in this paper, we unravel the risk of asymptomatic and less severe Covid-19 using real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test as the outcome. Hereby, a strong gain is achieved in statistical power, which enables detection of potentially increased risk in occupations with too few (or too young and healthy) employees to allow analyses of hospital admissions. The capacity for free and on-demand Covid-19 RT-PCR testing covering all residents in Denmark was established during autumn 2020. By late spring 2021, the number of tests peaked at 0.8 million/week among 2.4 million employees (own data). While the cumulative incidence for Covid-19 related hospital admission in the workforce during the first almost two years of the pandemic in Denmark was 0.17% 8, the corresponding rate of at least one positive PCR test was 10.7% (own data).
The objective of this paper was to map the relative incidence rate of RT-PCR test positivity across all types of occupations during 2020-21 using a job-exposure-matrix derived reference group with an a priori assumed low level occupational risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
METHODS
Population and data
The study population was a nationwide register-based cohort of all Danish residents 20-69 years of age, who by December 31 of 2019 were gainfully employed (n = 2 451 542). It was extricated as a subset of the Danish Occupational Cohort with exposure data (DOC*X 19), which includes a range of demographic, social, occupational and health characteristics. Records were merged by the 10-digit unique personal identification number assigned by the Danish authorities. Additional information on vital data, SARS-CoV-2 tests, and Covid-19 vaccinations were provided by Statistics Denmark and the National Board of Health Data from baseline week 8, 2020 until end of follow-up week 50, 2021. Details on the cohort and its key variables have been published in a previous paper 8.
Occupational data
Jobs are classified by Statistics Denmark according to the Danish version of the International Standard Classification of Occupations (DISCO-08 20), which is close to identical with the international classification ISCO-08 (423 4-digit codes, coverage 86% of all gainfully employed) and the Danish version of the Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Communities (DB07) 20 (22 1.digit sections, 88 2-digit division, coverage > 99%).
Population characteristics
retrieved from Statistics Denmark by December 31 of 2019 included sex, age, duration of education in years, country of origin, hospital admission for one or more of eleven chronic diseases during 2010-2019, geographical residential area and the number of household members sharing the same residence including children. Information on health behaviors is not available in public registries with national coverage. We assigned sex-, age- and period-specific probability of current smoking and estimates of body mass index (kg/m2) by a Danish lifestyle JEM 21. These JEM derived variables predict mortality and ischemic heart disease independently of other risk factors in the Danish population of employees 22. Variables were grouped into the categories displayed in table 1.
Prevalence of at least one positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test by characteristics of Danish male and female employees during the Covid-19 pandemic from week 8 of 2020 through week 52 of 2021.
SARS-CoV-2 test results
SARS-CoV-2 infection was identified by RT-PCR tests performed at Statens Serum Institut in Copenhagen or at an accredited hospital laboratory 23. The specificity of the RT-PCR test is extremely high (99.9%) 24, while the sensitivity in the general Danish population is unknown but believed to be above 80% 24. The sensitivity mainly depends on stage of infection and sampling procedure. In the early phase of the pandemic, RT-PCR tests were carried out for diagnostic purposes and for tracing of close contacts, but from autumn 2020 the test capacity was expanded and tests free of charge were offered to the entire population regardless of symptoms and contacts 24. Some 29.1 million tests were conducted in the study population until December 14th, 2021, of which 1.0 % were positive (own data).
Antigen tests (home tests)
have in particular been recommended in periods and geographical regions with a high load of viral transmission, and in age and occupational groups considered at high risk. The antigen test targets viral proteins and both sensitivity and specificity is much inferior compared to the RT-PCR test 25. Therefore, it is recommended that a positive antigen test is confirmed by a RT-PCR test. While antigen tests done as part of the nationwide and publicly funded test setup are included in the national database of test results, results of privately bought and used antigen tests were not. In this population only 25.5% persons with a positive antigen test after week 18 in 2021 (when the number of antigen tests peaked) had a RT-PCR test done within 2 days of which 72% were confirmed (own data).
Reference group
The reference group was defined a priori as occupations with employees working at home or not working with others according to an independent expert rated Covid-19 JEM 6. This reference group comprised 50 4-digit DISCO-08 job codes (n = 167 433 male and 201 969 female employees), mainly office clerks and administrative employees.
Statistical analysis
We used Poisson regression to examine the sex-specific incidence rate ratios (IRR) of first-occurring positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test across all waves from week 8 of 2020 through week 50 of 2021 for each of 373 identified non-reference 4-digit DISCO-08 job codes with more than 100 employees (n=337 occupations for men and 297 for women). The time unit was one week, and weeks after the first positive RT-PCR test, death, emigration, or retirement were censored.
All analyses were run separately for men and women and risk estimates were adjusted by a priori selected characteristics regardless of association with exposures 26: age, duration of education, country of birth, geographical area, chronic disease, size of the household, body mass index and smoking. The covariate categories used in the statistical models were identical with those displayed in table 1. Completed Covid-19 vaccination (two doses with at least 21 days in between in the vast majority of cases) was entered into the statistical model as a time varying variable rather than censoring since vaccination does not entirely exclude the risk of infection. Finally, risk estimates were adjusted by the average RT-PCR and antigen test-frequency during the follow-up period for each 4-digit DISCO-08 occupational code (two separate variables) and pandemic wave defined as calendar period delimited by weeks with the lowest number of RT-PCR test between pandemic peaks (5 groups). Missing data for DISCO-08 (14%) and education (2%) were kept as separate categories in all analyses, which used a significance level of 0.05 and were carried out in SAS 9.4 (SAS Inst., Cary, NC, US) by access to a secured platform at Statistics Denmark.
RESULTS
The study population included 2 451 542 employees who were traced for SARS-CoV-2 test results through 220 633 049 person weeks of follow-up. The RT-PCR testing frequency and the proportion of employees testing positive at least once varied strongly during the study period (figure 1), as did the average testing frequency across occupational groups (figure 2). The average number of RT-PCR tests per employee was 11.9 (median 8.0, range 0-223). In the entire study population, 10.7% tested positive at least once during the follow-up period (table 1). Among the 261 203 employees with a positive RT-PCR test, only 1917 (0.01%) had a second positive test later than 90 days (to exclude the possibility of ongoing first infection) after the first positive test (71% were tested on average 9.5 months later).
Weekly number of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and antigen tests (left axis, dashed lines) and number of positive RT-PCR tests (right axis, solid line) among employees (n = 2 451 542) in Denmark from week 8 of 2020 through week 50 of 2021.
Distribution of average RT-PCR testing frequency across 423 4-digit DISCO-08 occupational groups during 2020-21.
While the infection rate was within the same range among men and women, it was strongly related to several covariates in both sexes – lower in the high age range and in employees with chronic disease, higher in the capital region, among foreign-born employees from non-western countries and among employees with high probability of low body mass index. Moreover, the infection rate increased with number of household members and with the average number of RT-PCR and antigen tests performed in the occupational group of the employee (table 1).
Among the 373 non-reference 4-digit DISCO-08 occupational codes with more than 100 employees (n = 1 742 280 employees with 156 909 762 weeks of follow-up), we observed an increased risk in 34 occupations in men and 45 in women. These occupations are listed in figure 3 and 4 and online supplemental table S1 and S2 grouped according to the 2-digit economic sector code (DB=07) with the highest number of employees within a given occupation. The corresponding figures for decreased risk were 86 occupational groups in men and none in women (online supplemental table S3). This indicates that 12% of the male workforce and 41% of the female workforce were at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection given the selected reference group and the chosen statistical model. The magnitude of adjusted increased incidence rate ratios was ranging from 1.11 to 1.76 and of decreased risk from 0.42 to 0.90 (online supplemental tables 1-3).
MEN. Adjusted1 incidence rate ratios above 1.0 and P-value < 0.05 for first positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test during the pandemic 2020-2021 by 4-digit DISCO-08 codes2. Ordered by main economic sector (2-digit DB07) and descending number of employees in occupational groups within economic sectors.
1 Adjusted for age, education, hospital admissions for chronic disease, country of birth, geographical region, number of household members, tobacco smoking, bodymass index, Covid19 vaccination, epidemic period and test frequency.
2 Reference is low-level exposed employees according a Covid-19 job exposure matrix.
WOMEN. Adjusted1 incidence rate ratios (IRR) above 1.0 and P-value < 0.05 for first positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test during the pandemic 2020-2021 by 4-digit DISCO-08 codes2. Ordered by main economic sector (2-digit DB07) and descending number of employees in occupational groups within economic sectors.
1 Adjusted for age, education, hospital admissions for chronic disease, country of birth, geographical region, number of household members, tobacco smoking, bodymass index, Covid19 vaccination, epidemic period and test frequency.
2 Reference is low-level exposed employees according a Covid-19 job exposure matrix.
In men, the largest occupational groups with increased risk included shelf-fillers (retail store workers ensuring that shelves and product displays are stocked and often assisting as checkout operators) and primary school teachers. Other groups included day-care workers, police officers, prison guards, ambulance drivers, machine operators within food production, residential and healthcare workers, waiters and fast food operators (figure 3). Small groups, such as gaming workers (including bookmakers and casino croupiers), hotel managers, and animal producers were among those with highest relative risk. A range of health care occupations and bus- and taxi drivers did not appear with increased risk and no occupations within construction were represented.
Men in occupations with decreased risk were primarily employed within construction, manufacturing, and retail trade (online supplemental table S3)
In women, the largest occupations with increased risk were home-based personal care workers, healthcare assistants and social work associate professionals, and several specific groups within healthcare such as nurses, medical doctors and secretaries, laboratory technicians and imaging operators, dentists and dental assistants, physiotherapists, and psychologists. Also, teachers, receptionists, shelf fillers, and several other occupations were at increased risk (figure 4).
Adjustment for the occupation-specific testing frequency resulted in minor changes of risk estimates in either direction as did adjustment for the range of a priory selected covariates (online supplemental tables 1-3). In average, fully adjusted estimates were 1.1% higher than age-only adjusted estimates but with larger variation (SD 11.8 % of the mean difference).
DISCUSSION
In this study of the entire Danish work force, the incidence rate ratio of SARS-CoV-2 infection during 2020-21 was elevated in 34 occupational groups comprising 12% of male employees and 45 occupations comprising 41% of female employees. All elevated adjusted IRR estimates were less than doubled. Decreased risk was observed in 86 occupations in men (31%) opposed to none in women. Increased risk was mainly apparent in health-, social- and childcare, education, and services entailing many and/or close contacts with people, but some occupations with increased risk were encountered in most major economic sectors.
The testing frequency was strongly skewed across occupational groups and the reasons for being tested likely also varied and may be related to both occupation, symptoms of Covid-19, and pandemic wave. Adjustment for the average occupation-specific test frequency at least partially accounts for increasing chance of a positive test with increasing number of tests performed but confounding due to varying indications for testing across occupations is not remedied. The result is unpredictable bias in either direction.
Nevertheless, among 368 697 employees in 33 4-digit DISCO-08 occupations that were found to be at increased risk of Covid-19 related hospital admission, 341 705 (93%) were also found to be at risk according to RT-PCR test results presented here. The largest occupations with increased adjusted risk of Covid-19 related hospital admission but not at increased adjusted risk of testing positive were bus and tram drivers and administrative and executive secretaries. Low testing frequencies in these occupations may contribute to this apparent inconsistency in spite of adjustment. For example, the average RT-PCR test frequency per employee was 7.9 among bus drivers compared to 11.9 across all occupations. Opposite, that numerous occupations (n = 49) were at increased risk of testing positive but not of Covid-19 related hospital admission is expected as the statistical power is much stronger for analysis of test results. These occupations include several specific jobs within healthcare and prison and security guards, police officers, waiters and bartenders, luggage porters, musicians, and many others. It should be acknowledged, however, that some of these associations may be random findings due to multiple testing and uncontrolled bias because of wide differences in reasons for testing and testing frequency. For example, the testing varied depending on the policy at different workplaces and for different professional groups. At the bottom line, unresolved limitations inherently related to analysis of testing results call for cautious interpretation of risk for specific occupations which must be construed in the light of findings in earlier studies applying other methodological approaches 2,3,10,27-29, and independent assessment of workplace risk factors - for instance using job-exposure matrices 6,30.
Restricting analyses to persons who ever performed a test during specified periods (labeled test-negative design 31-33) is not a promising option in this dataset with tremendous variation of test frequencies (figure 1 and 2). Conditioning on testing can result in collider bias and will inevitably produce spurious associations 34, which cannot be resolved unless all employees are tested repeatedly and systematically or tested completely at random 35.
Analyses were stratified by sex. While sex disparities with respect to determinants of severe Covid-19 are well established 8 36, there are no indications that one sex is substantial more susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection than the other which also is corroborated in this population (table 1). However, the extent of occupational exposure may differ between men and women within the same occupational group. Even at the 4-digit level, the DISCO-08 codes may include several different specific occupations. There are 423 4-digit codes but about 2200 specific occupational titles entailing different work tasks and potentially different risk of exposure. The sex distribution across these occupational titles within DISCO-08 groups may not be balanced.
Several occupational groups emerged with decreased risk of infection in men but not in women. It is conceivable that working may in some instances protect the employee from background infection if work is performed with limited contact to other people as for instance in lorry drivers (online supplemental table S3). However, the reduced risk within some occupations among men could also reflect that the JEM is less valid for men compared to women where no occupations were associated with significantly decreased risk. In a study of the same population, an alternative reference group for men was defined based upon outdoor work and with this reference few occupations were associated with decreased risk (unpublished work, personal communication).
Despite methodological limitations, the study corroborates most findings of occupationally increased risk of Covid-19 related hospital admissions and adds a number of occupational groups to the list of potentially at-risk jobs – at least partly due to higher statistical power allowing estimation of risk in more rare occupations and among younger and more healthy employees.
CONCLUSION
The study corroborates some earlier findings on increased occupational risk of Covid-19 and indicates a modestly increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among employees in several occupations that have not been identified in earlier studies using more rare outcomes. Methodological limitations call for cautious interpretation of risk for specific occupations which must be assessed in the light of findings in earlier studies. Nevertheless, the study indicates that risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection is far from is limited to healthcare, social care, and other essential occupations and that preventive action is warranted for a sizeable proportion of in particular the female workforce during possible forthcoming pandemics.
Acknowledgements
Læge Sofus Carl Emil Friis og Hustru Olga Doris Friis’ Legat and Interreg Øresund-Kattegat-Skagerrak (ÄrendeID: NYPS 20303383) are thanked for generous grants that proved crucial for undertaking this project.
Footnotes
Statements and declarations
Conflicts of interest: the authors have no financial or non-financial interest to disclose
Permissions: Permissions to retrieve and analyse pseudonymized data through Statistics Denmark were obtained from the Knowledge Centre on Data Protection Compliance under the records of processing regarding health science research projects within the Capitol Region of Denmark (P-2020-897), Statistics Denmark (P-708121) and the National Board of Health Data (FSEID-00005368).
Ethical approval is by Danish law not requested for studies that are entirely based on public registries.
Data transparency: the pseudonymized database used for the presented analyses is hosted by Statistics Denmark and is not publicly available. Permission to access the database can be granted by researchers at a research institution authorized by Statistics Denmark. On request the corresponding author can assist interested researchers to gain access.