Abstract
Objectives Identify workplace risk factors for SARS-Cov-2 infection, using data collected by a United Kingdom electricity-generating company.
Methods Using a test-negative design case-control study we estimated the odds ratios (OR) of infection by job category, site, test reason, sex, vaccination status, vulnerability, site outage, and site COVID-19 weekly risk rating, adjusting for age, test date and test type.
Results From an original 80,077 COVID-19 tests, there were 70,646 included in the final analysis. Most exclusions were due to being visitor tests (5,030) or tests after an individual first tested positive (2,968).
Women were less likely to test positive than men (OR=0.71; 95% confidence interval=0.58-0.86). Test reason was strongly associated with positivity and although not a cause of infection itself, due to differing test regimes by area it was a strong confounder for other variables. Compared to routine tests, tests due to symptoms were highest risk (94.99; 78.29-115.24), followed by close contact (16.73; 13.80-20.29) and broader-defined work contact 2.66 (1.99-3.56). After adjustment, we found little difference in risk by job category, but some differences by site with three sites showing substantially lower risks, and one site showing higher risks in the final model.
Conclusions In general, infection risk was not associated with job category. Vulnerable individuals were at slightly lower risk, tests during outages were higher risk, vaccination showed no evidence of an effect on testing positive, and site COVID-19 risk rating did not show an ordered trend in positivity rates.
What is already known on this topic
In the United Kingdom, there is now a considerable body of evidence showing occupational differences in Covid-19 infection and severity, but with understandable focus on high-risk industries like healthcare.
Less is known about differences in risk of COVID-19 infection in other industries that do not involve directly working with the general public, in particular, there is relatively little evidence on the risks of transmission in the electricity-generating industry.
What this study adds
At this company, infection risk was not associated with job category after adjusting for test reason; however women were less likely to test positive than men and the risk was higher when there was a power outage, requiring more staff to visit the site in person.
How this study might affect research, practice or policy
The site risk rating showed a consistent (but modest) dose-response with infection risk, indicating that such risk rating may be useful for identifying “high risk” sites.
This analysis demonstrates the importance of adjusting for both date of and reason for test, when prevalence and testing protocols differ over time.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the PROTECT (Partnership for Research in Occupational, Transport and Environmental COVID Transmission) COVID-19 National Core Study on Transmission and Environment and managed by the Health and Safety Executive on behalf of HM Government (grant number 1.11.4.3941).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Observational Research Ethics Committee of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine gave ethical approval for this work
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
The introduction, discussion and references have been expanded to better place this analysis into the context of existing research. Some table labels have been amended for clarity.
Data Availability
Data may be obtained from a third party and are not publicly available.
