RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Occupational differences in the prevalence and severity of long-COVID: Analysis of the ONS Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.03.24.23287666
DO 10.1101/2023.03.24.23287666
A1 Kromydas, Theocharis
A1 Demou, Evangelia
A1 Edge, Rhiannon
A1 Gittins, Matthew
A1 Katikireddi, S Vittal
A1 Pearce, Neil
A1 van Tongeren, Martie
A1 Wilkinson, Jack
A1 Rhodes, Sarah
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/24/2023.03.24.23287666.abstract
AB Objectives To establish whether prevalence and severity of long-COVID symptoms vary by industry and occupation.Methods We utilised ONS Coronavirus Infection Survey (CIS) data (February 2021-April 2022) of working-age participants (16-65 years). Exposures were industrial sector, occupation and major Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) group. Outcomes were self-reported: (1) long-COVID symptoms; and (2) reduced function due to long-COVID. Binary (outcome 1) and ordered (outcome 2) logistic regression were used to estimate odds ratios (OR) and prevalence (marginal means) for all exposures.Results Public facing industries, including teaching and education, social care, healthcare, civil service, retail and transport industries and occupations had highest odds ratios for long-COVID. By major SOC group, those in caring, leisure and other services (OR 1.44, CIs: 1.38-1.52) had substantially elevated odds than average. For almost all exposures, the pattern of odds ratios for long-COVID symptoms followed that for SARS-CoV-2 infections, except for professional occupations (OR<1 for infection; OR>1 for long-COVID). The probability of reporting long-COVID for industry ranged from 7.7% (financial services) to 11.6% (teaching and education); whereas the prevalence of reduced function by ‘a lot’ ranged from 17.1% (arts, entertainment and recreation) to 22-23% (teaching and education and armed forces) and to 27% (those not working).Conclusions The risk and prevalence of long-COVID differs across industries and occupations. Generally, it appears that likelihood of developing long-COVID symptoms follows likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection, except for professional occupations. These findings highlight sectors and occupations where further research is needed to understand the occupational factors resulting in long-COVID.What is already known on this topicSARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 mortality in the UK varied by occupational group; yet it is not known if any occupational groups are more susceptible to long-COVID than others.What this study addsThis is the first study to examine how prevalence of long-COVID and its impacts on functional capacity differ by industrial sector and occupational groups.Prevalence of self-reported long-COVID increased with time across all exposure groups and mostly followed SARS-CoV-2 infection trends; with the exception of Professional occupations that demonstrated notable differences in the direction of odds of long-covid when compared to odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection.Those working in Teaching and education, and social care industries showed the highest likelihood of having long-COVID symptoms. The exact same pattern was observed when analysis was performed using occupational groups. When we used SOC groups the likelihood was higher in Caring, leisure and other services.How this study might affect research, practice or policyThe findings contribute to the evidence base that long-COVID differences occur across industries and occupations, provides insights for employees, employers, occupational and healthcare for the industries and occupations that may need additional support for return- to-work policies and highlights sectors and occupations where further research is needed to understand the mechanisms resulting in long-COVID and how occupational factors influence the risk of developing long-COVID or interact with long-COVID to increase the impact on activities.Competing Interest StatementSVK was co-chair of the Scottish Government Expert Reference Group on Ethnicity and COVID-19 and a member of the UK Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies subgroup on ethnicity.Funding StatementFunding from the ONS (ONS Ref PU-22-0205). MG, NP, MvT, JW, SR acknowledge funding through the National Core Study PROTECT programme, managed by the Health and Safety Executive on behalf of HM Government. TK, ED and SVK acknowledge funding from the Medical Research Council (MRC; MC_UU_00022/2) and the Chief Scientist Office (CSO; SPHSU17). SVK also acknowledges funding from a NRS Senior Clinical Fellowship (SCAF/15/02) and the National Core Study Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing programme (MC_PC_20030).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The COVID-19 Infection Survey received ethical approval from the South-Central Berkshire B Research Ethics Committee (20/SC/0195). All participants provided informed consent. For use of this data for this project statistics authority self-assessment classified the study as low risk. This assessment was approved by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) Research Accreditation Panel.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.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesONS CIS data can be accessed only by researchers who are Office of National Statistics (ONS) accredited researchers. Researchers can apply for accreditation through the Research Accreditation Service. Access is through the Secure Research Service (SRS) and approved on a project basis. For further details see: https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/whatwedo/statistics/requestingstatistics/approvedresearcherscheme.