2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares

      To submit to this journal, please click here

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Demographic and professional risk factors of SARS-CoV-2 infections among physicians in low- and middle-income settings: Findings from a representative survey in two Brazilian states

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Health workers (HWs) are a key resource for health systems worldwide, and have been affected heavily by the COVID-19 pandemic. Evidence is consolidating on incidence and drivers of infections, predominantly in high-income settings. It is however unclear what the risk factors may be for specific health professions, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We conducted a cross-sectional survey in a representative sample of 1,183 medical doctors registered with Brazil’s Federal Council of Medicine in one developed (São Paulo) and one disadvantaged state (Maranhão). Between February-June 2021, we administered a telephone questionnaire to collect data on physicians’ demographics, deployment to services, vaccination status, and self-reported COVID-19 infections. We performed descriptive, univariate, and multilevel clustered analysis to explore the association between physicians’ infection rates, and their sociodemographic and employment characteristics. A generalized linear mixed model with a binomial distribution was used to estimate the adjusted odds ratio. We found that 35.8% of physicians in our sample declared having been infected with SARS-CoV-2 virus during the first year of the pandemic. The infection rate in Maranhão (49.2%) [95% CI 45.0–53.4] was almost twice that in São Paulo (24.1%) [95% CI 20.8–27.5]. Being a physician in Maranhão [95% CI 2.08–3.57], younger than 50 years [95% CI 1.41–2.89] and having worked in a COVID-19 ward [95% CI 1.28–2.27], were positively associated with the probability of infection. Conversely, working with diagnostic services [95% CI 0.53–0.96], in administrative functions [95% CI 0.42–0.80], or in teaching and research [95% CI 0.48–0.91] were negatively associated. Based on our data from Brazil, COVID-19 infections in LMICs may be more likely in health systems with lower physician-to-patient ratios, and younger doctors working in COVID-19 wards may be infected more frequently. Such findings may be used to identify policies to mitigate COVID-19 effects on HWs in LMICs.

          Related collections

          Most cited references49

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Risk of COVID-19 among front-line health-care workers and the general community: a prospective cohort study

          Summary Background Data for front-line health-care workers and risk of COVID-19 are limited. We sought to assess risk of COVID-19 among front-line health-care workers compared with the general community and the effect of personal protective equipment (PPE) on risk. Methods We did a prospective, observational cohort study in the UK and the USA of the general community, including front-line health-care workers, using self-reported data from the COVID Symptom Study smartphone application (app) from March 24 (UK) and March 29 (USA) to April 23, 2020. Participants were voluntary users of the app and at first use provided information on demographic factors (including age, sex, race or ethnic background, height and weight, and occupation) and medical history, and subsequently reported any COVID-19 symptoms. We used Cox proportional hazards modelling to estimate multivariate-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of our primary outcome, which was a positive COVID-19 test. The COVID Symptom Study app is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04331509. Findings Among 2 035 395 community individuals and 99 795 front-line health-care workers, we recorded 5545 incident reports of a positive COVID-19 test over 34 435 272 person-days. Compared with the general community, front-line health-care workers were at increased risk for reporting a positive COVID-19 test (adjusted HR 11·61, 95% CI 10·93–12·33). To account for differences in testing frequency between front-line health-care workers and the general community and possible selection bias, an inverse probability-weighted model was used to adjust for the likelihood of receiving a COVID-19 test (adjusted HR 3·40, 95% CI 3·37–3·43). Secondary and post-hoc analyses suggested adequacy of PPE, clinical setting, and ethnic background were also important factors. Interpretation In the UK and the USA, risk of reporting a positive test for COVID-19 was increased among front-line health-care workers. Health-care systems should ensure adequate availability of PPE and develop additional strategies to protect health-care workers from COVID-19, particularly those from Black, Asian, and minority ethnic backgrounds. Additional follow-up of these observational findings is needed. Funding Zoe Global, Wellcome Trust, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, National Institutes of Health Research, UK Research and Innovation, Alzheimer's Society, National Institutes of Health, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Information bias in health research: definition, pitfalls, and adjustment methods

            As with other fields, medical sciences are subject to different sources of bias. While understanding sources of bias is a key element for drawing valid conclusions, bias in health research continues to be a very sensitive issue that can affect the focus and outcome of investigations. Information bias, otherwise known as misclassification, is one of the most common sources of bias that affects the validity of health research. It originates from the approach that is utilized to obtain or confirm study measurements. This paper seeks to raise awareness of information bias in observational and experimental research study designs as well as to enrich discussions concerning bias problems. Specifying the types of bias can be essential to limit its effects and, the use of adjustment methods might serve to improve clinical evaluation and health care practice.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              COVID-19: protecting health-care workers

              The Lancet (2020)
              Worldwide, as millions of people stay at home to minimise transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, health-care workers prepare to do the exact opposite. They will go to clinics and hospitals, putting themselves at high risk from COVID-2019. Figures from China's National Health Commission show that more than 3300 health-care workers have been infected as of early March and, according to local media, by the end of February at least 22 had died. In Italy, 20% of responding health-care workers were infected, and some have died. Reports from medical staff describe physical and mental exhaustion, the torment of difficult triage decisions, and the pain of losing patients and colleagues, all in addition to the infection risk. As the pandemic accelerates, access to personal protective equipment (PPE) for health workers is a key concern. Medical staff are prioritised in many countries, but PPE shortages have been described in the most affected facilities. Some medical staff are waiting for equipment while already seeing patients who may be infected or are supplied with equipment that might not meet requirements. Alongside concerns for their personal safety, health-care workers are anxious about passing the infection to their families. Health-care workers who care for elderly parents or young children will be drastically affected by school closures, social distancing policies, and disruption in the availability of food and other essentials. Health-care systems globally could be operating at more than maximum capacity for many months. But health-care workers, unlike ventilators or wards, cannot be urgently manufactured or run at 100% occupancy for long periods. It is vital that governments see workers not simply as pawns to be deployed, but as human individuals. In the global response, the safety of health-care workers must be ensured. Adequate provision of PPE is just the first step; other practical measures must be considered, including cancelling non-essential events to prioritise resources; provision of food, rest, and family support; and psychological support. Presently, health-care workers are every country's most valuable resource. © 2020 Denis Lovrovic/AFP/Getty Images 2020 Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: SoftwareRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draft
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLOS Glob Public Health
                PLOS Glob Public Health
                plos
                PLOS Global Public Health
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                2767-3375
                14 October 2022
                2022
                : 2
                : 10
                : e0000656
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
                [2 ] Department of Preventive Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
                [3 ] Department of Medicine I, Federal University of Maranhão, São Luís do Maranhão, Brazil
                Fundacao Oswaldo Cruz, BRAZIL
                Author notes

                The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2716-369X
                Article
                PGPH-D-22-00875
                10.1371/journal.pgph.0000656
                10021204
                36962544
                40727e1e-4660-40cd-9f84-30eb2eab9eb2
                © 2022 Russo et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 25 May 2022
                : 15 September 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 3, Pages: 15
                Funding
                Funded by: Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa e ao Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico do Maranhão (FAPEMA-Brazil)
                Award ID: COOPI-00709/18
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa e ao Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico do Maranhão (FAPEMA-Brazil)
                Award ID: COOPI-00709/18
                Award Recipient : Alex Jones Flores Cassenote
                Funded by: Newton Fund/ Medical Research Council (UK)
                Award ID: MR/R022747/1
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP-Brazil)
                Award ID: 2017/50356-7
                Award Recipient : Mario César Scheffer
                This study received support from the Confap-MRC call for Health Systems Research Networks. Specifically, GR received the award from the Newton Fund/ Medical Research Council (UK), Grant Reference MR/R022747/1. AC and MS received the award from the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP-Brazil), 2017/50356-7. BO received the award from the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa e ao Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico do Maranhão (FAPEMA-Brazil), COOPI-00709/18. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Care Providers
                Physicians
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Professions
                Medical Personnel
                Physicians
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Medical Conditions
                Infectious Diseases
                Viral Diseases
                Covid 19
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Epidemiology
                Medical Risk Factors
                Biology and life sciences
                Organisms
                Viruses
                RNA viruses
                Coronaviruses
                SARS coronavirus
                SARS CoV 2
                Biology and life sciences
                Microbiology
                Medical microbiology
                Microbial pathogens
                Viral pathogens
                Coronaviruses
                SARS coronavirus
                SARS CoV 2
                Medicine and health sciences
                Pathology and laboratory medicine
                Pathogens
                Microbial pathogens
                Viral pathogens
                Coronaviruses
                SARS coronavirus
                SARS CoV 2
                Biology and life sciences
                Organisms
                Viruses
                Viral pathogens
                Coronaviruses
                SARS coronavirus
                SARS CoV 2
                People and places
                Geographical locations
                South America
                Brazil
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Epidemiology
                Pandemics
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Diagnostic Medicine
                Virus Testing
                Social Sciences
                Economics
                Economic Geography
                Low and Middle Income Countries
                Earth Sciences
                Geography
                Economic Geography
                Low and Middle Income Countries
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.
                COVID-19

                Comments

                Comment on this article