For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
0
views
19
references
 Top references
cited by
0
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      380
      similar
       All similar

      To submit to Bentham Journals, please click here

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

      Risk Factors Associated with COVID-19 Infections among Healthcare Workers in Eswatini: A Cross-Sectional Study

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      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

          Background:

          The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has spread with alarming speed, infecting millions globally, including Eswatini. Despite the institutionalization of measures by the Ministry of Health (MoH) to fight the pandemic, the cumulative number of people infected with COVID-19 has kept increasing daily. We sought to assess risk factors for COVID-19 infections among Health care workers (HCWs) in selected health facilities of the Lubombo region of Eswatini.

          Methods:

          A cross-sectional design and systematic stratified sampling were used to select the participants.

          Results:

          The study enrolled 333 HCWs, with the majority (201, 60.4%) being females, and the participants’ mean age was 33 years. The study showed that not having an isolation arrangement in a health facility for people suspected to have COVID-19 presents risk to HCWs for COVID-19 (Crude Odds Ratio (COR) = 2.5, 95%CI: 1.0–6.2), p = 0.50; Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) = 3.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0–8.7, p = 0.038). Likewise, HCWs who rarely followed infection prevention and control (IPC) measures were at higher risk of COVID-19 infection than those who followed such measures (COR = 4.2, 95%CI: 1.1–17.2, p = 0.041; AOR = 6.5, 95%CI: 1.4–30.0, p = 0.016), and HCWs exposed to a colleague diagnosed with COVID-19 were at higher risk of being infected themselves (AOR = 11.4; 95%CI: 0.9–135.7; p = 0.054).

          Conclusion:

          An active COVID-19 symptoms screening, triage and isolation arrangement for suspected COVID-19 clients for all clients entering the facility increases protection of HCWs from COVID-19. Reinforcement of all infection prevention and control measures to prevent exposures from infected patients and colleagues is essential.

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

          Derek K. Chu, Elie A. Akl, Stephanie Duda … (2020)
          Summary Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes COVID-19 and is spread person-to-person through close contact. We aimed to investigate the effects of physical distance, face masks, and eye protection on virus transmission in health-care and non-health-care (eg, community) settings. Methods We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the optimum distance for avoiding person-to-person virus transmission and to assess the use of face masks and eye protection to prevent transmission of viruses. We obtained data for SARS-CoV-2 and the betacoronaviruses that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome, and Middle East respiratory syndrome from 21 standard WHO-specific and COVID-19-specific sources. We searched these data sources from database inception to May 3, 2020, with no restriction by language, for comparative studies and for contextual factors of acceptability, feasibility, resource use, and equity. We screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We did frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses and random-effects meta-regressions. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020177047. Findings Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25 697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] −10·2%, 95% CI −11·5 to −7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; p interaction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −15·9 to −10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; p interaction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD −10·6%, 95% CI −12·5 to −7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings. Interpretation The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors. Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance. Funding World Health Organization.
          Article 0 comments Cited 1761 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Risks of and risk factors for COVID-19 disease in people with diabetes: a cohort study of the total population of Scotland

            Stuart J McGurnaghan, Amanda Weir, Jen Bishop … (2020)
            Background We aimed to ascertain the cumulative risk of fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19 in people with diabetes and compare it with that of people without diabetes, and to investigate risk factors for and build a cross-validated predictive model of fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19 among people with diabetes. Methods In this cohort study, we captured the data encompassing the first wave of the pandemic in Scotland, from March 1, 2020, when the first case was identified, to July 31, 2020, when infection rates had dropped sufficiently that shielding measures were officially terminated. The participants were the total population of Scotland, including all people with diabetes who were alive 3 weeks before the start of the pandemic in Scotland (estimated Feb 7, 2020). We ascertained how many people developed fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19 in this period from the Electronic Communication of Surveillance in Scotland database (on virology), the RAPID database of daily hospitalisations, the Scottish Morbidity Records-01 of hospital discharges, the National Records of Scotland death registrations data, and the Scottish Intensive Care Society and Audit Group database (on critical care). Among people with fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19, diabetes status was ascertained by linkage to the national diabetes register, Scottish Care Information Diabetes. We compared the cumulative incidence of fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19 in people with and without diabetes using logistic regression. For people with diabetes, we obtained data on potential risk factors for fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19 from the national diabetes register and other linked health administrative databases. We tested the association of these factors with fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19 in people with diabetes, and constructed a prediction model using stepwise regression and 20-fold cross-validation. Findings Of the total Scottish population on March 1, 2020 (n=5 463 300), the population with diabetes was 319 349 (5·8%), 1082 (0·3%) of whom developed fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19 by July 31, 2020, of whom 972 (89·8%) were aged 60 years or older. In the population without diabetes, 4081 (0·1%) of 5 143 951 people developed fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19. As of July 31, the overall odds ratio (OR) for diabetes, adjusted for age and sex, was 1·395 (95% CI 1·304–1·494; p<0·0001, compared with the risk in those without diabetes. The OR was 2·396 (1·815–3·163; p<0·0001) in type 1 diabetes and 1·369 (1·276–1·468; p<0·0001) in type 2 diabetes. Among people with diabetes, adjusted for age, sex, and diabetes duration and type, those who developed fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19 were more likely to be male, live in residential care or a more deprived area, have a COVID-19 risk condition, retinopathy, reduced renal function, or worse glycaemic control, have had a diabetic ketoacidosis or hypoglycaemia hospitalisation in the past 5 years, be on more anti-diabetic and other medication (all p<0·0001), and have been a smoker (p=0·0011). The cross-validated predictive model of fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19 in people with diabetes had a C-statistic of 0·85 (0·83–0·86). Interpretation Overall risks of fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19 were substantially elevated in those with type 1 and type 2 diabetes compared with the background population. The risk of fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19, and therefore the need for special protective measures, varies widely among those with diabetes but can be predicted reasonably well using previous clinical history. Funding None.
            Article 0 comments Cited 162 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              COVID-19 in health-care workers in three hospitals in the south of the Netherlands: a cross-sectional study

              Reina S Sikkema, Suzan Pas, David Nieuwenhuijse … (2020)
              Summary Background 10 days after the first reported case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in the Netherlands (on Feb 27, 2020), 55 (4%) of 1497 health-care workers in nine hospitals located in the south of the Netherlands had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. We aimed to gain insight in possible sources of infection in health-care workers. Methods We did a cross-sectional study at three of the nine hospitals located in the south of the Netherlands. We screened health-care workers at the participating hospitals for SARS-CoV-2 infection, based on clinical symptoms (fever or mild respiratory symptoms) in the 10 days before screening. We obtained epidemiological data through structured interviews with health-care workers and combined this information with data from whole-genome sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 in clinical samples taken from health-care workers and patients. We did an in-depth analysis of sources and modes of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in health-care workers and patients. Findings Between March 2 and March 12, 2020, 1796 (15%) of 12 022 health-care workers were screened, of whom 96 (5%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. We obtained complete and near-complete genome sequences from 50 health-care workers and ten patients. Most sequences were grouped in three clusters, with two clusters showing local circulation within the region. The noted patterns were consistent with multiple introductions into the hospitals through community-acquired infections and local amplification in the community. Interpretation Although direct transmission in the hospitals cannot be ruled out, our data do not support widespread nosocomial transmission as the source of infection in patients or health-care workers. Funding EU Horizon 2020 (RECoVer, VEO, and the European Joint Programme One Health METASTAVA), and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health.
              Article 0 comments Cited 146 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Title: The Open Public Health Journal
                Abbreviated Title: TOPHJ
                Publisher: Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
                ISSN (Print): 1874-9445
                Publication date Created: March 16 2022
                Publication date (Print): March 16 2022
                Volume: 15
                Issue: 1
                Article
                DOI: 10.2174/18749445-v15-e2202100
                SO-VID: a8b1c7e0-790e-41ee-9c52-059050a316ac
                Copyright © © 2022
                License:

                Free to read

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode

                History

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine,Chemistry,Life sciences
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine, Chemistry, Life sciences

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content380

                See all similar

                Most referenced authors518

                See all reference authors