Between-occupation differences in work-related COVID-19 mitigation strategies over time: Analysis of the Virus Watch Cohort in England and Wales

• Main Authors: Sarah Beale (Author), Alexei Yavlinsky (Author), Susan Hoskins (Author), Vincent Nguyen (Author), Thomas Byrne (Author), Wing Lam Erica Fong (Author), Jana Kovar (Author), Martie Van Tongeren (Author), Robert W Aldridge (Author), Andrew Hayward (Author)
• Format: Book
• Published: Nordic Association of Occupational Safety and Health (NOROSH), 2023-07-01T00:00:00Z.
• Subjects: article
• Online Access: Connect to this object online.
• Notes: 0355-3140; 1795-990X; 10.5271/sjweh.4092
• Keywords: Public aspects of medicine; RA1-1270
• Source: Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, Vol 49, Iss 5, Pp 350-362 (2023)

OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 mitigations have had a profound impact on workplaces, however, multisectoral comparisons of how work-related mitigations were applied are limited. This study aimed to investigate (i) occupational differences in the usage of key work-related mitigations over time and (ii) workers' perceptions of these mitigations.METHODS: Employed/self-employed Virus Watch study participants (N=6279) responded to a mitigation-related online survey covering the periods of December 2020-February 2022. Logistic regression was used to investigate occupation- and time-related differences in the usage of work-related mitigation methods. Participants' perceptions of mitigation methods were investigated descriptively using proportions.RESULTS: Usage of work-related mitigation methods differed between occupations and over time, likely reflecting variation in job roles, workplace environments, legislation and guidance. Healthcare workers had the highest predicted probabilities for several mitigations, including reporting frequent hand hygiene [predicted probability across all survey periods 0.61 (95% CI 0.56-0.66)] and always wearing face coverings [predicted probability range 0.71 (95% CI 0.66-0.75) - 0.80 (95% CI 0.76-0.84) across survey periods]. There were significant cross-occupational trends towards reduced mitigations during periods of less stringent national restrictions. The majority of participants across occupations (55-88%) agreed that most mitigations were reasonable and worthwhile even after the relaxation of national restrictions; agreement was lower for physical distancing (39-44%).CONCLUSIONS: While usage of work-related mitigations appeared to vary alongside stringency of national restrictions, agreement that most mitigations were reasonable and worthwhile remained substantial. Further investigation into the factors underlying between-occupational differences could assist pandemic planning and prevention of workplace COVID-19 transmission.