Occupation and SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies: a systematic review

7Citations
Citations of this article
27Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective To describe and synthesise studies of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence by occupation prior to the widespread vaccine roll-out. Methods We identified studies of occupational seroprevalence from a living systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42020183634). Electronic databases, grey literature and news media were searched for studies published during January-December 2020. Seroprevalence estimates and a free-text description of the occupation were extracted and classified according to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) 2010 system using a machine-learning algorithm. Due to heterogeneity, results were synthesised narratively. Results We identified 196 studies including 591 940 participants from 38 countries. Most studies (n=162; 83%) were conducted locally versus regionally or nationally. Sample sizes were generally small (median=220 participants per occupation) and 135 studies (69%) were at a high risk of bias. One or more estimates were available for 21/23 major SOC occupation groups, but over half of the estimates identified (n=359/600) were for healthcare-related occupations. â € Personal Care and Service Occupations' (median 22% (IQR 9-28%); n=14) had the highest median seroprevalence. Conclusions Many seroprevalence studies covering a broad range of occupations were published in the first year of the pandemic. Results suggest considerable differences in seroprevalence between occupations, although few large, high-quality studies were done. Well-designed studies are required to improve our understanding of the occupational risk of SARS-CoV-2 and should be considered as an element of pandemic preparedness for future respiratory pathogens.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Boucher, E., Cao, C., D’Mello, S., Duarte, N., Donnici, C., Duarte, N., … Bobrovitz, N. (2023). Occupation and SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies: a systematic review. BMJ Open, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-063771

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free