Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Apr 28;81(4):184-190.
doi: 10.1136/oemed-2023-109184.

Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection at a UK electricity-generating company: a test-negative design case-control study

Charlotte E Rutter  1 , Martie van Tongeren  2   3 , Tony Fletcher  4 , Sarah Rhodes  2 , Yiqun Chen  5 , Ian Hall  2   6 , Nicholas Warren  7 , Neil Pearce  4
Affiliations

Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection at a UK electricity-generating company: a test-negative design case-control study

Charlotte E Rutter et al. Occup Environ Med. .

Abstract

Objectives: Identify workplace risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection, using data collected by a UK electricity-generating company.

Methods: Using a test-negative design case-control study, we estimated the OR of infection by job category, site, test reason, sex, vaccination status, vulnerability, site outage and site COVID-19 weekly risk rating, adjusting for age, test date and test type.

Results: From an original 80 077 COVID-19 tests, there were 70 646 included in the final analysis. Most exclusions were due to being visitor tests (5030) or tests after an individual first tested positive (2968).Women were less likely to test positive than men (OR=0.71; 95% CI 0.58 to 0.86). Test reason was strongly associated with positivity and although not a cause of infection itself, due to differing test regimes by area, it was a strong confounder for other variables. Compared with routine tests, tests due to symptoms were highest risk (94.99; 78.29 to 115.24), followed by close contact (16.73; 13.80 to 20.29) and broader-defined work contact 2.66 (1.99 to 3.56). After adjustment, we found little difference in risk by job category, but some differences by site with three sites showing substantially lower risks, and one site showing higher risks in the final model.

Conclusions: In general, infection risk was not associated with job category. Vulnerable individuals were at slightly lower risk, tests during outages were higher risk, vaccination showed no evidence of an effect on testing positive, and site COVID-19 risk rating did not show an ordered trend in positivity rates.

Keywords: COVID-19; Disease Outbreaks; Epidemiology.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Number of tests, positive tests and percentage due to routine screening, by date.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Nafilyan V, Pawelek P, Ayoubkhani D, et al. . Occupation and COVID-19 mortality in England: a national linked data study of 14.3 million adults. Occup Environ Med 2022;79:433–41. 10.1136/oemed-2021-107818 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Burdorf A, Porru F, Rugulies R. The COVID-19 pandemic: one year later - an occupational perspective. Scand J Work Environ Health 2021;47:245–7. 10.5271/sjweh.3956 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Michaels D, Wagner GR, Ryan L. Lessons from COVID-19 for protecting workers in the next pandemic. JAMA 2023;330:23–4. 10.1001/jama.2023.8229 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rhodes S, Wilkinson J, Pearce N, et al. . Occupational differences in SARS-Cov-2 infection: analysis of the UK ONS COVID-19 infection survey. J Epidemiol Community Health 2022;76:841–6. 10.1136/jech-2022-219101 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Beale S, Hoskins S, Byrne T, et al. . Differential risk of SARS-Cov-2 infection by occupation: evidence from the virus watch prospective cohort study in England and Wales. J Occup Med Toxicol 2023;18:5. 10.1186/s12995-023-00371-9 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types