O-332 An umbrella review of the work and health impacts of working in a pandemic environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Introduction</h3> The effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on work, employment and health are considerable. There is a need for actionable and targeted evidence that policy-makers, employers, workers and other stakeholders can use to ensure that work is safe and healthy not only during the COVID-19 pandemic, but also in its aftermath. <h3>Objectives</h3> The purpose of this umbrella review is to inform evidence-based decision making and best practices for the work and health of workers during an epidemic/pandemic; and to identify research gaps to inform evidence needs for future studies and research funding priorities. We examined the evidence on the work and health impacts of working in an epidemic/pandemic environment; factors associated with these impacts; and possible risk mitigation or intervention strategies that address these factors or outcomes. <h3>Methods</h3> We examined review articles published in MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Embase between 2000 and 2020. Data were extracted and analyzed using a narrative synthesis. <h3>Results</h3> The search yielded 1,524 unique citations, of which 31 were included. The search yielded a large volume of reviews on mental health and infection risk to health care workers. Reviews identified a variety of individual, social, organizational and risk mitigation factors that influenced study outcomes. Equity considerations were only tangentially referenced in the included studies. Only a few reviews examined intervention strategies in the workplace, and none included long-term outcomes of exposure or work during an epidemic/pandemic. <h3>Conclusion</h3> Findings suggest a number of critical research and evidence gaps, including the need for reviews on occupational groups potentially exposed to or impacted by the negative work and health effects of COVID-19 in addition to health care workers, the long-term consequences of transitioning to the post-COVID-19 economy on work and health, and research with an equity or social determinants of health lens.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".