MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Occupational infection control measures and frontline workers’ perceived COVID-19 risk during the fourth wave of the pandemic in Canada: A cross-sectional survey

2022· article· en· W4411639003 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Infection Control · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control and Ventilation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Cross-sectional study2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)MedicineInfection controlEnvironmental healthPersonal protective equipmentOccupational exposureVirologyOutbreakPathologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, every person employed in Canada has the right to a safe work environment. Yet, research shows that essential workers in Canada have experienced a disproportionate burden of COVID-19 transmission and deaths throughout the pandemic. In light of ongoing reported COVID-19 outbreaks in Canadian essential sectors and rising national case numbers as of July 2021, this study aimed to examine workers’ perceptions of the prevalence and effectiveness of occupational COVID-19 control measures during the fourth wave of the pandemic in Canada. Methods: Individuals working on site in Canada from July 1 to November 30, 2021 were recruited through the Canadian Union of Public Employees (N=421). Data were collected on workplaces’ implementation of the COVID-19 Hierarchy of Controls. Adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) generated from logistic regression models were used to estimate the likelihood of feeling protected at work vs. feeling unprotected or unsure according to participant characteristics and workplace control measures. Results: The 421 respondents were predominantly female (75%, N=316), college-educated (63%, N=265), and in non-management roles (86%, N=364). Participants in education (AOR=0.4, 95% CI=0.2-0.9) or transportation/warehousing (AOR=0.3, 95% CI=0.1-0.9) were less likely to feel protected than those in healthcare. Ventilation adjustments (16%, N=66) and random or universal COVID-19 testing were rare (≤3%, N≤13), 40% (N=170) of participants’ workplaces used a contact tracing program. Employees adherence to physical distancing and masking requirements varied by occupational sector. Physical barriers (AOR=2.8, 95% CI=1.4-16.8), handwashing stations (AOR=4.8, 95% CI=1.4-16.8), testing of close contacts (AOR=2.1, 95% CI=1.2-3.7), and temperature checks (AOR=2.2, 95% CI=1.0-4.7) were associated with feeling protected at work after accounting for sector and managerial effect. Conclusion: Limited COVID-19 controls were identified in transportation, manufacturing, warehousing, and education settings. Workers highlighted a need for improved ventilation, and upscaled asymptomatic screening, test and trace, and isolation efforts. Respondents’ uncertainty regarding the implementation of out-of-sight infection controls coupled with gaps in workers’ and scientists’ perceptions of effective safety measures indicate a need for improved communication strategies between occupational health experts, supervisors, and employees on pandemic risks and procedures.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it