MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412732939 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-095685

Chronic health consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on school workers: a cross-sectional post-pandemic analysis

2025· article· en· W4412732939 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Allison W. Watts, Mark Pitblado, Sirui Li, Michael A. Irvine, Liam Golding, Daniel Coombs, Collette O’Reilly, Sheila F. O’Brien, David A. Goldfarb, Louise C. Mâsse, Pascal M. Lavoie

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaCanadian Blood ServicesBC Centre for Disease ControlBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersGovernment of Canada
KeywordsMedicineCross-sectional studyPandemicPublic healthSeroprevalenceMental healthFamily medicineSerologyEnvironmental healthDemographyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)ImmunologyInternal medicineNursingPsychiatryDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)AntibodyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically affected schools. However, there are insufficient data on the chronic physical and mental health consequences of the pandemic in school workers. OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence and the functional and mental health impact of pandemic-related chronic health symptoms among school workers towards the end of the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of health questionnaires and serology testing data (nucleocapsid, N antibodies) collected between January and April 2023, within a cohort of school workers. SETTING: Three large school districts (Vancouver, Richmond, Delta) in the Vancouver metropolitan area, Canada (representing 186 elementary and secondary schools in total). PARTICIPANTS: Active school staff employed in these three school districts. EXPOSURE: COVID-19 infection history by self-reported viral and/or nucleocapsid antibody testing. MAIN OUTCOMES: Self-reported, new-onset pandemic-related chronic health symptoms that started within the past year, lasting at least 3 months, after a positive viral test among those with a known infection. RESULTS: Of 1128 school staff enrolled from 185/186 (99.5%) schools, 1086 (96.3%) and 998 (88.5%) staff completed health questionnaires and serology testing, respectively. The N-seroprevalence adjusted for clustering by school and test sensitivity and specificity was 84.7% (95% Credible Interval (95% CrI): 79.2% to 91.8%) compared with 85.4% (95% CrI: 81.6% to 90.3%) in a community-matched sample of blood donors. Overall, 31.1% (95% CI: 28.4% to 34.0%) staff reported new-onset chronic symptoms. These symptoms were more frequently reported in staff with viral test-confirmed infections (38.0% (95% CI: 34.3% to 41.9%)) compared with those with positive serology who were unaware that they had COVID-19 (14.3% (95% CI: 7.6% to 23.6%); p<0.001) or those with a negative serology (18.1% (95% CI: 12.7% to 24.6%); p<0.001). New-onset chronic symptoms were also more common in women (OR=1.6 (95% CI: 1.1 to 2.4)) and staff with a pre-existing health condition (OR=1.9 (95% CI: 1.4 to 2.5)). After controlling for age, sex and comorbidities, symptoms were associated with more days absent from work during the acute SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR=1.1 (95% CI: 1.0 to 1.2)), poorer mental health (OR=2.5 (95% CI: 1.9 to 3.4)), anxiety (OR=2.1 (95% CI: 1.5 to 3.0)) and depressive symptoms (OR=2.8 (95% CI: 2.0 to 4.0)). CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic had major health impacts on school workers. To our knowledge, this study is among the first to concurrently quantify a broad range of chronic physical and mental health impacts, highlighting the need for further research and targeted health programmes to address this significant burden.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.222
GPT teacher head0.565
Teacher spread0.344 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicCOVID-19 and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→