Evaluation of workplace infection prevention and control measures for COVID-19: A prospective cohort study in Japan
Heliyon, ISSN: 2405-8440, Vol: 9, Issue: 5, Page: e15996
2023
- 5Citations
- 19Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
Encouraging the implementation of infection prevention and control (IPC) measures has been necessary to prevent workplace infections caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the effectiveness of these measures in reducing infections has not been thoroughly evaluated. We evaluated employees’ COVID-19 infection rates in relation to the implementation of IPC measures at their workplaces to identify effective workplace measures. This prospective cohort study was conducted between December 2020 and December 2021 using Internet-based self-assessment questionnaires, with 11,982 participants included from the baseline. To estimate whether implementing workplace IPC measures was associated with COVID-19 incidence rates among participants, we estimated multivariate-adjusted relative risk (RR) using a log-binomial model. After adjusting for sex, age, education, household members, occupation-related factors, and personal preventive behaviors, requesting ill employees to refrain from going to work showed significantly lower COVID-19 infection rates than not requesting it (RR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.34–0.91, p = 0.019). Employees restricted from reporting to work when ill had significantly lower COVID-19 infection rates than those who did not follow this measure. The results indicated that not coming to work when ill was effective in reducing COVID-19 infections at the workplace. We suggest that companies proactively adopt this policy and encourage their employees to comply with it.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844023032036; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15996; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85158036901&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37163163; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2405844023032036; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15996
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know