The association between prolonged SARS-CoV-2 symptoms and work outcomes, 2024, Venkatesh et al.

Discussion in 'Long Covid research' started by SNT Gatchaman, Aug 16, 2024.

  1. SNT Gatchaman

    SNT Gatchaman Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,270
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    The association between prolonged SARS-CoV-2 symptoms and work outcomes
    Arjun K. Venkatesh; Huihui Yu; Caitlin Malicki; Michael Gottlieb; Joann G. Elmore; Mandy J. Hill; Ahamed H. Idris; Juan Carlos C. Montoy; Kelli N. O’Laughlin; Kristin L. Rising; Kari A. Stephens; Erica S. Spatz; Robert A. Weinstein; for the INSPIRE Group

    While the early effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the United States labor market are well-established, less is known about the long-term impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection and Long COVID on employment. To address this gap, we analyzed self-reported data from a prospective, national cohort study to estimate the effects of SARS-CoV-2 symptoms at three months post-infection on missed workdays and return to work. The analysis included 2,939 adults in the Innovative Support for

    Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry (INSPIRE) study who tested positive for their initial SARS-CoV-2 infection at the time of enrollment, were employed before the pandemic, and completed a baseline and three-month electronic survey. At three months post-infection, 40.8% of participants reported at least one SARS-CoV-2 symptom and 9.6% of participants reported five or more SARS-CoV-2 symptoms. When asked about missed work due to their SARS-CoV-2 infection at three months, 7.2% of participants reported missing ≥10 workdays and 13.9% of participants reported not returning to work since their infection. At three months, participants with ≥5 symptoms had a higher adjusted odds ratio of missing ≥10 workdays (2.96, 95% CI 1.81–4.83) and not returning to work (2.44, 95% CI 1.58–3.76) compared to those with no symptoms. Prolonged SARS-CoV-2 symptoms were common, affecting 4-in-10 participants at three-months post-infection, and were associated with increased odds of work loss, most pronounced among adults with ≥5 symptoms at three months.

    Despite the end of the federal Public Health Emergency for COVID-19 and efforts to “return to normal”, policymakers must consider the clinical and economic implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on people’s employment status and work absenteeism, particularly as data characterizing the numerous health and well-being impacts of Long COVID continue to emerge. Improved understanding of risk factors for lost work time may guide efforts to support people in returning to work.

    Link | PDF (PLOS ONE) [Open Access]
     
    RedFox, HolyScrod, Turtle and 4 others like this.
  2. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    28,299
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    Looks potentially important - the authors have a lot of impressive affiliations e.g. Yale School of Epidemiology.


    There is a risk that people who were experiencing persisting symptoms in the first weeks might have been more likely to sign up for inclusion in the study - there was that lag between testing and the baseline survey of up to 42 days.
     
    Turtle, Sean, Kitty and 1 other person like this.
  3. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    28,299
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    I note that non-return to work could be due to a range of factors, not just personal health status. The health of a family member, changed life priorities/assessment of risk and the ongoing presence of the job could all affect work return rate. Future work could look at the impact of the workforce of family care responsibilities - are people having to give up or reduce paid work hours to care for a loved one?

    That's quite a limited list of symptoms. There's nothing there about muscle weakness, PEM, orthostatic intolerance or cognitive dysfunction, and there's nothing about severity. A person with ME/CFS might only report 2 or 3 symptoms, so I think the analysis with days lost versus number of symptoms doesn't mean much.


    Restricting the analysis to people who were in paid employment at the time of the infection and using a fixed number of missed workdays would tend to under-estimate the impact of illness on people with part-time paid work and those temporarily out of the paid workforce e.g. young people; women caring for young children.

    At nearly 3000 people, it's a decent sized study. However, there were significant dropout losses. It's likely that people experiencing ongoing health issues were more likely to choose to participate at both the baseline and 3 month followup.
     
    RedFox, Turtle, Sean and 3 others like this.
  4. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    28,299
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
     
    alktipping, rvallee, RedFox and 2 others like this.
  5. Kitty

    Kitty Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,264
    Location:
    UK
    Another way to do this might be to survey people who have been out of regular employment for more than six months since March 2020, for any reason other than redundancy, dismissal, end of contract, failure of a business or retirement. And whether they're still out of work or have had to reduce their hours.

    It wouldn't show the proportion of the workforce affected, of course, but it could tell us something about the numbers of people who've been forced out of a previous role directly due to Covid-19, as opposed to other illnesses, disabilities, etc. It would matter less that it'd be a self selecting group if it weren't intended to reflect a proportion of the total workforce; if it's a large enough sample, raw numbers are still potentially useful.
     

Share This Page