Occupation and risk of severe COVID-19: prospective cohort study of 120 075 UK Biobank participants.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate severe COVID-19 risk by occupational group. METHODS: Baseline UK Biobank data (2006-10) for England were linked to SARS-CoV-2 test results from Public Health England (16 March to 26 July 2020). Included participants were employed or self-employed at baseline, alive and aged <65 years in 2020. Poisson regression models were adjusted sequentially for baseline demographic, socioeconomic, work-related, health, and lifestyle-related risk factors to assess risk ratios (RRs) for testing positive in hospital or death due to COVID-19 by three occupational classification schemes (including Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) 2000). RESULTS: Of 120 075 participants, 271 had severe COVID-19. Relative to non-essential workers, healthcare workers (RR 7.43, 95% CI 5.52 to 10.00), social and education workers (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.82) and other essential workers (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.45) had a higher risk of severe COVID-19. Using more detailed groupings, medical support staff (RR 8.70, 95% CI 4.87 to 15.55), social care (RR 2.46, 95% CI 1.47 to 4.14) and transport workers (RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.21 to 4.00) had the highest risk within the broader groups. Compared with white non-essential workers, non-white non-essential workers had a higher risk (RR 3.27, 95% CI 1.90 to 5.62) and non-white essential workers had the highest risk (RR 8.34, 95% CI 5.17 to 13.47). Using SOC 2000 major groups, associate professional and technical occupations, personal service occupations and plant and machine operatives had a higher risk, compared with managers and senior officials. CONCLUSIONS: Essential workers have a higher risk of severe COVID-19. These findings underscore the need for national and organisational policies and practices that protect and support workers with an elevated risk of severe COVID-19.

Current research priorities for UK occupational physicians and occupational health researchers: a modified Delphi study.

OBJECTIVES: Studies identifying national occupational health (OH) research priorities have been conducted in several countries to establish where OH research should be focused and where funding should be targeted. However, the UK findings are now over 20 years old, and OH practice is continuously evolving. The aim of this study was to identify current research priorities for UK occupational physicians (OPs) and occupational health researchers (OHRs). METHODS: Current research priorities in OH were identified using a modified Delphi technique. This was conducted in two rounds to achieve consensus. Research priorities were rated, and then ranked using questionnaires developed from expert panel discussions, key research topics identified from the medical literature and participant feedback. Overall and intergroup comparisons were completed for the ranking scores. RESULTS: Consensus among OPs and OHRs was high with almost all (9/10) primary domains rated as 'very important' or 'absolutely necessary' by more than 54% of respondents. The research priority areas ranked highest were jointly economic evaluation/cost effectiveness studies and disability management followed by occupational disease/injury/illness. Occupational health policy was ranked lowest after sickness absence management and health promotion. The secondary domain analysis identified priority emphasis on mental health and psychosocial hazards within the workplace and the need to further develop evidence-based guidance for clinical OH practice. CONCLUSIONS: We identified the current research priorities for UK OPs and OHRs. The findings will inform future national OH research strategy and support research that addresses important knowledge gaps within OH and other interdisciplinary specialties.

Comparison of competency priorities between UK occupational physicians and occupational health nurses.

OBJECTIVES: The competencies required of occupational physicians (OPs) and occupational health nurses (OHNs) separately have been studied in various countries but little research has made direct comparisons between these two key occupational health (OH) professional groups. The aim of this study was to compare current competency priorities between UK OPs and OHNs. METHODS: A modified Delphi study conducted among professional organisations and networks of UK OPs and OHNs. This formed part of a larger Delphi, including international OPs. It was undertaken in two rounds (round 1-'rating', round 2-'ranking'), using a questionnaire based on available OH competency guidance, the literature, expert panel reviews and conference discussions. RESULTS: In each round (rating/ranking), 57/49 and 48/54 responses were received for OPs and OHNs respectively. The principle domain (PD) competency ranks were very highly correlated (Spearman's r=0.972) with the same PDs featuring in the top four and bottom three positions. OPs and OHNs ranked identically for the top two PDs (good clinical care and general principles of assessment and management of occupational hazards to health). Research methods was ranked lowest by both groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study has observed a high level of agreement among UK OPs and OHNs on current competency priorities. The 'clinically focused' competency priorities likely reflect that although OH practice will broaden in response to various factors, traditional 'core' OH activities will still be required. These mutually identified priorities can serve to strengthen collaboration between these groups, develop joint education/training programmes and identify common professional development opportunities.