COVID-19 among workers assisting homeless and socially vulnerable people.

Nídia Celeste Horie,Karin Schmid,Brayan Filipe Farias Da Silva

doi:10.31744/einstein_journal/2022ao6237

Abstract

ABSTRACTObjective To describe the profile of professionals assisting homeless and socially vulnerable populations tested for COVID-19, and to determine potential associations with exposure at the workplace, on the way to work, or at home, among infected professionals. To describe disease symptoms and progression and to investigate potential associations with age, sex and exposure at the workplace, on the way to work, or at home.Methods A retrospective analysis of data of 173 workers employed by Serviço Franciscano de Solidariedade tested for SARS-CoV-2. Between May 20 and June 2, 2020, professionals and volunteers were tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM antibodies, by means of qualitative rapid chromatographic immunoassay in whole blood. A questionnaire was used to collect data on demographic characteristics and working conditions, history and date of onset of symptoms and risk factors. Quantitative variables were expressed as mean and standard deviation, or median, maximum, and minimum values. Data normality was investigated using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.Results A total of 46 (26.6%) participants had positive serologic tests. Of participants with negative serologic test results, 109 (85.8%) were asymptomatic. History of symptoms was the most significant independent factor associated with positive serology. Serologic test results and symptoms differed significantly according to housing (p=0.045) and working (p<0.001) conditions. More than half of participants (52.4%) living in shared households tested positive, compared to 23% of participants living in family households. Participants working remotely from home did not test positive. In seropositive participants, onset of symptoms was associated with workplace exposure and shared housing conditions.Conclusion History of symptoms was associated with positive serology for COVID-19. Shared housing conditions tended to be associated with higher risk of infection. Onset of symptoms was associated with higher levels of workplace exposure and shared housing conditions in seropositive participants.

Highlights

INTRODUCTION InDecember 2019, news started to spread about a new type of pneumonia detected in Wuhan, China
On January 7, 2020, Chinese authorities informed the disease was caused by a novel coronavirus, which was named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the resultant disease was later described as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).(1) In Brazil, a total of 6,730,118 cases had been reported and 179,032 deaths confirmed up to December 10, 2020.(2)
More than half of participants (52.4%) living in shared housing conditions had positive serologic test results, compared to 23% of participants living in family households

Summary

Introduction

INTRODUCTION InDecember 2019, news started to spread about a new type of pneumonia detected in Wuhan, China. The homeless are one of the most vulnerable social groups.[3]. In Boston (U.S.A.), a structured program aimed to assist homeless people reported 33.1% (429 individuals) of positive test results in this population, within 6 weeks, indicating a high number of cases in shelters.[7]. According to surveys with health care professionals, area of work, types of personal protection equipment, profession and community exposure are risk factors for COVID-19 infection.[8-11]. According to a study investigating tuberculosis transmission among professionals assisting homeless people in Montreal, Canada, these individuals were at an even higher risk of infection than health care professionals.[12]. Serviço Franciscano de Solidariedade (SEFRAS) is a not-for-profit social organization providing care to more than 3,000 people on a daily basis, including children, youngsters, older adults, homeless and immigrants. Since March 2020, SEFRAS acts primarily in provision of food to homeless and socially vulnerable people

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion