IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0324755.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 on healthcare and essential workers: A longitudinal study of PROMIS-29 outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Jocelyn Dorney
  • Imtiaz Ebna Mannan
  • Caitlin Malicki
  • Lauren E Wisk
  • Joann Elmore
  • Kelli N O’Laughlin
  • Dana Morse
  • Kristyn Gatling
  • Michael Gottlieb
  • Michelle Santangelo
  • Michelle L’Hommedieu
  • Nicole L Gentile
  • Sharon Saydah
  • Mandy J Hill
  • Ryan Huebinger
  • Katherine Riley Martin
  • Ahamed H Idris
  • Efrat Kean
  • Kevin Schaeffer
  • Robert M Rodriguez
  • Robert A Weinstein
  • Erica S Spatz
  • for the INSPIRE Group

Abstract

Importance: The mandatory service of essential workers during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with high job stress, increased SARS-CoV-2 exposure, and limited time for recovery following infection. Understanding outcomes for frontline workers can inform planning for future pandemics. Objective: To compare patient-reported outcomes by employment type and SARS-CoV-2 status. Design: Data from the INSPIRE registry, which enrolled COVID-positive and COVID-negative adults between 12/7/2020–8/29/2022 was analyzed. Patient-reported outcomes were collected quarterly over 18 months. Setting: Participants were recruited across eight US sites. Participants: Employed INSPIRE participants who completed a short (3-month) and long-term (12–18 month) survey. Exposure: SARS-CoV-2 index status and employment type (essential healthcare worker [HCW], essential non-HCW, and non-essential worker [“general worker”]). Main outcomes and measures: PROMIS-29 (mental and physical health summary) and PROMIS Cognitive SF-CF 8a (cognitive function) scores were assessed at baseline, short-term (3-months), and long-term (12–18 months) timepoints using GEE modeling. Results: Of the 1,463 participants: 53.5% were essential workers (51.4% HCWs, 48.6% non-HCWs) and 46.5% were general workers. Most associations between outcomes and employment type became non-significant after adjusting for sociodemographics, comorbidities, COVID-19 vaccination, and SARS-CoV-2 variant period. However, among COVID-negative participants, essential HCWs had higher cognitive scores at baseline (β: 3.91, 95% CI [1.32, 6.50]), short term: (β: 3.49, 95% CI: [0.80, 6.18]) and long-term: (β: 3.72, 95% CI: [0.98, 6.46]) compared to general workers. Among COVID-positive participants, essential non-HCWs had significantly worse long-term physical health summary scores (β:-1.22, 95% CI: [−2.35, −0.09]) compared to general workers. Conclusions and relevance: Differences in outcomes by worker status were largely explained by baseline characteristics. However, compared to general workers, essential HCW status had higher cognitive function in the absence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at all timepoints, while essential non-HCWs were most vulnerable to poor recovery in long-term physical health following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Preparation efforts for future pandemics may consider enhanced protection and post-infection resources for frontline workers.

Suggested Citation

  • Jocelyn Dorney & Imtiaz Ebna Mannan & Caitlin Malicki & Lauren E Wisk & Joann Elmore & Kelli N O’Laughlin & Dana Morse & Kristyn Gatling & Michael Gottlieb & Michelle Santangelo & Michelle L’Hommedieu, 2025. "Impact of SARS-CoV-2 on healthcare and essential workers: A longitudinal study of PROMIS-29 outcomes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(7), pages 1-15, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0324755
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0324755
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0324755
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0324755&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0324755?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0324755. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.