ArticlePloS one2024
Vital D: A modifiable occupational risk factor of UK healthcare workers.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vitamin D levels, general health status, and work productivity among healthcare workers-a scoping review of published literature (2010-2025).Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Pooled it
- Vitamin D: A Nutraceutical Supplement at the Crossroad Between Respiratory Infections and COVID-19.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Factors associated with vitamin D deficiency in health care workers exposed to SARS-CoV-2: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in nutrition · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe role of Vitamin D in immune function is well reported with a growing evidence base linking low levels to poorer outcomes from infectious disease. Vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency are prevalent worldwide with healthcare workers identified as a known at-risk group. Here we aim to investigate serum Vitamin D levels in a UK population of front line healthcare workers and to promote the occupational risk.
methodsA cross-sectional study of 639 volunteers was conducted to identify the prevalence of Vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency amongst a population of front-line health care workers in the UK. Participant demographics and co-morbid factors were collected at the time of serum sampling for multivariate analysis.
resultsOnly 18.8% of the population had a normal vitamin D level greater than or equal to 75nmol/L. This is compared to Public Health England's (PHE) stipulated normal levels of 60% during winter. 81.2% had a level less than 75nmol/L, with 51.2% less than 50nmol/L and 6.6% less than 25nmol/L. For serum levels less than 25nmol/L, Asian ethnicity was more likely to have a vitamin D deficiency than non-asian (OR (95%CI): 3.81 (1.73-8.39), p = 0.001), whereas white ethnicity was less likely to have a vitamin D deficiency compared to non-white (OR (95%CI: 0.43 (0.20-0.83), p = 0.03). Other factors that contributed to a higher likelihood of lower-than-normal levels within this population included male sex, decreased age and not taking supplementation.
conclusionIt is concluded that our population of healthcare workers have higher rates of abnormal vitamin D levels in comparison with the general UK population reported prevalence. Furthermore, Asian ethnicity and age 30 years and below are more at risk of vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency. This highlights an occupational risk factor for the healthcare community to consider.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.