ArticleAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE2024
SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among healthcare professionals in a rural state.
Article in Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: We evaluated SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid (anti-N) seroconversion and seroreversion rates, risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion, and COVID-19 risk perceptions among academic healthcare center employees in a rural state. Methods: Among employees aged ≥18 years who completed a screening survey (n = 1,377), we invited all respondents reporting previous COVID-19 (n = 85; 82 accepted) and a random selection of respondents not reporting previous COVID-19 (n = 370; 220 accepted) to participate. Participants completed surveys and provided blood samples at 3-month intervals (T0, T3, T6, T9). We used logistic regression to identify risk factors for seropositivity at T0. Results: The cohort was primarily direct patient caregivers (205/302; 67.9%), white (278/302; 92.1%), and female (212/302; 70.2%). At T0, 86/302 (28.4%) participants were seropositive. Of the seronegative participants, 6/198 (3.0%), 6/183 (3.3%), and 14/180 (7.8%) had seroconverted at T3, T6, and T9, respectively. The overall seroreversion rate was 6.98% at T9. At T0, nursing staff (odds ratio [OR], 2.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08, 5.19) and being within six feet of a non-household member outside of work (OR, 2.91; 95% CI, 1.02, 8.33) had significantly higher odds of seropositivity. Vaccination (OR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.02, 0.12) and face mask use (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.17, 0.78) were protective. Conclusions: The seroconversion and seroreversion rates were low among participants. Public health and infection prevention measures implemented early in the COVID-19 pandemic - vaccination, face mask use, and social distancing - were associated with significantly lower odds of SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among participants.
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.