BMJ Open (Feb 2023)

Occupation and SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies: a systematic review

  • ,
  • Jesse Papenburg,
  • Anil Adisesh,
  • Michael Liu,
  • Tingting Yan,
  • Matthew P Cheng,
  • Niklas Bobrovitz,
  • Rahul Arora,
  • Christian Cao,
  • Mercedes Yanes-Lane,
  • Claire Donnici,
  • Nathan Duarte,
  • Sara Perlman-Arrow,
  • Hannah P Rahim,
  • Emily Boucher,
  • Sean D’Mello,
  • Natalie Duarte,
  • Graham Bennett,
  • David Kodama,
  • Natasha Illincic,
  • Mitchell J Segal,
  • Lucas J Penny

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-063771
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 13, no. 2

Abstract

Read online

Objective To describe and synthesise studies of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence by occupation prior to the widespread vaccine roll-out.Methods We identified studies of occupational seroprevalence from a living systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42020183634). Electronic databases, grey literature and news media were searched for studies published during January–December 2020. Seroprevalence estimates and a free-text description of the occupation were extracted and classified according to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) 2010 system using a machine-learning algorithm. Due to heterogeneity, results were synthesised narratively.Results We identified 196 studies including 591 940 participants from 38 countries. Most studies (n=162; 83%) were conducted locally versus regionally or nationally. Sample sizes were generally small (median=220 participants per occupation) and 135 studies (69%) were at a high risk of bias. One or more estimates were available for 21/23 major SOC occupation groups, but over half of the estimates identified (n=359/600) were for healthcare-related occupations. ‘Personal Care and Service Occupations’ (median 22% (IQR 9–28%); n=14) had the highest median seroprevalence.Conclusions Many seroprevalence studies covering a broad range of occupations were published in the first year of the pandemic. Results suggest considerable differences in seroprevalence between occupations, although few large, high-quality studies were done. Well-designed studies are required to improve our understanding of the occupational risk of SARS-CoV-2 and should be considered as an element of pandemic preparedness for future respiratory pathogens.