Explore the vast range of titles available.

We assessed coronavirus disease vaccination and intent and knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs among essential workers during March–June 2021. Coverage was 67%; 18% reported no intent to get vaccinated. Primary concerns were potential side effects, safety, and lack of trust in vaccines, highlighting the importance of increasing vaccine confidence in this population.

Essential workers, those who work in a variety of sectors that are critical to sustain the societal infrastructure, were affected both physically and mentally by the COVID-19 pandemic. While the most studied group of this population were healthcare workers, other essential non-health workers such as those working in the law enforcement sector, grocery services, food services, delivery services, and other sectors were studied less commonly. We explored both the academic (using MEDLINE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Sociological Abstracts, and Web of Science databases) and grey literature (using Google Scholar) to identify studies on the mental health effects of the six pandemics in the last 20 years (2000–2020). We identified a total of 32 articles; all of them pertained to COVID-19 except for one about Ebola. We found there was an increase in depression, anxiety, stress, and other mental health issues among non-health essential workers. They were more worried about passing the infection on to their loved ones and often did not have adequate training, supply of personal protective equipment, and support to cope with the effects. Generally, women, people having lower education, and younger people were more likely to be affected by a pandemic. Exploring occupation-specific coping strategies of those whose mental health was affected during a pandemic using more robust methodologies such as longitudinal studies and in-depth qualitative exploration would help facilitate appropriate responses for their recovery.

This work used event study to examine the impact of three policies (shutdowns, reopening, and mask mandates) on changes in the daily COVID-19 infection growth rate at the state level in the US (February through August 2020). The results show the importance of early intervention: shutdowns and mask mandates reduced the COVID-19 infection growth rate immediately after being imposed statewide. Over the longer term, mask mandates had a larger effect on flattening the curve than shutdowns. The increase in the daily infection growth rate pushed state governments to shut down, but reopening led to significant increases in new cases 21 days afterward. The results suggest a dynamic social distancing approach: a shutdown for a short period followed by reopening, combined with universal mask wearing. We also found that the COVID-19 growth rate increased in states with higher percentages of essential workers (during reopening) and higher percentages of minorities (during the mask mandate period). Health insurance access for low-income workers (via Medicaid expansion) helped to reduce COVID-19 cases in the reopening model. The implications for public health show the importance of access to health insurance and mask mandates to protect low-income essential workers, but minority groups still face a higher risk of infection during the pandemic.

Objectives Immigrants are believed to be at high risk of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A leading suspected risk factor is their role in the essential workforce. We aimed to describe COVID-19–related risk factors among Bhutanese and Burmese refugees in the United States. Methods We administered an anonymous online survey in May 2020 among community leaders of Bhutanese and Burmese refugees. Using a snowball sampling strategy, we invited community leaders to complete the survey and share the link with others who met inclusion criteria (English proficient, aged ≥18, currently living in the United States). We compared respondents with and without recent COVID-19 and identified risk factors for infection. Results Of 218 refugees in 23 states who completed the survey from May 15 through June 1, 2020, fifteen (6.9%) reported infection with COVID-19. Being an essential worker during the pandemic (odds ratio [OR] = 5.25; 95% CI, 1.21-22.78), having an infected family member (OR = 26.92; 95% CI, 5.19-139.75), and being female (OR = 5.63; 95% CI, 1.14-27.82) were risk factors for infection. Among 33 infected family members, 23 (69.7%) were essential workers. Conclusion Although we had a small snowball sample, we found that working in essential industries was associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 infection among Bhutanese and Burmese refugees. We call for larger studies that include Asian immigrant subgroups, as well as immediate attention to protecting immigrant essential workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PurposeKey workers are deemed “essential” for keeping the country going while the rest of us have been resigned to the safety of our homes. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, key workers have become the exalted symbol of the pandemic; although, during pre-pandemic many of these roles were considered “low skilled” and were (and still are) low paid.Design/methodology/approachThe analysis uses newspapers as data sources to discuss occupational prestige and situate it within previous theory.FindingsThis social commentary discusses how occupational prestige evolves and devolves during times of social change, and how elevated status, dependent on one's service to the country in the spirit of a “war-time” narrative, is just temporary and fleeting. Prestige is wrapped up in notions of class, income and education, and during the pandemic, “key workers” have become their own sub-group with an almost mythologised status and value, which the authors argue might take the focus away from genuine efforts to improve working conditions (e.g. access to PPE and pay rises etcetera).Originality/valueThe article considers the current value of key workers and how elevated levels of prestige are transitory. The enduring nature of this new status is yet to be seen. More qualitative nuanced research is required around how occupational prestige changes, evolves and devolves and more quantitative research on why and how widespread some of the critical issues might be.

The risk of contracting COVID-19 varies by occupation. Clarifying the occupational disparity in the infection risk is crucial to the prevention and control of the epidemic in the workplace. In late July, some new cases of COVID-19 were confirmed among cleaners working in Lukou International Airport in Nanjing, China. The infected cases rapidly increased and spread to many domestic cities in the following days. The present study traces the brief reports of epidemiological investigations among the confirmed cases released by the Nanjing government from 20 July to 2 August, and offers a descriptive analysis on the occupational distribution of these cases. Cleaners and other staff working in the airport were found to make up more than 40% of all cases. The overwhelming majority of the cleaner cases were confirmed in the first 7 days. The present study statistically ascertains that the airport cleaners were the initial sufferers and transmitters in this outbreak. They experienced occupational health and safety vulnerability on both individual and contextual levels, including workplace hazards, workplace safety policies, and lack of awareness and empowerment. Effective protection for essential workers and the strict surveillance of occupational health in the workplace is urgently needed.

Black Americans are more likely to be essential workers due to racial capitalism. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, essential workers are less able to adhere to social distancing and stay-at-home guidelines due to the nature of their work, because they are more likely to occupy crowded households, and are more likely to possess pre-existing health conditions. To assist Black essential workers in preventing infection or reducing the intensity of symptoms if contracted, vaccination against the virus is essential. Unfortunately, Black essential workers face considerable barriers to accessing vaccinations and are hesitant to receive the vaccine due to widespread misinformation and justified historical mistrust of the American medical system. The purpose of this work is to (1) describe the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on Black essential workers due to racial capitalism, (2) outline the socioeconomic and racial barriers related to vaccination within this population, and (3) to suggest policy-related approaches to facilitate vaccination such as access to on-site vaccination opportunities, the funding of community outreach efforts, and the mandating of increased employee benefits.

This article explores the contradictions the category of “essential workers” entails, especially in conjunction with the governance of their mobility, citizenship, and the dilemmas thereof. I concentrate on the temporary/seasonal migrant workers as the epitome of essential workers’ paradoxical assemblage of rights and value to scrutinize both labor and its production and reproduction in contemporary capitalism. The essential workers were not only caught between mobility and immobility but also between visibility and invisibility vis-à-vis their activity as labor and, outside of it, between worthlessness and being of value. Their governance and location in society and economy reveal the structural dilemmas of capital and labor, as well as social reproduction in contemporary capitalism.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the general public was concerned about the mental health impacts of unemployment due to COVID-19 and the stress essential workers experienced during this time. Several reports indicated that people in distress were turning to digital technology, but there was little evidence about the impact of these tools on mitigating distress. This study seeks to determine the acceptability, feasibility, usability, and effectiveness of mobile mental health apps for decreasing mental health symptoms in essential workers and unemployed individuals with suicide risk. We recruited participants who indicated that they were unemployed because of COVID-19 or were COVID-19-designated essential workers. Participants were randomized to 1 of 4 free commercial mobile apps for managing distress that were (1) highly rated by PsyberGuide and (2) met the criteria for intervention features these participants indicated were desirable in a previous survey. Participants used the apps for 4 weeks and completed baseline and 4-week self-assessments of depression, anxiety emotional regulation, and suicide risk. We found no differences between the apps in any outcome but did find significant changes in depression and anxiety over time (Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ]-9: estimate=-1.5, SE 0.2, 95% CI -1.1 to -1.8, P<.001; Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale [GAD]-7: estimate=-1.3, SE 0.2, 95% CI -1.0 to -1.6, P<.001). We found no significant changes in suicidal behavior (Suicide Behaviors Questionnaire-Revised [SBQ-R]) or emotional regulation (Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale - Short Form [DERS-SF]) for the 4 weeks. We did find a significant dose-response pattern for changes in depression and anxiety. Using the app at least once a week resulted in greater improvements in treatment conditions over time on depression (estimate=-0.6, SE 0.2, 95% CI 1.0-0.2, P=.003) and anxiety (estimate=0.1, SE 0.2, 95% CI 0.4-0.6, P=.78). There was no association between app frequency and changes in suicidal behavior (SBQ-R) or emotional regulation (DERS-SF). We further found a significant difference between the conditions with regard to app usability, with the control app being the most usable (mean 72.9, SD 16.7; mean 71.2, SD 15.4; mean 66.8, SD 17.3; mean 65.2, SD 17.7). We found no significant differences for app acceptability or appropriateness. Few studies have evaluated prospectively the utility and usability of commercial apps for mood. This study found that free, self-guided commercial mobile mental health apps are seen as usable, but no one app is superior to the other. Although we found that regular use is indicated for effects on depression and anxiety to occur in those who are more symptomatic, regression to the mean cannot be ruled out. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04536935; https://tinyurl.com/mr36zx3s.