Workplaces can be high-risk environments for SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks and subsequent community transmission. Identifying, understanding, and implementing effective workplace SARS-CoV-2 infection prevention and control (IPC) measures is critical to protect workers, their families, and communities. A rapid review and meta-analysis were conducted to synthesize evidence assessing the effectiveness of COVID-19 IPC measures implemented in global workplace settings through April 2021. Medline, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies that quantitatively assessed the effectiveness of workplace COVID-19 IPC measures. The included studies comprised varying empirical designs and occupational settings. Measures of interest included surveillance measures, outbreak investigations, environmental adjustments, personal protective equipment (PPE), changes in work arrangements, and worker education. Sixty-one studies from healthcare, nursing home, meatpacking, manufacturing, and office settings were included, accounting for ~280,000 employees based in Europe, Asia, and North America. Meta-analyses showed that combined IPC measures resulted in lower employee COVID-19 positivity rates (0.2% positivity; 95% CI 0–0.4%) than single measures such as asymptomatic PCR testing (1.7%; 95% CI 0.9–2.9%) and universal masking (24%; 95% CI 3.4–55.5%). Modelling studies showed that combinations of (i) timely and widespread contact tracing and case isolation, (ii) facilitating smaller worker cohorts, and (iii) effective use of PPE can reduce workplace transmission. Comprehensive COVID-19 IPC measures incorporating swift contact tracing and case isolation, PPE, and facility zoning can effectively prevent workplace outbreaks. Masking alone should not be considered sufficient protection from SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in the workplace.

Background: This paper reports on postpartum women's mode of birth (MOB) preferences across five public maternity hospitals in Argentina, the variables and motives associated with those preferences, and hospital services preparedness.Methods: A cross‐sectional study was conducted with postpartum women aged 15 years or older in geographically diverse public hospitals in Argentina between November 2018 to June 2019. Data on obstetric history, companionship, and MOB preference and motives were collected from mothers using a semistructured interviewer‐administered questionnaire. Hospital and participant characteristics, MOB preferences, and perceived advantages and disadvantages were described. Associations between vaginal birth preference, participant characteristics, and hospitals were assessed using odds ratios generated from mixed‐effect logistic regression analyses.Results: The sample included 621 postpartum women, 60% of whom had a vaginal birth. In three of the participating hospitals, most women indicated vaginal birth as their preferred MOB (90%); however, the preference for a vaginal birth was lower in the remaining two hospitals (67%). Differences in preferences across hospitals remained after adjusting by women's age or obstetric history. Cited motives for vaginal birth preference included faster recovery, feeling ready for a vaginal birth, and considering it a more natural process. Preference for a caesarean birth was based on perceptions of increased safety and avoiding pain.Conclusions: The characteristics of obstetric services revealed they are prepared for obstetric emergencies but have limited resources and support to sustain the process of vaginal birth. Despite the limited support, women giving birth in public maternity hospitals preferred vaginal delivery to a caesarean section. This study could not identify hospital variables associated with women's birth preferences across hospitals.

Background: Developing a public health workforce that can understand problems from a population perspective is essential in the design of impactful user-centred responses to current population health challenges. Design Thinking, a user-driven process for problem-defining and solution-finding, not only has utility in the field of public health but stands as a potential mechanism for developing critical skills -such as empathy, creativity and innovation- amongst future professionals. Though the literature reflects the use of DT across many health sciences disciplines, less research has been published on how students apply learned concepts using real-world challenges of their choice and what difficulties they face during the process. Methods: This case study evaluates achieved learning outcomes after the introduction of a design thinking block into post-graduate public health curriculum at the University College Dublin. Two independent assessors evaluated student learning outcomes and observed difficulties during the process by assessing group presentations to identify and understand any learning difficulties using an ad-hoc designed tool. The tool consisted of twelve items scored using a 5-point Likert scale. Student feedback, in the form of an online survey, was also analysed to determine their level of enjoyment, perceived learning outcomes and opinions on the course content. Results: The assessors evaluated thirteen DT group presentations and reports from 50 students. The groups chose a range of topics from socialization of college students during Covid-19 to mental health challenges in a low-income country. Independent assessment of assignments revealed that the highest scores were reached by groups who explored a challenge relevant to their own lives (more than 80% of total possible points versus 60% class average). The groups that explored challenges more distant to themselves struggled with problem finding with a mean score of 2.05 (SD ± 1.2) out of 5 in that domain. The greatest difficulties were observed in problem finding and ideation. Though most students found the design thinking block enjoyable and relevant to their education, they recommended that the DT block be a stand-alone module. Students recognized that groups who chose a familiar topic experienced fewer difficulties throughout the process. Conclusion: The study showed that DT learning outcomes were best achieved when students focused on challenges, they had either personally experienced or were familiar with. These findings provide insight for future iterations of DT workshops and support the teaching of user-centred approaches to future public health practitioners.

Few studies have assessed how the intersection of social determinants of health and environmental hazards contributes to racial disparities in COVID-19. The aim of our study was to compare COVID-19 disparities in testing and positivity to cumulative environmental health impacts, and to assess how unique social and environmental determinants of health relate to COVID-19 positivity in Seattle, King County, WA, at the census tract level. Publicly available data (n = 397 census tracts) were obtained from Public Health–Seattle & King County, 2018 ACS 5-year estimates, and the Washington Tracking Network. COVID-19 testing and positive case rates as of July 12, 2020, were mapped and compared to Washington State Environmental Health Disparities (EHD) Map cumulative impact rankings. We calculated odds ratios from a series of univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses using cumulative impact rankings, and community-level socioeconomic, health, and environmental factors as predictors and having ≥ 10% or < 10% census tract positivity as the binary outcome variable. We found a remarkable overlap between Washington EHD cumulative impact rankings and COVID-19 positivity in King County. Census tracts with ≥ 10 % COVID-19 positivity had significantly lower COVID-19 testing rates and higher proportions of people of color and faced a combination of low socioeconomic status–related outcomes, poor community health outcomes, and significantly higher concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM_2.5). King County communities experiencing high rates of COVID-19 face a disproportionate cumulative burden of environmental and social inequities. Cumulative environmental health impacts should therefore systematically be considered when assessing for risk of exposure to and health complications resulting from COVID-19.

The aim of this study was to explore key informants’ views on and experiences with Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy in a Dublin community with a high concentration of economic and social disadvantage and to identify feasible, community-centred solutions for improving vaccination acceptance and uptake. Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were carried out at a local community-centre and a central hair salon. Twelve key informants from the target community were selected based on their professional experience with vulnerable population groups: the unemployed, adults in recovery from addiction, the elderly, and Irish Travellers. Inductive thematic framework analysis was conducted to identify emergent themes and sub-themes. Drivers of vaccine hesitancy identified by key informants largely fell under the WHO ‘3Cs’ model of hesitancy: lack of confidence in the vaccine and its providers, complacency towards the health risks of Covid-19, and inconvenient access conditions. Covid-19 Communications emerged as a fourth ‘C’ whereby unclear and negative messages, confusing public health measures, and unmet expectations of the vaccine’s effectiveness exacerbated anti-authority sentiments and vaccine scepticism during the pandemic. Community-specific solutions involve the provision of accurate and accessible information, collaborating with community-based organizations to build trust in the vaccine through relationship building and ongoing dialogue, and ensuring acceptable access conditions. The proposed Confidence, Complacency, Convenience, Covid-19 Communications (‘4Cs’) model provides a tool for considering vaccine hesitancy in disadvantaged urban communities reacting to the rapid development and distribution of a novel vaccine. The model and in-depth key informants’ perspectives can be used to compliment equitable vaccination efforts currently underway by public health agencies and non-governmental organizations.

Workplaces are high-risk environments for SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks and subsequent community transmission. Identifying, understanding, and implementing effective workplace SARS-CoV-2 infection prevention and control (IPC) measures is critical to protect workers, their families, and communities. A rapid review and meta-analysis were conducted to synthesize evidence assessing the effectiveness of COVID-19 IPC measures implemented in global workplace settings through April 2021. Medline, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies that quantitatively assessed the effectiveness of workplace COVID-19 IPC measures. Included studies comprised varying empirical designs and occupational settings. Measures of interest included surveillance measures, outbreak investigations, personal protective equipment (PPE), changes in work arrangements, and worker education. Sixty-three studies from international healthcare, nursing home, meatpacking, manufacturing, and office settings were included, accounting for ~280,000 employees. Meta-analyses showed that combined measures (0.2% positivity; 95%CI 0-0.4%) were associated with lower post-intervention employee COVID-19 positivity estimates than single measures like asymptomatic PCR testing (1.7%; 95%CI 0.9-2.9%) and universal masking (24%; 95%CI 3.4-55.5%). Modelling studies showed that combinations of (i) timely and widespread contact tracing and case isolation, (ii) facilitating smaller worker cohorts, and (iii) effective use of PPE can reduce workplace transmission. Comprehensive COVID-19 IPC measures incorporating swift contact tracing and case isolation, PPE, and facility zoning, can effectively prevent workplace outbreaks. Masking alone should not be considered as sufficient protection from SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in workplace environments at high risk of virus transmission.