With the global spread of COVID-19, there is a compelling public health interest in quantifying who is at increased risk of contracting disease. Occupational characteristics, such as interfacing with the public and being in close quarters with other workers, not only put workers at high risk for disease, but also make them a nexus of disease transmission to the community. This can further be exacerbated through presenteeism, the term used to describe the act of coming to work despite being symptomatic for disease. Quantifying the number of workers who are frequently exposed to infection and disease in the workplace, and understanding which occupational groups they represent, can help to prompt public health risk response and management for COVID-19 in the workplace, and subsequent infectious disease outbreaks. To estimate the number of United States workers frequently exposed to infection and disease in the workplace, national employment data (by Standard Occupational Classification) maintained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) was merged with a BLS O*NET survey measure reporting how frequently workers in each occupation are exposed to infection or disease at work. This allowed us to estimate the number of United States workers, across all occupations, exposed to disease or infection at work more than once a month. Based on our analyses, approximately 10% (14.4 M) of United States workers are employed in occupations where exposure to disease or infection occurs at least once per week. Approximately 18.4% (26.7 M) of all United States workers are employed in occupations where exposure to disease or infection occurs at least once per month. While the majority of exposed workers are employed in healthcare sectors, other occupational sectors also have high proportions of exposed workers. These include protective service occupations (e.g. police officers, correctional officers, firefighters), office and administrative support occupations (e.g. couriers and messengers, patient service representatives), education occupations (e.g. preschool and daycare teachers), community and social services occupations (community health workers, social workers, counselors), and even construction and extraction occupations (e.g. plumbers, septic tank installers, elevator repair). The large number of persons employed in occupations with frequent exposure to infection and disease underscore the importance of all workplaces developing risk response plans for COVID-19. Given the proportion of the United States workforce exposed to disease or infection at work, this analysis also serves as an important reminder that the workplace is a key locus for public health interventions, which could protect both workers and the communities they serve.

Objectives The aims of this position paper are to (i) summarize research on precarious employment (PE) in the context of occupational health; (ii) develop a theoretical framework that distinguishes PE from related concepts and delineates important contextual factors; and (iii) identify key methodological challenges and directions for future research on PE and health. Methods This position paper is the result of a working group consisting of researchers from the EU, Turkey and the USA, who have discussed the issue over the course of six months (October 2018–April 2019), meeting both online and face-to-face on several occasions. Results The lack of a common theoretical framework of PE hinders it from becoming an established part of occupational and public health research. There are also issues regarding operationalization in surveys and registers. Further, previous research on PE and health suffers from methodological limitations including inadequate study designs and biased assessments of exposure and outcomes. PE is highly dependent on contextual factors and cross-country comparison has proven very difficult. We also point to the uneven social distribution of PE, ie, higher prevalence among women, immigrants, young and low educated. We propose a theoretical framework for understanding precarious employment as a multidimensional construct. Conclusions A generally accepted multidimensional definition of PE should be the highest priority. Future studies would benefit from improved exposure assessment, temporal resolution, and accounting for confounders, as well as testing possible mechanisms, eg, by adopting multi-level and intersectional analytical approaches in order to understand the complexity of PE and its relation to health.

The shifting nature of employment in recent decades has not been adequately examined from a public health perspective. To that end, traditional models of work and health research need to be expanded to include the relational and contractual aspects of employment that also affect health. We examine the association of three health outcomes with different types of employment in the contemporary U.S. labor market, as measured by a multidimensional construct of employment quality (EQ) derived from latent class analysis. We find that EQ is associated with self-rated health, mental health, and occupational injury. Further, we explore three proposed mediating mechanisms of the EQ-health relationship (material deprivation, employment-related stressors, and occupational risk factors), and find each to be supported by these data.

Economic, social, technical, and political drivers are fundamentally changing the nature of work and work environments, with profound implications for the field of occupational health. Nevertheless, researchers and practitioners entering the field are largely being trained to assess and control exposures using approaches developed under old models of work and risks. A speaker series and symposium were organized to broadly explore current challenges and future directions for the occupational health field. Broad themes identified throughout these discussions are characterized and discussed to highlight important future directions of occupational health. Despite the relatively diverse group of presenters and topics addressed, some important cross-cutting themes emerged. Changes in work organization and the resulting insecurity and precarious employment arrangements change the nature of risk to a large fraction of the workforce. Workforce demographics are changing, and economic disparities among working groups are growing. Globalization exacerbates the ‘race to the bottom’ for cheap labor, poor regulatory oversight, and limited labor rights. Largely, as a result of these phenomena, the historical distinction between work and non-work exposures has become largely artificial and less useful in understanding risks and developing effective public health intervention models. Additional changes related to climate change, governmental and regulatory limitations, and inadequate surveillance systems challenge and frustrate occupational health progress, while new biomedical and information technologies expand the opportunities for understanding and intervening to improve worker health. The ideas and evidences discussed during this project suggest that occupational health training, professional practice, and research evolve towards a more holistic, public health-oriented model of worker health. This will require engagement with a wide network of stakeholders. Research and training portfolios need to be broadened to better align with the current realities of work and health and to prepare practitioners for the changing array of occupational health challenges.