Objectives: The ongoing outbreak of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) poses formidable challenges to all health care systems. Serological assays may be used for improving disease management when appropriately applied, for investigating the antibody responses mounted against SARS-CoV-2 infection and for assessing its real prevalence. Although testing the whole population is impractical, well-designed serosurveys in selected subpopulations in specific risk groups may provide valuable information. We evaluated the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in health care workers (HCW) who underwent molecular testing with reverse transcription real-time polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) in the main hospitals of the Veneto Region of Italy by measuring specific antibodies (Abs). Methods: Both immunoglobulin (Ig)M and IgG antibodies against SARS-Cov-2 S-antigen and N-protein were measured using a validated chemiluminescent analytical system (CLIA) called Maglumi™ 2000 Plus (New Industries Biomedical Engineering Co., Ltd [Snibe], Shenzhen, China). Results: A total of 8,285 HCW were tested. SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies (IgM, IgG or both) were detectable in 378 cases (4.6%, 95% CI 4.1–5.0%). Seroconversion was observed in 4.4% of women vs. 5.0% of men, but this difference was not significant. Although detectable antibodies were found in all HCW who developed severe COVID-19 infection (100%), lower seropositivity was found in mild disease (83%) and the lowest prevalence (58%) was observed in asymptomatic subjects. Conclusions: Seroprevalence surveys are of utmost importance for understanding the rate of population that has already developed antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. The present study defined precisely the circulation of SARS-CoV-2 in a cohort of HCW in the Veneto Region, with its prevalence (4.6%) reflecting a relatively low circulation. Symptomatic individuals or those hospitalized for medical care were 100% antibody positive, whilst Abs were only detectable in 58% of asymptomatic carriers.

Introduction: The impact of long-COVID-19 syndrome is rather variable, since it is influenced by several residual confounders. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of long COVID-19 in healthcare workers (HCWs) from four university hospitals in north-eastern Italy: Trieste, Padua, Verona, and Modena-Reggio Emilia. Methods: During the period June 2022–August 2022, HCWs were surveyed for past COVID-19 infections, medical history, and any acute as well as post-COVID-19 symptoms. The prevalence of long COVID-19 was estimated at 30–60 days or 61+ days since first negative swab following first and second COVID-19 episode. Furthermore, the risk of long COVID-19 was investigated by multivariable logistic regression. Results were expressed as the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) with a 95% confidence interval (95%CI). Results: 5432 HCWs returned a usable questionnaire: 2401 were infected with SARS-CoV-2 at least once, 230 were infected at least twice, and 8 were infected three times. The prevalence of long COVID-19 after a primary COVID-19 infection was 24.0% at 30–60 days versus 16.3% at 61+ days, and 10.5% against 5.5% after the second SARS-CoV-2 event. The most frequent symptoms after a first COVID-19 event were asthenia (30.3%), followed by myalgia (13.7%), cough (12.4%), dyspnea (10.2%), concentration deficit (8.1%), headache (7.3%), and anosmia (6.5%), in decreasing order of prevalence. The risk of long COVID-19 at 30–60 days was significantly higher in HCWs hospitalized for COVID-19 (aOR = 3.34; 95%CI: 1.62; 6.89), those infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the early pandemic waves—namely the Wuhan (aOR = 2.16; 95%CI: 1.14; 4.09) or Alpha (aOR= 2.05; 95%CI: 1.25; 3.38) transmission periods—and progressively increasing with viral shedding time (VST), especially 15+ days (aOR = 3.20; 95%CI: 2.07; 4.94). Further determinants of long COVID-19 at 30–60 days since primary COVID-19 event were female sex (aOR = 1.91; 95%CI: 1.30; 2.80), age >40 years, abnormal BMI, or administrative services (reference category). In contrast, HCWs vaccinated with two doses before their primary infection (aOR = 0.57; 95%CI: 0.34; 0.94), undergraduate students, or postgraduate medical trainees were less likely to experience long COVID-19 at 30–60 days. Apart from pandemic waves, the main determinants of long COVID-19 at 30–60 days were confirmed at 61+ days. Conclusions: The risk of long COVID-19 following primary infection increased with the severity of acute disease and VST, especially during the initial pandemic waves, when more virulent viral strains were circulating, and susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 was higher since most HCWs had not been infected yet, COVID-19 vaccines were still not available, and/or vaccination coverage was still building up. The risk of long COVID-19 therefore decreased inversely with humoral immunity at the individual level. Nevertheless, the prevalence of long COVID-19 was remarkably lower after SARS-CoV-2 reinfections regardless of vaccination status, suggesting that hybrid humoral immunity did not increase protection against the syndrome compared to immunity mounted by either natural infection or vaccination separately. Since the risk of long COVID-19 is currently low with Omicron and patients who developed the syndrome following SARS-CoV-2 infection in the early pandemic waves tend to return to a state of full health with time, a cost-effective approach to screen post-COVID-19 symptoms during the Omicron time could be restricted to vulnerable individuals developing severe disease and/or with prolonged VST.

The main aim of the present study was to summarize the available literature on the topic of occupational health and safety (OH&S) among immigrant workers (IMWs) in Italy and Spain. We conducted a scoping review, searching Medline, Social Sciences Citation Index, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, SciELO, and EMBASE for peer-reviewed articles, published in English, Italian, or Spanish, between 1999–2018. 34 studies were included, 28 with quantitative methodology and 6 with qualitative. Main findings were that, compared to natives, IMWs in Italy and Spain showed higher prevalence of low-skilled jobs and of perceived discrimination at work; higher physical demands, poorer environmental working conditions, and more exposure to occupational risks (e.g., ergonomic and psychosocial hazards); a greater risk of occupational injuries; worse general and mental health; and a plausible worsening of their health status, especially in Spain, as a result of the economic crisis. The findings of the present scoping review constitute warning signs that indicate the need for a holistic global response to ensure that adverse OH&S outcomes among IMWs workers are improved and that equitable access to health care is guaranteed. Such a response will require a concrete and evidence-based approach to prevent and monitor occupational risk factors and associated outcomes in the workplaces.

This study aimed to evaluate the mental health outcomes of health care workers (HCWs) of the Verona academic hospital trust (Italy) one year after the outbreak of COVID-19 and to identify predicted risk factors. A web-based survey was conducted from mid-April to mid-May 2021 on hospital workers one year after the first evaluation performed during the lock-down phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Post-traumatic stress, general anxiety, depression, and burnout were assessed by using, respectively, the impact of event scale (IES-R), the self-rating anxiety scale (SAS), the patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9) and the Maslach burnout inventory-general survey (MBI-GS). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with each of the four mental health outcomes one year after the COVID-19 outbreak. A total of 1033 HCWs participated. The percentage of HCWs scoring above the cut-off increased from 2020 to 2021 in all of the outcome domains (anxiety, 50.1% vs. 55.7, p < 0.05; depression, 26.6% vs. 40.6%, p < 0.001; burnout, 28.6% vs. 40.6%, p < 0.001; chi-square test), with the exception of post-traumatic distress. There was also an increase when stratifying by occupation and workplace, with a greater increase for depression and burnout. Multivariate analysis revealed that, one year after the COVID-19 outbreak, nurses were at the greatest risk of anxiety and depression, whereas residents were at the greatest risk of burnout (in terms of low professional efficacy). Working in intensive care units was associated with an increased risk of developing severe emotional exhaustion and a cynical attitude towards work.

Interventional radiology activities and other medical practices using ionising radiation have become increasingly prevalent. In this context, the use of anti-X aprons, in association with awkward postures and non-ergonomic working conditions, might cause the onset of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). This research aims to evaluate the evidence about the correlation between wearing anti-X aprons and work-related MSDs. A systematic scoping review of articles published between 1990 and 2020 was conducted by searching the PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Twelve cross-sectional studies, conducted among interventional physicians, nurses, and technicians, were finally included. Five studies primarily investigated the association between use of anti-X aprons and MSDs, showing that a higher prevalence of disorders was not always associated with the use of protective aprons. No studies investigated the impact of anti-X aprons on fitness for work assessment, particularly in subjects with MSDs. There is no complete agreement about the correlation between anti-X apron-wearing and the occurrence of MSDs, although the possible discomfort of workers using anti-X aprons appears more evident. Further studies are needed to objectify the role of these protective devices in the genesis of MSDs and to offer specific ergonomic solutions for healthcare workers.

Over the last few decades, the migratory phenomenon, supported by social, economic, and political aspects, has become progressively intensified and structured, increasing its relevance as a topic of interest for researchers of various disciplines and, among these, occupational health and safety exerts a prominent role