No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Nov 2, 2026.
COVID-19 infection among healthcare workers: a cross-sectional study in southwest Iran
Golnar Sabetian, Mohsen Moghadami, Leila Hashemizadeh Fard Haghighi and 4 more
Virology Journal · 2021 · CC BY
doi:10.1186/s12985-021-01532-0
Abstract
Objective With the novel coronavirus pandemic, the impact on the healthcare system and workers cannot be overlooked. However, studies on the infection status of medical personnel are still lacking. It is imperative to ensure the safety of health-care workers (HCWs) not only to safeguard continuous patient care but also to ensure they do not transmit the virus, therefore evaluation of infection rates in these groups are indicated. Methods Demographic and clinical data regarding infected cases among HCWs of Fars, Iran with positive SARS‐CoV‐2 PCR tests were obtained from 10th March to 17th May 2020. Results Our data demonstrated a rate of 5.62% (273 out of 4854 cases) infection among HCW, with a mean age of 35 years and a dominance of female cases (146 cases: 53.5%). The majority of infected cases were among nurses (51.3%), while the most case infection rate (CIR) was among physicians (27 positive cases out of 842 performed test (3.2%)). Also, the highest rate of infection was in the emergency rooms (30.6%). Also, 35.5% of the patients were asymptomatic and the most frequent clinical features among symptomatic patients were myalgia (46%) and cough (45.5%). Although 5.5% were admitted to hospitals, there were no reports of ICU admission. Furthermore, 10.3% of the cases reported transmitting the infection to family and friends. Regarding safety precautions, 1.6% didn't wear masks and 18.7% didn't use gloves in work environments. Conclusion HCWs are among the highest groups at risk of infection during the COVID-19 pandemic; therefore, evaluating infection rates and associated features is necessary to improve and adjust protective measures of these vulnerable, yet highly essential group.
References 18
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 4.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 5.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 6.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 7.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 8.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 9.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 10.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 11.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 12.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 13.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 14.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 15.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 16.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 17.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 18.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
Cited by papers we hold 2
Reads
Read by people on this page
None yet.
Checked or read by AI through naulon
None yet.
A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.
Are you an author?
Is this your paper?
Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.