Objective To provide quantitative evaluations on the association between income inequality and health. Design Random effects meta-analyses, calculating the overall relative risk for subsequent mortality among prospective cohort studies and the overall odds ratio for poor self rated health among cross sectional studies.

The greater New York City (NYC) area, including the 5 boroughs and surrounding counties, has a high incidence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), 1 and health care personnel (HCP) working there have a high exposure risk. HCP have expressed concerns about access to testing so that infection spread to patients, other HCP, and their families can be minimized. 2 The Northwell Health System, the largest in New York State, sought to address this concern by offering voluntary antibody testing to all HCP. We investigated the prevalence of antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among HCP and associations with demographics, primary work location and type, and suspicion of virus exposure.Methods | All Northwell HCP (employees) were provided with personal protective equipment from March 7, 2020, onward. SARS-CoV-2 testing by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (PCR) began March 7, 2020, and was available for any HCP who had COVID-19-like symptoms or suspected exposure. From April 20, 2020, to June 23, 2020, all Northwell HCP were offered free, voluntary antibody testing, regardless of symptoms, at 52 sites in the greater NYC area. HCP missing all identifying data were excluded. Testing was for qualitative IgG or total immunoreactivity to SARS-CoV-2. 3 Seven different assays were used (eTable in the Supplement); Northwell Health Laboratories validated all testing.The main outcome was seroprevalence. Seroprevalence with 95% confidence interval was calculated by the exact binomial technique. HCP reported demographics, primary work location, job function, direct patient care, work on a COVID or non-COVID unit, and their level of suspicion of virus exposure: "Do you believe you were infected with COVID-19?"

Background The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing Joint Estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large network of experts. Evidence from mechanistic data suggests that exposure to long working hours may cause ischaemic heart disease (IHD). In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of parameters for estimating the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from IHD that are attributable to exposure to long working hours, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. Objectives We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of exposure to long working hours (three categories: 41–48, 49–54 and ≥55 h/week), compared with exposure to standard working hours (35–40 h/week), on IHD (three outcomes: prevalence, incidence and mortality). Data sources We developed and published a protocol, applying the Navigation Guide as an organizing systematic review framework where feasible. We searched electronic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, CISDOC, PsycINFO, and WHO ICTRP. We also searched grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews; and consulted additional experts. Study eligibility and criteria We included working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but excluded children (aged < 15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. We included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies which contained an estimate of the effect of exposure to long working hours (41–48, 49–54 and ≥55 h/week), compared with exposure to standard working hours (35–40 h/week), on IHD (prevalence, incidence or mortality). Study appraisal and synthesis methods At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. Missing data were requested from principal study authors. We combined relative risks using random-effect meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias, quality of evidence and strength of evidence, using Navigation Guide and GRADE tools and approaches adapted to this project. Results Thirty-seven studies (26 prospective cohort studies and 11 case-control studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 768,751 participants (310,954 females) in 13 countries in three WHO regions (Americas, Europe and Western Pacific). The exposure was measured using self-reports in all studies, an...

No abstract