Background Many studies examined the spread of SARS-CoV-2 within populations using seroprevalence. Healthcare workers are a high-risk population due to patient contact, and studies are needed to examine seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among healthcare workers. Our study investigates the seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among staff at primary healthcare institutions in Prishtina, and factors associated with seroprevalence. Methods We carried out a cross-sectional survey including SARS-CoV-2 serological testing and questionnaires with primary healthcare workers from primary healthcare facilities in the Prishtina, the capital city of Kosovo. We calculated prevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, and of self-reported positive PCR test among primary healthcare workers, as well as crude and adjusted ORs for explanatory factors. Results Eighty-three of the healthcare workers (17.47%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies IgG or IgM, while 231 (48.63%) either had antibodies or a previous positive PCR test. Odds of seropositivity were affected by male gender (OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.20, 3.61), and infected family members (OR 3.61, 95% CI 2.25, 5.79) of healthcare workers. Higher education, being part of larger families and having infected family members gave higher odds of positive PCR test and seropositivity. Other healthcare workers had lower odds of positive PCR test and seropositivity than physicians. Conclusion Over 17% of healthcare workers were seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and close to half of them were either seropositive or PCR self-reported positive test. Several factors are associated with decreased and increased odds for such outcomes. These findings should be explored further and addressed to Kosovo policy makers, and assist them to intensify vaccination efforts, and maintain control measures until we achieve herd immunity.

ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to determine the odds of caesarean section in all births in teaching hospitals as compared with non-teaching hospitals.SettingOver 3600 teaching and non-teaching hospitals in 22 countries. We searched CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, PubMed, sciELO, Scopus and Web of Science from the beginning of records until May 2020.ParticipantsWomen at birth. Over 18.5 million births.InterventionCaesarean section.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome measures are the adjusted OR of caesarean section in a variety of teaching hospital comparisons. The secondary outcome is the crude OR of caesarean section in a variety of teaching hospital comparisons.ResultsIn adjusted analyses, we found that university hospitals have lower odds than non-teaching hospitals (OR=0.66, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.78) and other teaching hospitals (OR=0.46, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.89), and no significant difference with unspecified teaching status hospitals (OR=0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05, τ2=0.009). Other teaching hospitals had higher odds than non-teaching hospitals (OR=1.23, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.35). Comparison between unspecified teaching hospitals and non-teaching hospitals (OR=0.91, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.65, τ2=1.007) and unspecified hospitals (OR=0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.20), τ2<0.001) showed no significant difference. While the main analysis in larger sized groups of analysed studies reveals no effect between hospitals, subgroup analyses show that teaching hospitals carry out fewer caesarean sections in several countries, for several study populations and population characteristics.ConclusionsWith smaller sample of participants and studies, in clearly defined hospitals categories under comparison, we see that university hospitals have lower odds for caesarean. With larger sample size and number of studies, as well as less clearly defined categories of hospitals, we see no significant difference in the likelihood of caesarean sections between teaching and non-teaching hospitals. Nevertheless, even in groups with no significant effect, teaching hospitals have a lower or higher likelihood of caesarean sections in several analysed subgroups. Therefore, we recommend a more precise examination of forces sustaining these trends.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020158437.