Comparative effectiveness of proactive exposure management and illness-based exclusion strategies for COVID-19 in healthcare personnel.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether COVID-19 exposure management in healthcare personnel (HCP) reduced presenteeism, occupational exposures and cases, comparing contact tracing and self-reporting exposure to standard illness management (i.e. calling out sick). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Large academic medical center, ambulatory and acute care. PARTICIPANTS: HCP COVID-19 exposure and case records (N = 30,102) collected at the University of North Carolina Medical Center, March 2020 through June 2021. METHODS: Among COVID-positive HCP, we measured hours worked while infectious and symptomatic, onward exposures, and secondary cases caused. Using negative binomial regression, we estimated mean count differences for each outcome comparing contact-tracing and self-reporting to standard illness management. We calculated the "number of encounters needed" to prevent one additional outcome (e.g., single onward exposure) by multiplying count differences by the proportion of exposure management encounters that identified a case. RESULTS: Contact tracing and self-reporting exposures captured a higher proportion of asymptomatic cases (14 and 18%) than standard illness management (5%). Both strategies reduced infectious work time by ~8 hours and presenteeism by ~3.5 hours. We found large relative reductions in onward exposures (62% contact tracing, 66% self-report) and secondary cases (79%, 100%), but small absolute reductions. Preventing one secondary case required identifying >1,000 traced contacts or >350 self-reports. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with standard illness management, COVID-19 exposure management reduced infectious work time, presenteeism and onward exposures, but preventing secondary cases was highly inefficient. Layered with comprehensive institutional mitigation strategies, exposure management provided limited case prevention benefits. Presenteeism was common and remains an important healthcare safety challenge.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PubMed
Published
2026-10-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2026.10553
Primary Topic
COVID-19 epidemiological studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparative effectiveness of proactive exposure management and illness-based exclusion strategies for COVID-19 in healthcare personnel.

Hilary M. Babcock, Amanda Brown Marusiak, Justin Lessler, Emily E. Sickbert-Bennett et al.
PubMed
COVID-19 epidemiological studies
article

Comparative effectiveness of proactive exposure management and illness-based exclusion strategies for COVID-19 in healthcare personnel.

Hilary M. Babcock, Amanda Brown Marusiak, Justin Lessler, Emily E. Sickbert-Bennett, Daniel J. Westreich, David Jay Weber
article en

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether COVID-19 exposure management in healthcare personnel (HCP) reduced presenteeism, occupational exposures and cases, comparing contact tracing and self-reporting exposure to standard illness management (i.e. calling out sick). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Large academic medical center, ambulatory and acute care. PARTICIPANTS: HCP COVID-19 exposure and case records (N = 30,102) collected at the University of North Carolina Medical Center, March 2020 through June 2021. METHODS: Among COVID-positive HCP, we measured hours worked while infectious and symptomatic, onward exposures, and secondary cases caused. Using negative binomial regression, we estimated mean count differences for each outcome comparing contact-tracing and self-reporting to standard illness management. We calculated the "number of encounters needed" to prevent one additional outcome (e.g., single onward exposure) by multiplying count differences by the proportion of exposure management encounters that identified a case. RESULTS: Contact tracing and self-reporting exposures captured a higher proportion of asymptomatic cases (14 and 18%) than standard illness management (5%). Both strategies reduced infectious work time by ~8 hours and presenteeism by ~3.5 hours. We found large relative reductions in onward exposures (62% contact tracing, 66% self-report) and secondary cases (79%, 100%), but small absolute reductions. Preventing one secondary case required identifying >1,000 traced contacts or >350 self-reports. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with standard illness management, COVID-19 exposure management reduced infectious work time, presenteeism and onward exposures, but preventing secondary cases was highly inefficient. Layered with comprehensive institutional mitigation strategies, exposure management provided limited case prevention benefits. Presenteeism was common and remains an important healthcare safety challenge.

PubMed
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US), Washington University in St. Louis (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 12%
COVID-19 epidemiological studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.