What is the aim of this review?

Coronavirus (COVID‐19) is a respiratory infectious disease that has spread globally. People infected with SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2) can develop critical illnesses and may die, particularly older people, and those with underlying medical problems. Different interventions that attempt to prevent or reduce workers' exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in the workplace have been implemented during the pandemic. This Cochrane Review evaluated the effects of these interventions on the COVID-19 infection-rate, absenteeism, COVID-19-related mortality, and adverse events. 

What was studied in this review?

We searched for studies that examined interventions according to the following four categories: 1) elimination (for example self-isolation strategies); 2) engineering controls (for example barriers to separate or distance co-workers, and workers from members of the public); 3) administrative controls (for example working from home); 4) personal protective equipment (for example use of face masks or other types of face covering). We included studies of any worker outside the healthcare setting. We searched for studies without language or time restrictions.

What are the main findings of this review?

We screened more than 13 thousand reports, and included one study, conducted in 162 secondary and post-secondary schools in England, from March to June 2021. The study enrolled more than 24 thousand workers. In the 86 schools in the control group (standard isolation), staff who were considered COVID-19 contacts through contact tracing were required to self-isolate at home for 10 days. In the 76 schools in the intervention group (test-based attendance), staff who were considered COVID-19 contacts through contact tracing were not required to isolate. Instead, they took a daily rapid test (lateral flow antigen test) for seven days. If the rapid test was negative, the staff member could go to work. If the rapid test was positive, the staff member would self-isolate. The researchers wanted to know if there was a difference in COVID-related absence between the two methods.

We are uncertain whether a strategy of test-based attendance changes COVID-19 infection rates (any infection; symptomatic infection) compared with routine isolation after contact with a person with COVID-19. COVID-related absence may be lower or similar in the test-based attendance group. However, we were uncertain about these findings, because the number of infections was very low among the participants. Mortality, adverse events, quality of life, and hospitalisation were not measured. Seventy-one per cent of the test-based attendance group followed the strategy; the researchers did not report on compliance for the standard isolation group.

We identified one ongoing study that also addressed the effects of screening in schools.

Another ongoing study is evaluating the effects of using a face shield to prevent COVID-19 transmission.

We did not find any studies that studied engineering or administrative controls.

How up‐to‐date is this review?

We searched for studies that were available up to 14 September 2021.