Skip to main content
Download PDF

Psychosocial work aspects, work ability, mental health and SARS-CoV-2 infection rates of on-site and remote Brazilian workers during the COVID-19 pandemic – a longitudinal study

BMC Public Health volume 24, Article number: 2767 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, some workers had the opportunity to work from home, while others remained in on-site work. The aim of the present study was to compare the psychosocial work aspects, work ability, mental health conditions and SARS-CoV-2 infection rates of Brazilian workers in remote and on-site work through a longitudinal study with quarterly follow-up assessments over a 12-month period.

Method

A convenience sample of 1,211 workers from different economic sectors participated in the study, 897 of whom (74.1%) worked from home and 314 (25.9%) remained in on-site work. Psychosocial work aspects were assessed using the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ). Work ability was assessed using the Work Ability Index (WAI) and the Work Ability Score (WAS). Mental health conditions and SARS-CoV-2 infection rate were recorded based on self-reported medical diagnoses. Online questionnaires were answered from June 2020 to September 2021, involving two waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. The groups were compared using chi-square tests, t-tests, and two-way ANOVA.

Results

In the first wave of the pandemic, remote workers reported more quantitative demands and work-family conflicts, whereas on-site workers reported more emotional demands, low development of new skills, low commitment, low predictability, low recognition, and low satisfaction. They also reported greater occurrences of unwanted sexual attention, threats of violence, and physical violence. In the second wave, the remote group continued to report high work-family conflicts, whereas the on-site group reported – in addition to the results of the 1st wave – low influence at work, low quality of leadership, and burnout. No significant difference was found between groups with regards to the WAI in either wave. A significant difference was found for the WAS between the 3rd and 12th months (P < 0.01) in both groups. No significant differences were found between groups for the prevalence of anxiety, depression, burnout/stress, insomnia, panic syndrome, and eating disorders, except for the prevalence of insomnia at the 12-month follow-up, with higher rates in the remote group (P = 0.03). SARS-CoV-2 infection was significantly lower in the remote group (11.3%) compared to the on- site (16.9%) group (P < 0.01).

Conclusions

Psychosocial work aspects differed between remote and on-site workers. Work ability and mental health conditions were similar between groups. Remote work might have played a role in limiting the spread of the virus in Brazil had it been more widely available.

Peer Review reports

Background

Brazil faced periods of high COVID-19 transmission beginning in February 2020, and the direct and indirect effects of the pandemic are still being revealed. Periods of greater transmission are called “waves”, as these periods are usually preceded by a reduction in the number of cases. The first wave in Brazil occurred between February 25th and November 5th of 2020. The second wave began on November 6th of 2020 and continued to August 30th of 2021 [1,2,3].

Vaccination began in January 2021 with groups at higher risk of transmission and mortality, such as institutionalized older people, health professionals, individuals over 60 years of age, and individuals with chronic diseases [4]. The decline in the number of cases was seen about June, 2021 because the vaccination rates increased slowly due to the lack of vaccines available for the entire population. Currently, about 80% of the population has completed the vaccination cycle. As the transmission rate decreased, actions to contain the spread of the virus were discontinued, leading to the maintenance of the disease and increasing the risk of new variants [3]. Thus, COVID-19 cases continue to exist, albeit with lower mortality rates.

At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, some workers had the opportunity to work from home (remote work), while others remained in on-site work. Remote workers changed their work relationships and isolation may have triggered feelings of boredom, anger, fear, paranoia, burnout, stress, and mental health problems [5, 6].

On-site workers experienced the fear of becoming contaminated at work, which may have provoked or aggravated anxiety, depression, and stress. In many workplaces, the COVID crisis caused a loss of stability, the threat of imminent unemployment, and reduced income. Such aspects were associated with a greater risk of mental health symptoms [7].

Numerous studies investigated the mental health of healthcare providers, demonstrating considerable levels of mental exhaustion during the COVID-19 pandemic [8,9,10,11]. However, few studies addressed the effects of the pandemic on the mental health of remote and on-site general workers over time [12, 13].

Moreover, most of the literature is based on cross-sectional studies. The prospective design may add information about the relationship between remote work and health conditions [14,15,16]. Thus, this study may help verifying the effects of remote work in a general working population, considering changes over time and the late effects of the pandemic on workers’ health. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to compare the psychosocial work aspects, work ability, mental health conditions and SARS-CoV-2 infection rates of Brazilian workers in remote and on-site work through a longitudinal study with quarterly follow-up evaluations over a 12-month period.

Methods

Study design

A longitudinal study was conducted with data from the “Implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on psychosocial aspects and work ability among Brazilian workers” – IMPPAC cohort, in which several characteristics of Brazilian workers were investigated [17]. Data collection took place over 12 months, with quarterly assessments on five different occasions: baseline (June to September, 2020), 3-months follow up (October-December, 2020), 6-months follow up (January-March, 2021), 9-months follow up (April - June, 2021), and 12-months follow up (June - September, 2021), covering the first and second waves of transmission (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Number of cases and deaths per week during 1st and 2nd transmission waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. Source: Sott et al. (2022) - adapted

Full size image

Participants

Remote and on-site workers from the general population over 18 years of age who agreed to participate in the survey were included. Trainees, scholarship holders, retirees, and pensioners were excluded from the study. The convenience sample was composed by 1,211 workers at baseline, 684 workers at 3-months follow-up, 662 workers at 6-months follow-up, 629 workers at 9-months follow-up, and 633 workers at 12-months follow-up. For the total sample, the dropout rate varied between 43.5 and 48.1%. In the on-site group the dropout rate was slightly larger, varying from 46.5 to 53.2% and in the remote group the dropout rate varied from 42.5 to 46.7%. At follow-up, 17 (2.8%) workers moved from on-site to remote work and 26 (4.2%) moved to remote to on-site work.

Instruments

Sociodemographic and occupational questionnaire

A sociodemographic and occupational questionnaire was used to identify the type of job (remote or on-site), sex, age, marital status, children at home, race, educational level, income, job seniority, work contract, workload, income reduction, fear of becoming sick, fear of becoming unemployed, and reported diagnostic COVID-19 infection.

Psychosocial work aspects

The short version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire translated and adapted to Brazilian Portuguese (COPSOQ II-Br) was used to investigate psychosocial work aspects. The psychometric properties were tested and the results showed that the instrument was suitable for use in the population of Brazilian workers [18].

The COPSOQ II-Br has 40 questions addressing the following psychosocial work aspects: quantitative work demands, work pace, emotional work demands, influence on work, new skill development, meaningful work, commitment to the workplace, predictability, appreciation and recognition, role clarity, leadership quality, social support from superiors, job satisfaction, work-family conflict, management/worker trust, justice and respect, self-rated health, burnout, stress, unwanted sexual attention, threats of violence, physical violence, and bullying. The total is the sum of the items in the domains, each of which is scored on a Likert scale, except for the ‘offensive behavior’ domain, which is dichotomized (yes or no).

Work ability index (WAI) and work ability score (WAS)

The WAI consists of seven items: current work ability compared to the best of life (WAS), ability to work in relation to work demands, number of current diagnosed illnesses, estimated work loss due to illness, absence from work in the previous year, one’s own prognosis of work ability, and mental resources.

The score is calculated by summing the points of each item. The total ranges from seven to 49 points and is used to classify work ability as low (7 to 27 points), moderate (28 to 36 points), good (37 to 43 points), or excellent (44 to 49 points) [19].

Mental health conditions and SARS-CoV-2 infection rate

Mental health conditions were investigated through self-reports of a medical diagnosis of anxiety, depression, stress/burnout, insomnia, panic, and eating disorders, as well as the and SARS-CoV-2 infection rate (dichotomized variable: yes or no).

Ethical aspects

This study was approved by the Brazilian Research Ethics Committee (Opinion number 4.166.321). The study follows current ethical standards and resolutions.

The consent form was inserted into the form, all participants gave informed consent to participate. After read by the research participant and he selected an option that informed his authorization or refusal to participate in the research and then it was necessary to download a copy of this term signed by the researcher and save to your files.

Procedures

The online questionnaires were available in the Google Forms. A detailed description of the data collection can be found in our previous publication [17]. The survey study was publicized through social media, e-mail, television media, and website (https://sites.google.com/view/imppac-work/).

The forms were open to any worker interested in the study. There were no financial or non-financial incentives to participate in the study. There was no randomization or adaptation of the questionnaires. We used standardized and validated questionnaires to assess psychosocial work aspects and work ability. All items had a “not applicable” option, which allowed the worker to not answer the item. A progress bar was included to track the responses.

The inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied after the data collection. No cookies or IP collections were used. The informed consent was inserted in the Forms and a copy signed by the researcher was available for download by the participant.

Data analysis

The variables were analyzed using SPSS software (version 26.0). Descriptive statistics were performed with the calculation of absolute (n) and relative (%) frequencies as well as mean and standard deviation values.

The on-site and remote groups were compared using the Chi-square association test (nominal and categorical qualitative variables) and t-test for independent samples (continuous quantitative variables). A two-way ANOVA was used for the analysis of the work ability score (WAS) considering group and time as factors. The interaction between factors and the main effects of group and time were tested; when the main effects were significant, multiple-comparisons tests were applied. The significance level was set at 5%.

Results

Baseline sociodemographic and occupational characteristics

A total of 1211 workers participated in the study, 897 of whom (74.1%) worked from home and 314 (25.9%) remained in on-site work. The main characteristics of the groups are presented in Table 1. Average age of the remote group was significantly higher (mean: 38.7 years; SD: 19.8) compared with the on-site group (mean: 34.8 years; SD: 9.3); most of the remote workers had a university education (90.2%), income above six times the monthly minimum wage (60.6%), worked for more than 11 years (44.1%), were public servants (45.8%), reported an increased workload (30.0%), and had a lower rate of COVID-19 infection (11.3%).

Table 1 Characteristics of on-site and remote workers (n = 1211)
Full size table

Psychosocial work aspects

The COPSOQ results in the first and second waves for both groups are displayed in Table 2. In the first wave, remote workers reported more quantitative demands and work-family conflicts. Those in on-site work reported more emotional demands, low development of new skills, low commitment, low predictability, low recognition, and low satisfaction. They also reported greater occurrences of unwanted sexual attention, threats of violence, and physical violence. In the second wave, the remote group continued to have higher rates of work-family conflicts, whereas the on-site group reported – in addition to the results of the 1st wave – low influence at work, low quality of leadership, and burnout.

Table 2 Psychosocial work aspects of on-site and remote workers during first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil
Full size table

Work ability index and work ability score

The difference between groups for the WAI was not statistically significant (1st wave: P = 0.46; 2nd wave: P = 0.62). Most workers in both groups were in the good work ability category at both assessment times (Table 3).

Table 3 Work ability index (WAI) classification in on-site and remote groups during first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil
Full size table

With regards to the WAS, no significant interaction was found between time and group (P = 0.06). A significant difference was found for time (P < 0.01) and the multiple-comparisons test identified that this difference occurred between the 3rd and 12th months, with a reduction of 0.4 points in the WAS between these months (Fig. 2). The difference between the on-site and remote groups was not significant (P = 0.93).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Work ability score in on-site and remote groups during quarterly assessments

Full size image

Mental health conditions

Prevalence rates of anxiety, depression, burnout/stress, insomnia, panic syndrome, and eating disorders are shown in Figs. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. No significant differences were found between groups, except for the prevalence of insomnia at the 12-month follow-up, with higher rates in the remote group (P = 0.03).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Prevalence of diagnosis of anxiety by group and follow-up time

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Prevalence of diagnosis of depression by group and follow-up time

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Prevalence of diagnosis of burnout/stress by group and follow-up time

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

Prevalence of diagnosis of insomnia by group and follow-up time

Full size image
Fig. 7
figure 7

Prevalence of diagnosis of panic syndrome by group and follow-up time

Full size image
Fig. 8
figure 8

Prevalence of diagnosis of eating disorder by group and follow-up time

Full size image

Discussion

Psychosocial work aspects differed between remote and on-site workers in the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. However, work ability was similar between the groups, as well as mental health disorders. Insomnia was more frequent in remote workers at 12-months follow-up and COVID-19 infection was lower in this group. Besides this, the sociodemographic and occupational profile of the groups differed regarding age, educational level, income, job seniority, work sector, work contract and workload changes due to the pandemic.

Remote workers reported greater quantitative demands, increased workload and work-family conflicts. High quantitative demands, i.e. delay in delivering tasks and whether the time to complete the work is sufficient, may be detrimental to mental health. Other studies have found a relationship with remote work, increased quantitative demands and longer working hours due to the lack of distinction between work and private life [6, 20,21,22].

Work-family conflicts were more frequent in the remote group in both waves. Similarly, a study conducted with Italian workers during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic also identified that work-family conflict was associated with social isolation and increased stress [23]. Another study involving home office workers identified greater conflict among workers who had the tasks of caring for children or parents at home and interruptions at work journey [24].

On-site workers reported more emotional demands, low influence on work, low development of new skills, low commitment, low predictability, low recognition, low quality of leadership, low satisfaction, burnout and greater occurrences of unwanted sexual attention, threats of violence, and physical violence. Healthcare workers were at higher risks of greater emotional demands [25] and emotional distress [26], probably due to the increased risk of transmission, as experienced by on-site workers.

On-site workers reported lower quality of leadership compared to remote workers. The lack of support and appreciation from managers and a reduced sense of community at work can affect interpersonal relationships and increase the occurrence of burnout [27, 28]. This finding may be, among other factors, attributed to the pandemic context, in which workers were suffering with the sanitary and economic effects of the COVID crisis. Flexibility and support, individual conversations and being attentive to the well-being of workers are fundamental for the migration from in-person to remote work [29].

No difference between groups was found with regards to work ability and most workers in both groups were concentrated in the good work ability category at both assessment times. Regarding the WAS, a 0.4-point reduction occurred between the 3rd and 12th months, with no difference between the on-site and remote groups. Similar results were found among workers in Thailand, in which the main factors related to low work ability were the number of diseases, age, monthly income, type of work and the workplace [30].

The prevalence of mental health disorders was similar between groups, except for the prevalence of insomnia at the 12-month follow-up, for which higher rates were found in the remote group. Based on the literature [31], we expected to find increased stress in remote workers. However, our findings suggest that both groups are at risk of mental disorders, mainly at 12-months follow-up, at which time the number of cases and deaths were extremely high in Brazil [1]. Thus, these results suggest that mental health conditions may be a consequence of the pandemic and the virus itself and not the work arrangement [32], which still needs to be proven in studies carried out in the post-pandemic context. Besides this, systematic reviews showed conflicting findings for the relationship between remote work and mental health, possibly due to the heterogeneity of the studies and their low methodological quality [15, 33].

Average age of the remote group was higher (38.7 years); most of the remote workers had a university education (90.2%), income above six times the monthly minimum wage (60.6%), worked for more than 11 years (44.1%), were public servants (45.8%), reported an increased workload (30.0%), and had a lower rate of COVID-19 infection (11.3%). There was also a significant difference in the percentage of participants in the two groups. Job stability provided to public servants can affect psychosocial work risks, and the possibilities and needs of working on-site or remotely. Social inequalities are relevant, and socially vulnerable workers seems to be at greater exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and risk of transmission, with lower opportunities to work from home [34]. A study with remote workers in Turkey reported a higher education as well as higher rates of insomnia and ‘coronaphobia’ (psychological disorder identified as fear of being contaminated, somatization of mental symptoms, and including social and economic aspects), compared to on-site workers [35].

Remote work, associated with other social distancing measures, protected workers from coronavirus infection [13, 35,36,37]. In Brazil, occupation played a relevant role in COVID-19 infection; food retail and production, healthcare and caregiving, and police and protective services showed higher risk of infection [38]. We found lower transmission rates among workers who work from home. Thus, encouraging companies to support remote work could have prevented COVID-19 transmission and deaths in the Brazilian population. Brazil was one of the countries that dealt with the crisis caused by the coronavirus in the worst way worldwide [1]. In addition to protecting against coronavirus infection, remote work provided new occupational and cost-savings opportunities such as: telehealth, cost reduction for companies, autonomy and time management at home [39].

However, remote work also imposes challenges to organize the home-work relationship to promote a positive lifestyle [16]. Our findings showed greater work-family conflict, which may be specific to the pandemic context, in which all aspects of life suddenly changed. Non-mandatory remote work may be positive for productivity and performance [40]. The end of the global public health emergency can bring new insights, possibly associating remote work with greater quality of life.

Limitations and perspectives

Dropout rate was one of the main limitations of this study, mainly for the on-site group. This high dropout rate may be attributed to the long length of the forms, which was composed by 17 pages with 12 questions in each page. At follow-up, 7% of the workers moved from on-site to remote work and vice versa; although this percentage was very low, these changes may bias our findings. Another limitation was the predominance of remote workers in the sample, which may be related to the online design of the study, which may be related to the digital literacy of the participants. We can also mention limitations due to geographical region clustering and due to the sampling scheme. The educational level was different between groups, which can also be considered a limitation of the study as the educational level can affect the work psychosocial risks. The lack of randomization, the use of an online questionnaire, the lack of adequate scales to measure mental health aspects, the disproportion between the groups initially and at various times of the research, and the lack of adjustment in data analysis are also relevant limitations of this study. The prevalence of mental health conditions was not collected at baseline and may also have been underreported in the sample. There is a cultural stigma in Brazil about reporting mental conditions. Moreover, many workers may not have had access to health services, thus hindering an official medical diagnosis. Future studies should use standardized and validated scales for the diagnosis of burnout, stress and panic syndrome.

Conclusion

Many Brazilian workers were negatively affected by the COVID crisis. On-site and remote workers reported different psychosocial work risks. Work ability and the occurrence of mental health conditions were similar between the on-site and remote groups. Remote workers were protected both from transmission by the COVID-19 and some psychosocial work factors. However, work-family conflict was frequent in this group. Remote work might have played a role in limiting the spread of the virus in Brazil had it been more widely available.

Data availability

The authors encourage collaboration and use of the data by other researchers. The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

COPSOQ II:

Br–Brazilian version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire

WAI:

Work Ability Index

WAS:

Work Ability Score

IMPPAC cohort:

Implications of the COVID–19 pandemic on psychosocial aspects and work ability among Brazilian workers

References

  1. Sott MK, Bender MS, da Silva Baum K. COVID-19 outbreak in Brazil: health, social, political, and economic implications. Int J Health Serv. 2022;52(4):442–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lima OF, Zuardi AW, Silveira ILM, de Souza Crippa JA, Hallak JEC, Pereira-Lima K, Loureiro SR. Mental health trajectories of Brazilian health workers during two waves of the COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2021). Front Psychiat. 2023;14:1026429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Zeiser FA, Donida B, da Costa CA, et al. First and second COVID-19 waves in Brazil: a cross-sectional study of patients’ characteristics related to hospitalization and in-hospital mortality. Lancet Reg Health Am. 2022;6:100107.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Souza FSH, Hojo-Souza NS, da Silva CM, Guidoni DL. Second wave of COVID-19 in Brazil: younger at higher risk. Eur J Epidemiol. 2021;36(4):441–3.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Jakovljevic M, Bjedov S, Jaksic N, Jakovljevc I. Covid-19 pandemia and public and global mental health from the perspective of global health security. Psych Danubina. 2020;32(1):6–14.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Somasundram KG, Hackney A, Yung M, Du B, Oakman J, Nowrouzi-Kia B, Yazdani A. Mental and physical health and well-being of Canadian employees who were working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Pub Health. 2022;22(1):1987.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Coulombe S, Pacheco T, Cox E, Khalil C, Doucerain MM, Auger E, Meunier S. Risk and resilience factors during the COVID-19 pandemic: a snapshot of the experiences of Canadian workers early on in the crisis. Front Psychol. 2020;11:1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sigahi TFAC, Kawasaki BC, Bolis I, Morioka SN. A systematic review on the impacts of COVID-19 on work: contributions and a path forward from the perspectives of ergonomics and psychodynamics of work. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf. 2021;31(4):375–88.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Aljabri D, Alshatti F, Alumran A, Al-Rayes S, Alsalman D, Althumairi A, Al-Kahtani N, Aljabri M, Alsuhaibani S, Alanzi T. Sociodemographic and occupational factors associated with burnout: a study among frontline healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Front Pub Health. 2022;10:854687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chengo R, Esho T, Kuria S, Kimani S, Indalo D, Kamanzi L, Mouhamed B, Wabwire A, Camara K, Kapsandui T, Kagurusi P, Nankanja M, Oele G, Osur J. A Situation assessment of community health workers’ preparedness in supporting health system response to COVID-19 in Kenya, Senegal, and Uganda. J Prim Care Comm Health. 2022;13:21501319211073415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Rus CL, Oţoiu C, Băban AS, Vâjâean C, Kassianos AP, Karekla M, Gloster AT. Working as a healthcare professional and wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic: work recovery experiences and need for recovery as mediators. Front Psychol. 2022;13:718422.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Araújo TM, Lua I. O trabalho mudou-se para casa: trabalho remoto no contexto da pandemia de COVID-19. Rev Bras Saúde Ocup. 2021;46:e27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Santos MN, Meira CAR, Conde WL, Rinaldi AEM. Duration of remote work and a positive diagnosis of COVID-19: an analysis of PNAD COVID19 data. Ciên Saúde Colet. 2023;28(9):2601–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Blank L, Hock E, Cantrell A, Baxter S, Goyder E. Exploring the relationship between working from home, mental and physical health and wellbeing: a systematic review. Public Health Res (Southampt). 2023;11(4):1–100.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hall CE, Davidson L, Brooks SK, Greenberg N, Weston D. The relationship between homeworking during COVID-19 and both, mental health, and productivity: a systematic review. BMC Psychol. 2023;11(1):188.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wells J, Scheibein F, Pais L, Rebelo Dos Santos N, Dalluege CA, Czakert JP, Berger R. A systematic review of the impact of remote working referenced to the concept of work-life flow on physical and psychological health. Workplace Health Saf. 2023;71(11):507–21.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Andrade MA, Castro CS, Batistão MV, Mininel VA, Sato TO. Occupational profile, psychosocial aspects and work ability of Brazilian workers during COVID-19 pandemic: IMPPAC cohort. Saf Health Work. 2022;13(1):104–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gonçalves JS, Moriguchi CS, Chaves TC, Sato TO. Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric properties of the short version of COPSOQ II-Brazil. Rev Saúde Pública. 2021;55:69.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tuomi K, Ilmarine J, Jahkola A, Katajarinne L, Tulkki A. [Índice de capacidade para o Trabalho]. Traduzido Por Frida Marina Fischer (Coord). São Carlos: UFSCar; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Antunes ED, Bridi LRT, Santos M, Fischer FM. Part-time or full-time teleworking? A systematic review of the psychosocial risk factors of telework from home. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1065593.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Buonomo I, Ferrara B, Pansini M, Benevene P. Job satisfaction and perceived structural support in remote Working conditions-the role of a sense of community at work. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(13):6205. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3390/ijerph20136205. PMID: 37444053; PMCID: PMC10341230.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Oakman J, Lambert KA, Weale VP, Stuckey R, Graham M. Employees working from home: do leadership factors influence work-related stress and musculoskeletal pain? Int J Environ Res Pub Health. 2023;20(4):3046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Galanti T, Guidetti G, Mazzei E, Zappalà S, Toscano F. Work from home during the COVID-19 outbreak: the impact on employees’ remote work productivity, engagement, and stress. J Occup Environ Med. 2021;63(7):e426–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ghislieri C, Molino M, Dolce V, Sanseverino D, Presutti M. Work-family conflict during the COVID-19 pandemic: teleworking of administrative and technical staff in healthcare - an Italian study. Med Lav. 2021;112(3):229–40.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Van Elk F, Robroek SJW, Burdorf A, Oude Hengel KM. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on psychosocial work factors and emotional exhaustion among workers in the healthcare sector: a longitudinal study among 1915 Dutch workers. Occup Environ Med. 2023;80(1):27–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Schulze S, Merz S, Thier A, Tallarek M, König F, Uhlenbrock G, Nübling M, Lincke HJ, Rapp MA, Spallek J, Holmberg C. Psychosocial burden in nurses working in nursing homes during the Covid-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study with quantitative and qualitative data. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):949.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hering C, Gangnus A, Budnick A, Kohl R, Steinhagen-Thiessen E, Kuhlmey A, Gellert P. Psychosocial burden and associated factors among nurses in care homes during the COVID-19 pandemic: findings from a retrospective survey in Germany. BMC Nurs. 2022;21(1):41.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Schuchter T, Mayer K, Glarcher M. Veränderungen in Anhaltenden Extremsituationen: Psychosoziale Belastungen Von Angehörigen Der Gesundheits- Und Krankenpflegeberufe während Der Covid-19 Pandemie. Procare. 2022;27(10):44–8.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Henke JB, Jones SK, O’Neill TA. Skills and abilities to thrive in remote work: what have we learned. Front Psychol. 2022;13:893895.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kaewdok T, Norkaew S, Sirisawasd S, Choochouy N. Factors influencing work ability among the working-age population in Singburi Province, Thailand. Int J Environ Res Pub Health. 2022;19(10):5935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gualano MR, Santoro PE, Borrelli I, Rossi MF, Amantea C, Daniele A, Moscato U. TElewoRk-RelAted stress (TERRA), psychological and physical strain of working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review. Workplace Health Saf. 2023;71(2):58–67.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Anunciação L, Portugal A, Andrade L, Marques L, Landeira-Fernandez J. Disentangling crucial factors of the pandemic in Brazil: effect of lockdown restrictions on mental health. Health Soc Care Community. 2022;30:e4713–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lunde LK, Fløvik L, Christensen JO, Johannessen HA, Finne LB, Jørgensen IL, Mohr B, Vleeshouwers J. The relationship between telework from home and employee health: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Toprak CS, Karaaslan Y, Mete O, Ozer KD. Coronaphobia, musculoskeletal pain, and sleep quality in stay-at home and continued-working persons during the 3-month Covid-19 pandemic lockdown in Turkey. Chronobiol Int. 2020;37(12):1778–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Schmid A, Anker D, Dubois J, Bureau-Franz I, Piccardi N, Colombo Mottaz S, Cullati S, Chiolero A, Rodondi PY. SARS-CoV-2 infection among employees working from home and on site: an occupational study in Switzerland. Front Pub Health. 2022;10:980482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Harris M, Hart J, Bhattacharya O, Russell FM. Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic literature review. Front Public Health. 2023;11:1178167.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Murphy C, Lim WW, Mills C, Wong JY, Chen D, Xie Y, Li M, Gould S, Xin H, Cheung JK, Bhatt S, Cowling BJ, Donnelly CA. Effectiveness of social distancing measures and lockdowns for reducing transmission of COVID-19 in non-healthcare, community-based settings. Philos Trans Math Phys Eng Sci. 2023;381(2257):20230132.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Menezes FS, Garcia LP, Maeno M, Prearo LC, Toporcov TN, Algranti E. The role of occupation in SARS-CoV-2 infection within a Brazilian municipality: a test-negative case-control study. Am J Ind Med. 2023;66:1090–100.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Garavand A, Jalali S, Hajipour Talebi A, Sabahi A. Advantages and disadvantages of teleworking in healthcare institutions during COVID-19: a systematic review. Inf Med Unlocked. 2022;34:101119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hackney A, Yung M, Somasundram KG, Nowrouzi-Kia B, Oakman J, Yazdani A. Working in the digital economy: a systematic review of the impact of work from home arrangements on personal and organizational performance and productivity. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(10):e0274728.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This study was financed by the Brazilian fostering agency Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES [Coordination for the Advancement of Higher Education Personnel] – Finance Code 001) and the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP Proc N. 20/16183-0).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Physical Therapy Department, Federal University of São Carlos, São Carlos, SP, Brazil

    Marcela Alves Andrade & Tatiana de Oliveira Sato

  2. Department of Kinesiology, University of Windsor, Windsor, ON, Canada

    David M. Andrews

Authors
  1. Marcela Alves Andrade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. David M. Andrews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tatiana de Oliveira Sato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

TOS analyzed and interpreted data, prepared Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8; Tables 1, 2 and 3. DMA interpreted data. MAA collected data. All authors did a major contributor in writing, reading and approved the final version of the manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tatiana de Oliveira Sato.

Ethics declarations

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Human Ethics and consent to participate

The study received approval from the Brazilian Research Ethics Committee (Opinion number: 4.166.321) and was conducted in accordance with current ethical standards and resolutions. All participants gave informed consent to participate.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Andrade, M.A., Andrews, D.M. & de Oliveira Sato, T. Psychosocial work aspects, work ability, mental health and SARS-CoV-2 infection rates of on-site and remote Brazilian workers during the COVID-19 pandemic – a longitudinal study. BMC Public Health 24, 2767 (2024). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12889-024-20233-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12889-024-20233-1

Keywords

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us