Relationship of working arrangements and getting COVID-19 in the outpatients: “in the same storm but different boats”

Abstract

Objective: It was aimed to examine the relationship between a getting COVID-19 and socioeconomic variables, employment status, and working arrangements including remote working and alternate working status. Methods: The study was conducted between 1-8 June 2021 on 1090 people. It was conducted face-to-face interviews with patients who applied to tertiary outpatients in Ankara/Türkiye. A convenient sampling method was used for determining people. Except for emergency services, all outpatient clinics were included in the study. The self-reported information was used to determine the history of getting COVID-19. Results: The regression model including all participants shows that getting COVID-19 risk higher in workers (OR: 1.719 95% CI:1.142-2.587) according to non-workers and 30-39 age group according to 18-30 (OR: 1.669 95% CI: 1.032-2.701). Bivariate analysis, including current workers, there was a statistically significant difference between income groups in terms of getting COVID-19 (p<0.05). The prevalence of COVID-19 is higher in people who attend workplace throughout the pandemic (31.3%) than in people who work remotely for a period of time (21.8%)(p<0.05); additionally, it is higher in people who have never worked alternately (33.5%) than in people who work alternately for a period of time (22.2%) during the pandemic (p<0.05). Regression model only including currently workers shows that getting COVID-19 risk higher in those who had never worked alternately during the pandemic period (OR: 1.749 95% CI: 1.091-2.804). Conclusion: Working arrangements are among the nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) effective in combating the pandemic. More lives could be saved in future epidemics by implementing work arrangements to include more workers.

Keywords

• Working Arrangement
• Remote Working
• Alternate Working
• COVID-19
• Nonpharmaceutical Interventions
• Pandemic

References

1. Paremoer L, Nandi S, Serag H, Baum F. Covid-19 pandemic and the social determinants of health. BMJ. 2021;372
2. Burström B, Tao W. Social determinants of health and inequalities in COVID-19. Eur J Public Health. Aug 1 2020; 30(4):617-618.
3. WHO. Social determinants of health [online]. Available at: https://www.who.int/health-topics/social-determinants-of-health Accessed: January 2, 2023.
4. Di Girolamo C, Bartolini L, Caranci N, Moro ML. Socioeconomic inequalities in overall and COVID-19 mortality during the first outbreak peak in Emilia-Romagna Region (Northern Italy). Epidemiol Prev. Sep-Dec 2020;44(5-6 Suppl 2):288-296.
5. Wachtler B, Michalski N, Nowossadeck E, et al. Socioeconomic inequalities in the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection - First re-sults from an analysis of surveillance data from Germany. J Health Monit. 2020;5(Suppl 7):18-29.
6. WHO. COVID-19 and the social determinants of health and health equity: evidence brief. October 2021. [online]. Availa-ble at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240038387 Accessed: January 2, 2023.
7. Blair A, Parnia A, Shahidi FV, Siddiqi A. Social inequalities in protective behaviour uptake at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic: results from a national survey. Canadian Journal of Public Health. 2021;112(5):818-830.
8. Goldman N, Pebley AR, Lee K, Andrasfay T, Pratt B. Racial and ethnic differentials in COVID-19-related job exposures by occupational standing in the US. PLoS One. 2021;16(9):e0256085.

9. Barbieri T, Basso G, Scicchitano S. Italian workers at risk during the COVID-19 epidemic. Italian Economic Journal. 2022;8(1):175-195.
10. Lee J, Kim M. Estimation of the number of working population at high-risk of COVID-19 infection in Korea. Epidemiol Health. 2020;42:e2020051.
11. Baker MG, Peckham TK, Seixas NS. Estimating the burden of United States workers exposed to infection or disease: A key factor in containing risk of COVID-19 infection. PLoS One. 2020;15(4):e0232452.
12. Wu S, Neill R, De Foo C, et al. Aggressive containment, suppression, and mitigation of covid-19: lessons learnt from eight countries. BMJ. 2021;375:e067508.
13. Adams-Prassl A, Boneva T, Golin M, Rauh C. Inequality in the impact of the coronavirus shock: Evidence from Real Time Surveys [online]. Available at: https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/13183/inequality-in-the-impact-of-the-coronavirus-shock-evidence-from-real-time-surveys Accessed: January 2, 2023.
14. Girum T, Lentiro K, Geremew M, Migora B, Shewamare S. Global strategies and effectiveness for COVID-19 prevention through contact tracing, screening, quarantine, and isolation: a systematic review. Tropical medicine and health. 2020; 48:1-15.
15. Meltem A, Küçükoğlu MT. COVID-19 ve iş yaşamına etkileri: Evden çalışma. Journal Of International Management Educa-tional and Economics Perspectives. 2020;8(1):71-81.
16. WHO. Advice for the public: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) [online]. Available at: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public. Accessed: January 16, 2023.
17. Mustafa A, Yavuzdoğan S. Avrupa Birliği’ne üye ülkelerde esnek personel rejimi ve Türkiye uygulamalarının kısmi bir ana-lizi. Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi. 2016;(28):29-56.
18. OECD. OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19) Teleworking in the COVID-19 Pandemic: Trends and Prospects. [online]. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/teleworking-in-the-covid-19-pandemic-trends-and-prospects-72a416b6/ Accessed: January 16, 2023.
19. Eurostat. Working from home across EU regions in 2020. [online]. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20210923-1 Accessed: January 16, 2023.
20. Bonde JPE, Begtrup LM, Jensen JH, et al. Occupational risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection: a nationwide register-based study of the Danish workforce during the COVID-19 pandemic, 2020-2021. Occup Environ Med. Apr 2023;80(4):202-208.
21. Reuter M, Rigó M, Formazin M, et al. Occupation and SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among 108 960 workers during the first pandemic wave in Germany. Scand J Work Environ Health. Sep 1 2022;48(6):446-456.
22. Wachtler B, Michalski N, Nowossadeck E, et al. Socioeconomic inequalities and COVID-19 - A review of the current inter-national literature. J Health Monit. Oct 9 2020;5(Suppl 7):3-17.
23. ILO. State practice to address COVID-19 infection as a work-related injury [online]. Available at: https://www.ilo.org/tr/publications/state-practice-address-covid-19-infection-work-related-injury. Accessed June 10, 2024.
24. Mansour S, Al Kindi A, Al-Said A, Al-Said A, Atkinson P. Sociodemographic determinants of COVID-19 incidence rates in Oman: Geospatial modelling using multiscale geographically weighted regression (MGWR). Sustainable cities and society. 2021; 65:102627.
25. Rozenfeld Y, Beam J, Maier H, et al. A model of disparities: risk factors associated with COVID-19 infection. International journal for equity in health. 2020;19(1):1-10.
26. Vahidy FS, Nicolas JC, Meeks JR, et al. Racial and ethnic disparities in SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: analysis of a COVID-19 ob-servational registry for a diverse US metropolitan population. BMJ Open. 2020;10(8):e039849.
27. Ilhan MN, Tüzün H, Kılıç R, Yıldırım N. Nonpharmaceutical interventions in Türkiye and worldwide during COVID-19 pan-demic. Turk J Med Sci. 2021;51(Si-1):3207-3214.
28. Consolazio D, Murtas R, Tunesi S, Gervasi F, Benassi D, Russo AG. Assessing the Impact of Individual Characteristics and Neighborhood Socioeconomic Status During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the Provinces of Milan and Lodi. Int J Health Serv. 2021;51(3):311-324.
29. López-Gay A, Spijker J, Cole HV, et al. Sociodemographic determinants of intraurban variations in COVID-19 incidence: the case of Barcelona. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2022;76(1):1-7.
30. Abedi V, Olulana O, Avula V, et al. Racial, economic, and health inequality and COVID-19 infection in the United States. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2021;8(3):732-742.
31. Rind E, Kimpel K, Preiser C, et al. Adjusting working conditions and evaluating the risk of infection during the COVID-19 pandemic in different workplace settings in Germany: a study protocol for an explorative modular mixed methods ap-proach. BMJ Open. 2020;10(11):e043908.
32. Fadel M, Salomon J, Descatha A. COVID-19 Job Exposure Matrix: From the Mat-O-Covid Design to Its Execution. J Occup Environ Med. 2021;63(3):e168.
33. Descatha A, Sembajwe G, Gilbert F, Mat OCIG, Fadel M. Mat-O-Covid: Validation of a SARS-CoV-2 Job Exposure Matrix (JEM) Using Data from a National Compensation System for Occupational COVID-19. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(9)
34. Çöl, M. İtalya’da sağlık sistemi ve COVID-19 pandemisi yanıtı. Toplum ve Hekim, 2021; 36(5), 388-400.
35. Mut, A. N. COVID-19 pandemisinde Ingiltere sağlık sistemi. Toplum ve Hekim 2021; 36(5), 350-365.
36. Guerin, R. J., Barile, J. P., Groenewold, M. R., Free, H. L., & Okun, A. H. COVID-19 workplace mitigation strategies and em-ployee leave policies implemented during the height of the pandemic, United States, fall 2020 and 2021. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2023; 20(4), 2894.
37. DİSKAR. İkinci yılında pandeminin işçilere etkileri raporu yayımlandı! Türkiye çapında alan araştırması sonuçları. [online]. Available at: https://arastirma.disk.org.tr/?p=8372 Accessed: January 23, 2023.
38. Kalaycı D, Sandal A, Yüksel M, Yıldız AN. Perspective of workers’ union representatives on COVID-19 measures in Turkish workplaces in the first year of the pandemic. Balkan Med J. 2023;40(2):124-130.
39. Kirtaş HA, Altundağ H. İtfaiye teşkilatlarında covid-19 salgını tedbirleri. Resilience. 2021;5(2):187-205.
40. Derya İ, Akbalik S. Kamu hastanelerinde temizlik işçilerinin çalışma koşulları ve Covid-19 PANDEMI SÜRECINDEKI DEN-EYIMLERI: İstanbul örneği. Çalışma ve Toplum. 2022;5(75):2839-2873.
41. Yilmaz ME, Ulusoy H. COVID-19 pandemisinde hekim ve hemşirelerin iş güvenliğine yönelik değerlendirmeleri: bir üniver-site hastanesi örneği. Uluslararası Sağlık Yönetimi ve Stratejileri Araştırma Dergisi. 2022;8(3):301-314.
42. Möhner M, Wolik A. Differences in COVID-19 Risk Between Occupational Groups and Employment Sectors in Germany. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2020;117(38):641-642.
43. OHRM. Alternative Work Schedules. [online]. Available at: https://www.commerce.gov/hr/practitioners/leave-policies/alternative-work-schedules Accessed: January 16, 2023.
44. Barlas, G., Öztürk, H., Pehlivantürk, G., Aydin, S. Turkey’s response to COVID-19 pandemic: strategy and key actions. Turk-ish Journal of Medical Sciences, 2021; 51(7), 3150-3156.
45. Güner, H. R., Hasanoğlu, I., Aktaş, F. Evaluating the efficiency of public policy measures against COVID-19. Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2021; 51(7), 3229-3237.
46. Lin YF, Duan Q, Zhou Y, et al. Spread and impact of COVID-19 in China: A Systematic review and synthesis of predictions from transmission-dynamic models. Front Med (Lausanne). 2020;7:321.
47. İsmet K, Saraç M. Socio-economic, demographic and health determinants of the coronavirus pandemic: Analysis of data from OECD countries. Turkish Journal of Public Health. 2020;18(COVID-19 Special):1-13.
48. Tüzün H. Effects Of Restriction Measures On Morbidity And Mortality Implemented During COVID-19 Pandemic In Türki-ye: A Research Through National Data Including One Year. International Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 2022;7(2):146-156.
49. Bundgaard H, Bundgaard JS, Raaschou-Pedersen DET, et al. Effectiveness of adding a mask recommendation to other pub-lic health measures to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in Danish mask wearers : A Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Intern Med. Mar 2021;174(3):335-343.
50. Fisher KA, Olson SM, Tenforde MW, et al. Telework before illness onset among symptomatic adults aged≥ 18 years with and without COVID-19 in 11 outpatient health care facilities—United States, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2020;69(44):1648.
51. Kawashima T, Nomura S, Tanoue Y, et al. The relationship between fever rate and telework implementation as a social distancing measure against the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan. Public Health. 2021;192:12-14.
52. Alper M, Tüzün H, Ilhan MN, Saygun M. Covıd-19 Pandemisinde Hizmete Devam Eden Kargo Sektörü Çalışanlarında İşçi Sağlığı ve İş Güvenliği Algısı ve Tutumları. Çalışma ve Toplum. 2023;2(77).
53. DİSKAR. “Tam kapanma” yok, on milyonlar çalışmaya devam ediyor! [online]. Available at: https://arastirma.disk.org.tr/?p=5712 Accessed: January 30, 2023.
54. WHO. Global, Türkiye. [online]. Available at: https://covid19.who.int/region/euro/country/tr Accessed: January 16, 2023.