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
Supporting Institution
None
Ethical Statement
Ethical approval for the study was obtained by Gazi University Ethics Commission with Research Code No. 2021-689.
Thanks
None
References
- Paremoer L, Nandi S, Serag H, Baum F. Covid-19 pandemic and the social determinants of health. BMJ. 2021;372
- Burström B, Tao W. Social determinants of health and inequalities in COVID-19. Eur J Public Health. Aug 1 2020; 30(4):617-618.
- WHO. Social determinants of health [online]. Available at: https://www.who.int/health-topics/social-determinants-of-health Accessed: January 2, 2023.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Barbieri T, Basso G, Scicchitano S. Italian workers at risk during the COVID-19 epidemic. Italian Economic Journal. 2022;8(1):175-195.
- 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.