Deconstructing the myth of teleworking from a gender perspective: experiences and expectations during the pandemic

From a gender approach, the article analyses the expectations built around teleworking based on the experience lived during lockdown. The context of COVID-19 increases the modality of telework among a part of the employed population. To what extent the pandemic context reinforces the idea of teleworking as a solution for demands of a social nature and not as a flexible modality of work organization? To answer this question, a qualitative approach is presented based on in-depth interviews to the workforce of a public administration that has teleworked since the start of the pandemic. The results show telework as a female domestic conflict and a male productive time. In conclusion, it is pointed out that the experience of teleworking during lockdown entails different types of conflict defined according to gender, life cycle and professional category. This heterogeneity of conflicts determines the expectations about a future regulation of this modality built on the same base: teleworking perceived as a right.

Risk of COVID-19 in healthcare workers working in intensive care setting.

BACKGROUND: The higher risk of COVID-19 in health care workers (HCWs) is well-known. However, the risk within HCWs is not fully understood. The objective was to compare the COVID-19 risk in intensive care unit (ICU) vs non-ICU locations. METHODS: A prospective surveillance study was conducted among HCWs at a large tertiary care facility in Riyadh between March 1st to November 30th, 2020. HCWs included both clinical (provide direct patient care) and nonclinical positions (do not provide direct patient care). RESULTS: A total 1,594 HCWs with COVID-19 were included; 103 (6.5%) working in ICU and 1,491 (93.5%) working in non-ICU locations. Compared with non-ICU locations, ICU had more nurses (54.4% vs 22.1%, P < .001) and less support staff (2.9% vs 53.1%, P < .001). COVID-19 infection was similar in ICU and non-ICU locations (9.0% vs 9.8%, P = .374). However, it was significantly higher in ICU nurses (12.3% vs 6.5%, P < .001). Support staff had higher risk than other HCWs, irrespective of ICU working status (15.1% vs 7.2%, P < 0.001). The crude relative risk of COVID-19 in ICU vs non-ICU locations was 0.92, 95% confidence interval ( was 0.76-1.11 (P = .374). However, relative risk adjusted for professional category was significantly increased to 1.23, 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.50 (P = .036). CONCLUSIONS: ICU had a significantly higher risk of COVID-19 infection only after adjusting for the distribution and risk of different professional categories. The latter is probably determined by both exposure level and protection practices. The finding underscores the importance of strict implementation of preventive measures among all HCWs, including those performing nonclinical services.

SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence survey among health care providers in a Belgian public multiple-site hospital.

Although the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic is lasting for more than 1 year, the exposition risks of health-care providers are still unclear. Available evidence is conflicting. We investigated the prevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in the staff of a large public hospital with multiple sites in the Antwerp region of Belgium. Risk factors for infection were identified by means of a questionnaire and human resource data. We performed hospital-wide serology tests in the weeks following the first epidemic wave (16 March to the end of May 2020) and combined the results with the answers from an individual questionnaire. Overall seroprevalence was 7.6%. We found higher seroprevalences in nurses [10.0%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 8.9-11.2] than in physicians 6.4% (95% CI 4.6-8.7), paramedical 6.0% (95% CI 4.3-8.0) and administrative staff (2.9%; 95% CI 1.8-4.5). Staff who indicated contact with a confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) colleague had a higher seroprevalence (12.0%; 95% CI 10.7-13.4) than staff who did not (4.2%; 95% CI 3.5-5.0). The same findings were present for contacts in the private setting. Working in general COVID-19 wards, but not in emergency departments or intensive care units, was also a significant risk factor. Since our analysis points in the direction of active SARS-CoV-2 transmission within hospitals, we argue for implementing a stringent hospital-wide testing and contact-tracing policy with special attention to the health care workers employed in general COVID-19 departments. Additional studies are needed to establish the transmission dynamics.