WORKING from HOME in PATIENTS with RMDS during the COVID-19 PANDEMIC in EUROPE. RESULTS from the REUMAVID STUDY (PHASE 1 and 2)

ABSTRACT

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has introduced signifcant changes in the workplace, implementing teleworking as an effective solution to reduce contagion Objectives: We sought to explore the impact of working from home on people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) in Europe during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: REUMAVID is an international cross-sectional study collecting data through an online survey in seven European countries led by the Health & Territory Research group of the University of Seville, together with a multidisciplinary team including patient representatives, rheumatologists, and health researchers. Data were collected in two phases, the frst (P1) between April-July 2020 and the second (P2) between February-April 2021. Demographics, health behaviors, employment status, access to healthcare services, disease characteristics, WHO-5 Well-Being Index and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) were collected. Workplace conditions including internet connection, computer, workstation, webcam, telephone, light, noise, calmness, and temperature were assessed (on a scale of 0 to 5, being 5 the best condition). Pearson's Chi-square test, Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney test were used to explore association with working from home. Results: There were a total of 3,802 participants across both phases (mean age 52.6 (P1) vs. 55.0 years (P2);80.2% female (P1) vs 83.7% (P2);69.6% married (P1) vs 68.3% (P2), 48.6% university educated (P1) vs 47.8% (P2), 34.7% employed (P1) vs 38.1 (P2)). Most prevalent RMD was axial spondyloarthritis in P1 (37.2%), and rheumatoid arthritis in P2 (53.1%). Rates of working from home were consistent (P1 39.8% vs P2 39.9%). In P2, 37.4% of those working from home had a home office, while 38.5% worked from their living room or kitchen. Work-related aspects at home were assessed, with the worst rated being the workplace (3.2) and the best being the computer (4.0). Compared to patients with good well-being and without anxiety and depression, patients with poorer well-being and at higher risk of anxiety or depression reported more frequently poorer rating of work from home issues, such as workplace (3.0 vs. 3.5;2.9 vs. 3.6;2.9 vs. 3.4;p<0.001), light (3.6 vs. 4.0;3.6 vs. 4.0;3.5 vs. 4.0;p<0.001), noise (3.3 vs. 3.8;3.2 vs. 3.9;3.2 vs. 3.8;p<0.001) and calmness (3.3 vs. 4.0;3.2 vs. 3.9;3.1 vs. 3.9;p<0.001;Table 1). Conclusion: Patients with poorer well-being, at higher risk of anxiety or depression reported poorer ratings of workspace-related aspects. Therefore, although work from home has helped to reduce the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, the conditions under which RMD patients work from home must be considered, as these may affect the well-being and mental health of an already vulnerable group. It is necessary to assess the conditions of home-based workspaces-especially for workers with chronic diseases such as RMD patients-to ensure that it is feasible to work from home and that employers provide the necessary equipment for healthy work.