Disrupted care during the COVID-19 state of emergency and productivity loss attributed to presenteeism in workers: a nationwide cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused medical care delays and avoidance around the globe. However, little is known about the relationship between disrupted care and productivity loss attributed to presenteeism during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to investigate whether disrupted care during the COVID-19 state of emergency was associated with health status and productivity loss. METHODS: We used data from a nationwide, cross-sectional, Internet-based, self-administered survey. We performed multiple logistic regression analysis on data from 14 545 participants to investigate the associations among variables related to disrupted care, health status and the Work Functioning Impairment Scale, with a cut-off of 21 points. RESULTS: Participants who experienced exacerbation of underlying disease (adjusted OR (aOR) 2.84; 95% CI 2.28 to 3.53) or any type of disrupted care were more likely to show low productivity at work. Experiencing disruptions in routine and non-routine clinical settings (aOR 4.64; 95% CI 3.64 to 5.92 and aOR 6.29; 95% CI 4.74 to 8.34, respectively), and running out of drugs (aOR 6.13; 95% CI 4.60 to 8.18) were strongly associated with exacerbation of underlying disease. CONCLUSIONS: Workers who experienced disrupted care were much more likely to show productivity loss. Exacerbation of underlying disease is one possible pathway through which disrupted care could affect productivity loss attributed to presenteeism. Our study provides evidence of the importance of early diagnosis and continuous treatment of non-COVID-19 patients to enable them to remain healthy and continue to work during the pandemic.

A cross-sectional study of infection control measures against COVID-19 and psychological distress among Japanese workers.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined the relationship between the status of infection control efforts against COVID-19 in the workplace and workers' mental health using a large-scale Internet-based study. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was based on an Internet monitoring survey conducted during the third wave of the COVID-19 epidemic in Japan. Of the 33 302 people who participated in the survey, 27 036 were included in the analyses. Participants answered whether or not each of 10 different infection control measures was in place at their workplace (eg, wearing masks at all times during working hours). A Kessler 6 (K6) score of ≥13 was defined as mild psychological distress. The odds ratios (ORs) of psychological distress associated with infection control measures at the workplace were estimated using a multilevel logistic model nested in the prefectures of residence. RESULTS: The OR of subjects working at facilities with 4 or 5 infection control measures for psychological distress was 1.19 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-1.34, P = .010), that in facilities with 2 or 3 infection control measures was 1.43 (95% CI: 1.25-1.64, P < .001), and that in facilities with 1 or no infection control measures was 1.87 (95% CI: 1.63-2.14, P < .001) compared to subjects whose workplaces had ≥6 infection control measures. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that proactive COVID-19 infection control measures can influence the mental health of workers.