Side effects of working from home: the dangers affecting the well-being of employees: response
Alberto José Niituma Ogata
Abstract
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsWorkaholism, burnout, and well-being · Employment and Welfare Studies
Dear Editors-in-Chief,
Regarding the article published in this Journal in 2022, titled “Impact on health and well-being of working at home during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,”^1^ I would like to comment that the online survey was conducted during a period in which many employees were confined to their homes.
Our questionnaire was adapted from a questionnaire developed by the Institute for Employment Studies (IES) in the United Kingdom, titled “Working at Home Wellbeing Survey,”^2^ which aimed to assess the well-being of individuals who began working from home during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.
We also used the World Health Organization-5 Well-Being Index (WHO-5), a well-being assessment tool consisting of five questions with responses rated on a Likert scale in Portuguese. According to this instrument, scores below 13 indicate a low level of well-being.^3^
The methodology involved conducting a cross-sectional descriptive study with a convenience sample of employees working from home and administering the WHO-5 questionnaire and a symptom inventory via an online platform.
The study revealed that low levels of well-being were associated with several physical symptoms, such as lower back, neck, and muscle pains, migraines, and gastrointestinal disorders. This underscores the importance of delving into issues related to the quality of life of employees beyond the pharmacological treatment of symptoms.
The same instrument (WHO-5) was used in a survey conducted by our team at the end of the pandemic, which involved a group of Brazilian employees. The results were published in the Journal of Occupational Environmental Medicine in 2023.^4^
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1Ogata AJN Malik AM Lourenço V Savia V Pinto AC Rodrigues Y. Impact on health and well-being of working at home during the SARS-Co V-2 pandemic Rev Bras Med Trab 202220179853611805610.47626/1679-4435-2022-791PMC 9444224 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 2Bevan S Mason B Bajorek Z. IES working at home wellbeing survey London Institute for Employment Studies 2020 cited 2024 May 14Available from: https://www.employment-studies.co.uk/sites/default/files/resources/summarypdfs/IES%20Homeworker%20Wellbeing%20Survey%20Headlines%20-%20Interim%20Findings.pdf
- 3Topp CW Østergaard SD Søndergaard S Bech P. The WHO-5 wellbeing index: a systematic review of the literature Psychother Psychosom 20158431671762583196210.1159/000376585 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 4Santana GL Baptista MC Gomes-de-Matos GA Ogata AJN Malik AM Andrade LH. The well-being of Brazilian industry workers on returning to the physical workplace during the COVID-19 pandemic J Occup Environ Med 2023654 e 246543672809910.1097/JOM.0000000000002797 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗