A cross-sectional study of infection control measures against COVID-19 and psychological distress among Japanese workers
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
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 were in place at their workplace (e.g. 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=0.010), that in facilities with 2 or 3 infection control measures was 1.43 (95% CI: 1.25-1.64, p<0.001), and that in facilities with 1 or no infection control measures was 1.87 (95% CI: 1.63-2.14, p<0.001) 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.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.16.21255640: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics IRB: This study was approved by the ethics committee of the University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Japan (reference No. R2-079).
Consent: Informed consent was obtained via the website.Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources All analyses were conducted using Stata (Stata Statistical Software, Release 16; StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX, USA). StataCorpsuggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.16.21255640: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics IRB: This study was approved by the ethics committee of the University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Japan (reference No. R2-079).
Consent: Informed consent was obtained via the website.Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources All analyses were conducted using Stata (Stata Statistical Software, Release 16; StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX, USA). StataCorpsuggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:Several limitations associated with the present study warrant mention. First, this study was a cross-sectional study, so causality is unclear. More psychologically anxious people may have been prone to underestimate the efficacy of the infection control measures in the workplace. However, since this study inquired about the existence of visible and physical measures, we believe that the likelihood of wrong answers was low. Second, we did not confirm the time when the countermeasures were implemented. This study investigated the situation as of December 2020, when the infection was at its peak in Japan. Therefore, the degree of the subjects’ anxiety and their reaction to their workplace’s efforts may have differed between the time when the infection rate was relatively low and the time of the survey, when the rate was relatively high. Third, we did not ask about the subjects’ workplaces or industries in detail, but some of these factors likely affected the results, such as the size of the workplace space (small office vs. a large space, such as a retail store) or how often the subjects were in contact with unspecified numbers of people. Finally, establishments that have implemented many measures are more likely to be companies that are enthusiastic about mental health measures and consider their employees’ well-being on a regular basis, so the mental burden may have already been low at baseline; however, this aspect was not evaluated. This study suggests that proactive COVID-1...
Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
-
-