Abstract
BACKGROUND: At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, some workers had the opportunity to work from home, while others remained in on-site work. The aim of the present study was to compare the psychosocial work aspects, work ability, mental health conditions and SARS-CoV-2 infection rates of Brazilian workers in remote and on-site work through a longitudinal study with quarterly follow-up assessments over a 12-month period. METHOD: A convenience sample of 1,211 workers from different economic sectors participated in the study, 897 of whom (74.1%) worked from home and 314 (25.9%) remained in on-site work. Psychosocial work aspects were assessed using the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ). Work ability was assessed using the Work Ability Index (WAI) and the Work Ability Score (WAS). Mental health conditions and SARS-CoV-2 infection rate were recorded based on self-reported medical diagnoses. Online questionnaires were answered from June 2020 to September 2021, involving two waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. The groups were compared using chi-square tests, t-tests, and two-way ANOVA. RESULTS: In the first wave of the pandemic, remote workers reported more quantitative demands and work-family conflicts, whereas on-site workers reported more emotional demands, low development of new skills, low commitment, low predictability, low recognition, and low satisfaction. They also reported greater occurrences of unwanted sexual attention, threats of violence, and physical violence. In the second wave, the remote group continued to report high work-family conflicts, whereas the on-site group reported - in addition to the results of the 1st wave - low influence at work, low quality of leadership, and burnout. No significant difference was found between groups with regards to the WAI in either wave. A significant difference was found for the WAS between the 3rd and 12th months (P < 0.01) in both groups. No significant differences were found between groups for the prevalence of anxiety, depression, burnout/stress, insomnia, panic syndrome, and eating disorders, except for the prevalence of insomnia at the 12-month follow-up, with higher rates in the remote group (P = 0.03). SARS-CoV-2 infection was significantly lower in the remote group (11.3%) compared to the on- site (16.9%) group (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Psychosocial work aspects differed between remote and on-site workers. Work ability and mental health conditions were similar between groups. Remote work might have played a role in limiting the spread of the virus in Brazil had it been more widely available.