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 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.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
; Nagata, Masako 2
; Tateishi, Seiichiro 3
; Eguchi, Hisashi 4
; Tsuji, Mayumi 5
; Ogami, Akira 6
; Matsuda, Shinya 7
; Fujino, Yoshihisa 1
1 Department of Environmental Epidemiology, Institute of Industrial Ecological Sciences, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Japan, Kitakyushu, Japan
2 Department of Occupational Health Practice and Management, Institute of Industrial Ecological Sciences, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Japan, Kitakyushu, Japan
3 Department of Occupational Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Japan, Kitakyushu, Japan
4 Department of Mental Health, Institute of Industrial Ecological Sciences, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Japan, Kitakyushu, Japan
5 Department of Environmental Health, School of Medicine, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Japan, Kitakyushu, Japan
6 Department of Work Systems and Health, Institute of Industrial Ecological Sciences, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Japan, Kitakyushu, Japan
7 Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health, School of Medicine, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Japan, Kitakyushu, Japan





