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

• Published in: Journal of occupational health Vol. 63; no. 1; pp. e12259 - n/a
• Main Authors: Yasuda, Yoshino, Ishimaru, Tomohiro, Nagata, Masako, Tateishi, Seiichiro, Eguchi, Hisashi, Tsuji, Mayumi, Ogami, Akira, Matsuda, Shinya, Fujino, Yoshihisa, Harada, Arisa, Hino, Ayako, Ando, Hajime, Ikegami, Kazunori, Tokutsu, Kei, Muramatsu, Keiji, Mori, Koji, Mafune, Kosuke, Kitagawa, Kyoko, Liu, Ning, Tanaka, Rie, Matsugaki, Ryutaro, Nagata, Tomohisa
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Australia Oxford University Press 01.01.2021; John Wiley and Sons Inc
• Subjects: Adult; Alcohol; Anxiety disorders; Confidence intervals; Coronaviruses; COVID-19; Cross-Sectional Studies; Disease control; Education; Employees; Employment - psychology; Family income; Female; Households; Humans; Infection Control; Infections; Internet; Interpersonal communication; Japan; Male; Marital status; Mental depression; Mental disorders; Mental health; Mental health care; Middle Aged; Occupational health; Original; Polls & surveys; prevention and control; Psychological Distress; Psychological stress; SARS-CoV-2; Stress; Surveys and Questionnaires; Telecommuting; Viral diseases; Workers; Working hours; Workplaces; Japan; COVID-19; prevention and control; occupational health; psychological distress; Japan
• ISSN: 1348-9585; 1341-9145; 1348-9585
• DOI: 10.1002/1348-9585.12259

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.