Association between the physical work environment and work functioning impairment while working from home under the COVID-19 pandemic in Japanese workers

Introduction

The expansion of telecommuting brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic is one of the most marked changes to the way people work around the world in decades. In February 2020, the Japanese government issued a basic policy describing countermeasures against COVID-19, in which it included a recommendation for companies to implement telework to prevent the spread of infection (1). Furthermore, as the disease continued to spread throughout Japan, the government declared a state of emergency in April 2020, requesting people to refrain from going out, and further promoting telework (2). As a result, the number of companies adopting telecommuting and the percentage of workers working from home have increased rapidly (3). Further, even after the state of emergency ended, more and more companies continued to employ coronavirus countermeasures, mixing going to work and working from home, based on the situation in each region (4).

Due to the unexpected emergence of COVID-19, neither companies nor workers were able to sufficiently prepare their home environments for conducting work. While work-from-home systems had been discussed as a way to counter overwork and promote work-life balance in Japan, few effective efforts had been made (5). However, with the COVID-19 pandemic, companies were forced to rapidly adopt telework at the request of the national and local governments. As a result, many workers have had to work from home in environments that are not fully equipped with the necessary systems or facilities, and that are suboptimal for work execution. In 2019, about 20% of companies in Japan had adopted telework. In contrast, in March 2020, 24% of companies in Tokyo had adopted telework, jumping to about 57% in January 2021 (4,6).

Working from home is expected to have an impact on workers’ health and work productivity. Working in environments that are not properly designed and working with poor posture can affect the musculoskeletal system (7,8,9). In addition, there are concerns that individuals are working longer due to insufficient management of working hours. Further, reduced opportunities for direct communication can make it difficult for individuals to receive support from superiors and colleagues, and for managers to manage the situation. These factors have been linked to feelings of loneliness, isolation, and depressed mood (10,11,12).

Workers’ physical work environment while working from home is important for their health and work productivity. There are several basic recommendations for the working-from-home environment: have enough space to work; control the illumination of text, keyboard surfaces, and displays; prevent glare from displays; provide windows and other ventilation equipment; maintain a constant temperature and humidity in the room; reduce noise; and prepare necessary equipment, including desks and chairs, to enable a good work posture and provide an effective workspace (13,14,15).

However, because working from home has rapidly become the new way of working in Japan during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is not known how the physical work environment while working from home affects worker’s health and productivity. In fact, many companies have no control over workers’ work environment while they are working from home. A previous survey reported that, of the 1,256 companies in Japan that had introduced telework, 75.8% indicated that they did not check any components of workers’ physical work environment, such as air conditioning, lighting, and desk and chair condition, while they were working from home (16). Working from home in an environment that is not properly maintained can cause work functioning impairment through worker’s health problems.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between the physical work environment while working from home and work functioning impairment in the context of rapid changes associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted using data from the baseline survey of the Collaborative Online Research on the Novel-coronavirus and Work (CORoNaWork) Project, a prospective cohort study that used a questionnaire survey of Internet monitors to investigate the health of workers during the COVID-19 pandemic (17). This study was conducted with the approval of the Ethics Committee of the University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Japan (Approval No. R2-079).

The survey was conducted between December 22 and 26, 2020. A total of 33,302 workers between the ages of 20 and 65 years at the time of the survey were included, and sampling was designed such that participants’ sex and occupation (office workers and non-office workers) were balanced by region of residence, based on the cumulative infection rate of COVID-19. Excluding those who were deemed to have provided inappropriate responses, the total number of participants in this study was 27,036. Details of the exclusion criteria are described in the protocol (17). Briefly, we excluded those who had extremely short response times, were shorter than 140 cm tall, weighed less than 30 kg, or provided inconsistent responses to multiple identical questions. In this study, workers who were working from home at least 1 day a month were included in the analysis.

Results

Of a total of 33,302 responses, 6,266 cases were excluded: 215 cases were judged to have provided fraudulent responses by the company in charge of conducting the survey, and 6,051 cases met the exclusion criteria after tabulation. Of the remaining 27,036 cases, respondents who met the inclusion criteria (those worked from home at least 1 day a month) were selected, providing 5,760 cases for analysis. A flowchart showing the inclusion and exclusion of participants is shown in Figure 1.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Flow chart of participants in the study

*Respondents who had extremely short response times, were shorter than 140 cm tall, weighed less than 30 kg, or provided inconsistent responses to multiple identical questions.

**Respondents who answered “hardly ever” to the question inquiring about the frequency of working from home

*** Respondents who work from home at least 1 day a month

The demographic and sociological characteristics of the analyzed population are shown in Table 1. A total 3,361 (58%) were male and the median age was 50 years (IQR: 42–57). Of the total population, 4,052 (70%) were desk workers and 2,790 (48%) telecommuted four or more days per week. The overall median WFun score was 12 (IQR: 7–20) and severe work functioning impairment (WFun≥21) was observed in 1,309 workers (23%). There were no missing data because the survey was designed such that all responses were mandatory.

The associations of severe work functioning impairment with workers’ physical work environment while working from home are shown in Table 2. There was no significant association of severe work functioning impairment with the item “I work at a desk/chair for office use” (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.82–1.06, p=0.27). For all other items, the OR of severe work functioning impairment was significantly higher among those who worked from home in an unfavorable work environment. The highest OR of work functioning impairment was for a “No” response to “There is enough light to do my work” (aOR: 2.02, 95%CI: 1.73–2.35, p<0.01). The results of Model 1, which was adjusted only for sex and age, and Model 2, which was adjusted for other potential confounders, were in a similar direction.

Table 3 shows the relationship between severe work functioning impairment and the number of non-conformities (out of seven) to recommendations for work environments. From the nine items in Table 2, we excluded “I work at a desk/chair for office use” and combined responses to the items “I work at a desk/chair not for office use” and “I work at a table/kotatsu.” When we used those who indicated no non-conformities to recommendations for work environments as the reference group, the OR of severe work functioning impairment was significantly higher for any non-conformity to the seven items examined. Moreover, an increase in the number of non-conformities was correlated with an increase in the OR of severe work functioning impairment, with non-conformities to all seven items associated with the highest risk (aOR: 4.51, 95% CI: 2.86–7.11, p<0.01). The results of Model 1, which was adjusted only for sex and age, and Model 2, which was adjusted for other potential confounders, were in a similar direction.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first study to identify an association between the physical work environment while working from home and work functioning impairment. We found that non-conformity to any of the recommendations for work environments examined in this study, except for “I work at a desk/chair for office use,” was associated with work functioning impairment. Additionally, there was a dose-response relationship between the number of non-conformities to recommendations for work environments and risk of work functioning impairment.

We found that non-conformity to any of the recommendations for work environments while working from home examined in this study, except for “I work at a desk/chair for office use,” was associated with work functioning impairment. The work environment items examined in this study are traditionally recommended for health and safety management when working at a desk (13,14,15). These included items related to the quality of the surrounds, such as temperature, humidity, and quietness of the workplace; those linked to back pain, stiff shoulders, and musculoskeletal strain; and those for concentration and performance. Comfortable temperature and humidity are expected to improve workers’ concentration and performance. In addition, items related to work posture, such as the choice of a desk and chair suitable for work and space on the desk and at the feet, are thought to reduce musculoskeletal strain during work. In addition, managing proper work posture, temperature, humidity, and illumination will help prevent visual display terminals syndrome. Setting up these environments is expected to help prevent or reduce health problems and reduce work functioning impairment while working from home.

Furthermore, our findings suggest that there is a dose-response relationship between the number of non-conformities to recommendations for work environments while working from home and work functioning impairment. In other words, no one specific item among the seven items examined in this study had a positive impact on productivity; rather, adapting as much of the work environment as possible to recommendations for work environments while working from home had an increasingly positive impact on productivity. Interestingly, only 20% of workers indicated that they conformed to all seven items examined in this study, suggesting the difficulty of creating an optimal work environment while working from home. For example, purchasing and installing new desks and chairs suitable for working from home can be a financial burden and a housing space problem. Further, adequate management of room temperature and humidity is linked to issues such as insulation of the dwelling and the purchase and electricity costs of air conditioning. Based on the results of a previous survey and our present findings, we can infer that the methods and systems for checking and improving the working environment while work from home are still lacking and that they are not being managed within companies (16). To increase productivity when working from home, both companies and workers need to account for each of these individual items when creating a work environment to ensure that as many items conform to the recommendations as possible.

There is currently no consistent evidence on the impact of working from home on the health and productivity of workers, as it varies depending on the worker’s situation (20). While working from home has its advantages, including improved work-life balance and reduced burden of commuting, it also has disadvantages, including the psychological burden of a lack of separation between living and working spaces and time, and the lack of communication with colleagues. Furthermore, as shown in this study, the impact of various aspects of the physical work environment while working from home can be significant. In fact, the number of conformities to recommendations for work environments examined in this study varied among workers. Therefore, to understand the impact of working from home on the health and productivity of workers, it is necessary to continue to study differences in the physical work environment among individuals conducting work from home.

Working from home has been suggested to be associated with sickness presenteeism, a condition in which individuals work while experiencing health problems. For example, the use of properly designed desks and chairs can affect the health of workers with musculoskeletal disorders and chronic pain, important problems that cause sickness presenteeism (21,22). Further, a study has suggested that removing barriers to work, such as commuting and going to the office, is also associated with the occurrence of sickness presenteeism (23). Improving workers’ work environment while working from home is important for reducing the negative health outcomes associated with working from home, improving presenteeism, and increasing productivity. Many companies and workers who have never had experience working from home are now suddenly being forced to do so, without appropriate preparation. As the need to telework continues, the associated risks to health and presenteeism may become more apparent, indicating the need for urgent measures to improve the work environment for those working from home.

This study has several limitations. First, selection bias was unavoidable because the study was a survey of Internet monitors. To reduce potential bias, recruitment was conducted by sampling by occupation and gender in each region according to the infection rate. To understand the characteristics of the participants in this study, we compared our findings with those from national and occupational surveys that use various batteries (17). A previous study that used WFun to examine 33,985 workers from a general company showed that 20% had severe work functioning impairment (24). Given that our study protocol found that 21% of the entire study population has severe work functioning impairment (17), we concluded that our present study population was relatively unbiased.

Second, we relied on respondents’ self-assessment of their physical environment while working from home, but did not examine the actual physical environments. Therefore, there may be discrepancies with objective evaluation. However, because we inquired about the physical environment, the possibility of erroneous answers is low.

Third, since this study was a cross-sectional study, it is impossible to determine the causal relationship between the exposure factors and outcome. However, we think it is unlikely that individuals with severe work functioning impairment would choose to create a poor working environment. For example, a person with back pain is unlikely to actively choose a small space or an ill-fitting desk environment. Therefore, there is little possibility of reverse causality.

Finally, in addition to the exposure factors examined in this study, there may be other environmental factors that can affect health and productivity while working from home. Some examples are living with a family member who needs care, inadequate telecommunication speed, and reduced physical activity.

In conclusion, individuals who work in poor work environments while working from home may exhibit work functioning impairment during a period of rapid change owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. As work environments become more diverse, it is important for both companies and individual workers to create a work environment that prevents negative health outcomes and improves productivity while working from home.