BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic is still ongoing, with rapidly increasing cases all over the world, and the emerging issue of post COVID-19 (or Long COVID-19) condition is impacting the occupational world. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the impact of lasting COVID-19 symptoms or disability on the working population upon their return to employment. METHODS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statements we performed a systematic review in December 2021, screening three databases (PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge, Scopus), for articles investigating return to work in patients that were previously hospitalized due to COVID-19. A hand-searched was then performed through the references of the included systematic review. A quality assessment was performed on the included studies. RESULTS: Out of the 263 articles found through the initial search, 11 studies were included in this systematic review. The selected studies were divided based on follow-up time, in two months follow-up, follow-up between two and six months, and six months follow-up. All the studies highlighted an important impact of post COVID-19 condition in returning to work after being hospitalized, with differences based on follow-up time, home Country and mean/median age of the sample considered. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlighted post COVID-19 condition as a rising problem in occupational medicine, with consequences on workers’ quality of life and productivity. The role of occupational physicians could be essential in applying limitations to work duties or hours and facilitating the return to employment in workers with a post COVID-19 condition.

IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic had a negative impact on the psychological wellbeing of workers worldwide. Certain coping styles may increase burnout risk. To investigate the relationship between burnout and coping styles, a systematic review was performed.MethodsFollowing the PRISMA statements, three databases were screened up until October 2022, including research articles written in English language and investigating the relationship between burnout and coping strategies in workers. The quality of articles was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.ResultsThe initial search resulted in 3,413 records, 15 of which were included in this review. Most studies were performed on healthcare workers (n = 13, 86.6%) and included a majority of female workers (n = 13, 86.7%). The most used burnout assessment questionnaire was the Maslach Burnout Inventory (n = 8, 53.3%), and the most used coping assessment tool was the Brief-COPE (n = 6, 40.0%). Task-related coping was a protective factor for burnout in all four studies investigating its correlation with burnout dimensions. Two of the four studies investigating emotion-oriented coping found that it was protective while the other two found that it was predictive of burnout. All five studies investigating avoidance-oriented coping and burnout dimensions found that this coping style was predictive of burnout.DiscussionTask-oriented and adaptive coping were protective for burnout, avoidance-oriented, and maladaptive coping were predictive factors of burnout. Mixed results were highlighted concerning emotion-oriented coping, suggesting that different outcomes of this coping style may depend on gender, with women relying more on it than men. In conclusion, further research is needed to investigate the effect of coping styles in individuals, and how these correlates with their unique characteristics. Training workers about appropriate coping styles to adopt may be essential to enact prevention strategies to reduce burnout incidence in workers.

Background: Many workers shifted to working from home due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This review aims to investigate if this sudden change caused an increase in TElewoRk-RelAted stress (TERRA) which is defined as physical and mental stress caused by telework. Methods: A systematic review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was performed of three scientific databases (PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge, and Scopus), which also included a quality assessment. Articles measuring stress, psychological or physical, in remote workers, published from December 2019 through August 2021 were included in the review. Results were extracted by reporting: authors, country, study design, type of workers, sample, questionnaires and measurements, and outcomes. Data were synthesized quantitatively for country, type of workers, and outcomes. Results: Out of the 518 articles found in the three databases, 19 articles were included in the systematic review (10,012 participants overall), and 78.9% of these highlighted an increase in TERRA levels in remote workers. Among 85.7% of the studies considering gender as a variable, TERRA levels were higher in female workers. Twelve (63.2%) of the studies investigated psychological well-being, two (10.5%) focused on the physical well-being of remote workers, three (15.8%) investigated both, and two studies had other outcomes (10.5%). Conclusions: Considering the redefinition of workplaces dictated by the COVID-19 pandemic, this review highlights the emerging issue of remote work and the use of technology in working from home, emphasizing a rapidly growing occupational health problem. Remote workers need to be provided with emotional and technical support to prevent TERRA in remote workers.

IntroductionWorking during the Sars-CoV-2 pandemic healthcare workers (HCWs) had to wear Personal Protective Equipment (PPEs) for extended periods of time, leading to an increase in dermatological reactions. The study evaluates the prevalence of adverse skin reactions to PPEs among Italian healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, and aims to determine whether prolonged PPEs usage poses a significant occupational health risk, by measuring the loss of work days and the eligibility of workers that requested health surveillance due to dermatological PPEs reactions.Materials and MethodsAn online ad hoc questionnaire was administered to a sample of Italian HCWs. Questions verted on sociodemographic characteristics, PPEs usage, and occupational well-being. Descriptive analyses and logistic regressions were performed to explore possible associations between variables.ResultsTwo types of PPEs, Gloves and Masks, were tested. The sample included 1,223 interviewed HCWs, 1,184 gave their consent for participation. A total of 90 medical surveillance visits were requested due to PPEs related dermatological issues: in 30 cases were recognized limitations in working duties and in one case the worker was deemed not fit to keep working. Furthermore, 25 workers had a loss of occupational days due to dermatological issues. A statistically significant correlation was observed with being a nurse or midwife (OR = 1.91, IC = 1.38–2.63, p < 0.001), and being female (OR = 2.04, IC = 1.49–2.78, p < 0.001), which acted as risk factors.DiscussionThe enhanced protection measures put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic, highlight the importance of occupational dermatology. This study could contribute to assess the issue, aiming to develop better prevention strategies in the workplace in order to improve well-being of HCWs and reduce the impact of dermatological adverse reactions to PPEs.

Long COVID-19 is a term used to describe the symptomatic sequelae that develop after suffering from COVID-19. Very few studies have investigated the impact of COVID-19 sequelae on employment status. The aim of this research was to characterise sequelae of COVID-19 in a population of workers who tested positive for COVID-19, with a follow-up within one year of the acute illness, and to analyse the possible association between this and changes in the workers’ occupational status. In this retrospective cohort study, a questionnaire was administered to 155 workers; descriptive, univariate (chi-square tests), and multivariate (logistic regression model) analyses were carried out. The mean age was 46.48 years (SD ± 7.302); 76 participants were males (49.7%), and 33 participants reported being current smokers (21.3%). Overall, 19.0% of patients reported not feeling fully recovered at follow-up, and 13.7% reported a change in their job status after COVID-19. A change in occupational status was associated with being a smoker (OR 4.106, CI [1.406–11.990], p = 0.010); hospital stay was associated with age > 46 years in a statistically significant way (p = 0.025) and with not feeling fully recovered at follow-up (p = 0.003). A persistent worsening in anxiety was more common in women (p = 0.028). This study identifies smoking as a risk factor for workers not able to resume their job; furthermore, occupational physicians should monitor mental health more closely after COVID-19, particularly in female workers.