Documents Loef, Bette 2 results

"Night-shift workers experience disturbances of their circadian rhythm and sleep, which may make them more susceptible to infectious diseases. Therefore, we studied whether night-shift workers are at higher risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection than day workers. In this prospective study, data were used from 20 questionnaire rounds of the Dutch Lifelines COVID-19 cohort that was initiated in March 2020. In the different questionnaire rounds, 2285 night-shift workers and 23,766 day workers reported whether they had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusted for demographic, work, and health covariates were used to compare SARS-CoV-2 incidence between night-shift and day workers. From March 2020-January 2021, 3.4% of night-shift workers and 2.2% of day workers reported to have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (p < .001). After adjustment for covariates, night-shift workers had a 37% higher risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 (hazard ratio: 1.37, 95% confidence interval: 1.05-1.77). In this study, we show that night-shift workers were more likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 than day workers, which adds to the growing evidence that night-shift work may influence the complex processes involved in infection susceptibility. Further mechanistic insight is needed to understand the relation between night-shift work and (SARS-CoV-2) infection susceptibility."

"Objective
This study investigates the associations between working from home and the presence of MSP during the COVID-19 pandemic. Working from home often involves a lot of sedentary computer screen work and the home working environment might not be optimally equipped, which can lead to health problems, including musculoskeletal pain (MSP).
Methods
Longitudinal data from 16 questionnaire rounds of the Lifelines COVID-19 cohort during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020-February 2021) were used. In total, 40,702 Dutch workers were included. In every round, participants reported whether they worked on location, from home, or hybrid. Logistic Generalized Estimating Equations were used to study the association of work situation with the presence of MSP and the presence of severe MSP.
Results
Working from home was associated with higher risks of having MSP in the lower back (OR: 1.05, 95% CI 1.02–1.08), in the upper back (OR: 1.24, 95% CI 1.18–1.31), and in the neck, shoulder(s) and/or arm(s) (OR: 1.18, 95% CI 1.13–1.22). Hybrid working was associated with higher risks of having pain in the upper back (OR: 1.09, 95% CI 1.02–1.17) and in the neck, shoulder(s) and/or arm(s) (OR: 1.14, 95% CI 1.09–1.20). Both home and hybrid workers had higher risks of severe MSP in the different body areas.
Conclusion
Home workers, and to a smaller extent hybrid workers, had higher risks of having MSP than location workers during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results indicate the importance of measures to prevent MSP in future policies involving working from home."