Working From Home During a Pandemic Investigation

Prévia do material em texto

D
ow
nloaded
from
http://journals.lw
w
.com
/joem
by
BhD
M
f5ePH
Kav1zEoum
1tQ
fN
4a+kJLhEZgbsIH
o4XM
i0hC
yw
C
X1AW
nYQ
p/IlQ
rH
D
3i3D
0O
dR
yi7TvSFl4C
f3VC
4/O
AVpD
D
a8K2+Ya6H
515kE=
on
05/16/2022
Downloadedfromhttp://journals.lww.com/joembyBhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE=on05/16/2022
Copyright © 2021 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited 
Working From Home During a Pandemic
Investigation of the Impact of COVID-19 on Employee Health and Productivity
Mehmet Akif Guler, MD, Kutay Guler, PhD, Meryem Guneser Gulec, MD, and Elif Ozdoglar, PhD
Objective: To determine ergonomic problems when working from home during
the COVID-19 pandemic with regard to musculoskeletal pain, sleep conditions,
physical activity, resting, equipment, and productivity. Methods: In this cross-
sectional study, office workers who switched to working from home during the
COVID-19 pandemic participated in an online survey (n¼ 194). The data were
interpreted using descriptive and multivariate regression analysis. Results: A
significant increase in back pain was revealed (P< 0.001). Significant weight
gain was observed (P< 0.001) connected to a decrease in physical activity and
an increase in the consumption of junk food. Despite the negative health impact,
participants self-reported an increase in productivity. Conclusion: The self-
reported productivity was higher during the working from home, but a declining
trend in employee health can be observed including low back pain and weight
gain.
Keywords: COVID-19, ergonomics, musculoskeletal pain, productivity,
work from home
F ollowing the declaration of the Novel Coronavirus Disease,COVID-19, a pandemic by the World Health Organization on
March 11th, 2020, shutdown and self-isolation measures were
quickly implemented in many countries, impelling many companies
to ask their employees to continue working remotely from their
homes, even after some quarantine measures were lifted.1–3 The
rapid shift in working conditions of millions of office workers raised
some significant ergonomic considerations. The shift towards a
‘‘home-office’’ model was deemed advantageous as it minimized
the transmission of the infection and mitigated unemployment risks
and loss of gross domestic product.4 Accordingly, some larger
architecture firms specializing in workspace design predict a
‘‘new normal’’ or a ‘‘hybrid reality’’ within which working at home
will be a consistent part of daily working life on a continuing basis
within the post-COVID world.5,6
The proportion of jobs involving working from home has
already been expanding for the past couple of decades.7 But
following the impact of the pandemic, this number nearly
quadrupled to 50% of the workforce in the United States.2 Due
to the pandemic, many companies had to abruptly adjust operations,
many employees had to suddenly adapt to the working from home
model.3,8 Employees today exhibit higher dependence on ergo-
nomic designs than before, considering the emergence of new jobs
and transforming old ones as well as the paradigm shift in desk work
conditions experienced in recent decades, such as workers interfac-
ing with multiple monitors, or oppositely, utilizing small laptop and
tablet screens today in stark contrast with the paper print-outs and
typewriters of the past.9 Moreover, a new generation of workers
shaped by a communication society, appears to be more inclined and
motivated in terms of performing work from home.10,11
In a typical home environment, furniture is selected based on
emotional response, comfort perception, and build quality—not the
features required to do work healthily and efficiently.12 The dimen-
sions, angles, and curvature of the furniture, support characteristics,
the ability to enable tissue perfusion, as well as breathability are not
always a concern. Additionally, the placement of the furniture and
relationships between worktops and seating surfaces are rarely
optimized for work. Therefore, it is safe to assume that the typical
home conditions are unable to support the worker for extended
periods of time, and in the long run, it can be expected that work
productivity will suffer. Research has been investigating the rela-
tionship between employee wellbeing and productivity as well as
other variables for decades,13 some research specifically focusing
on ergonomic problems in desk jobs,14,15 however, ergonomic
problems, musculoskeletal pain, and working efficiency of employ-
ees who switched to the home working model during the pandemic
have been investigated only by a very limited number of studies.16–
18
This study aims to examine ergonomic problems, musculo-
skeletal pain, working efficiency, and general health status in
employees who have switched from home working model during
the COVID-19 pandemic. To best of our knowledge this is the first
study to evaluate ergonomic features, musculoskeletal pain, sleep
status, resting methods, eating habits, and productivity related to the
working from home experience during the pandemic.
METHODS
Study Design and Participants
The present study is an observational, descriptive, cross-
sectional study. An online survey was conducted using a profes-
sional survey system (Qualtrics, USA) for 2 months (October to
November 2020). Participants were recruited from companies that
transitioned to working from home using purposive sampling to
sample from certain professions. The inclusion criteria for the study
were as follows: (i) must start working from home after the
pandemic, (ii) must practice desk work using a computer; and
the exclusion criteria were as follows: (i) working from home
part-time (only on certain days of the week), (ii) starting work
after the pandemic. All the participants had no previous experience
of working from home and only started working from home after the
pandemic. The total number of participants was 314, and 120 people
(38.2%) were excluded from the analysis either because of incom-
plete response or for not meeting the inclusion criteria. A total of
From the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Gaziosmanpasa
Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul (Dr Guler, Dr Gulec); Department
of Interior Architecture & Industrial Design, Kansas State University, Kansas
(Mr Guler); Department of Interior Architecture, Faculty of Architecture,
Dumlupınar University, Kutahya (Ms Ozdoglar), Turkey.
Mehmet Akif Guler, Orcid ID: 0000-0003-3592-3385.
Funding and Conflicts of interest: All authors have no conflicts of interest and
funding to declare.
Ethical Considerations: Ethical approval was obtained from Gaziosmanpasa
Training and Educational Hospital Ethics Committee (numbered 182–
2020). The study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the
Declaration of Helsinki.
Clinical Significance: During the pandemic, the rapid transition of many employ-
ees to the working from home model caused unpreparedness and increased
back pain and weight. Providing a more suitable ergonomic working envi-
ronment and the necessary training should be among the priorities of
employers during the working from the home period.
Address correspondence to: Mehmet Akif Guler, MD, Department of Physical
Medicine and Rehabilitation, Gaziosmanpasa Training and Research Hospi-
tal, Mevlana, 884, Street No. 23, Gaziosmanpasa, 34255 Istanbul, Turkey
(makifguler89@gmail.com).
Copyright � 2021 American College of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine
DOI: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000002277
JOEM � Volume 63, Number 9, September 2021 731
FAST TRACK ARTICLE
mailto:makifguler89@gmail.com
Copyright © 2021 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited 
194 participants were ultimately included in the study. Ethical
approval was obtained from Gaziosmanpasa Training and Educa-
tional Hospital Ethics Committee(numbered 182–2020). The study
was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration
of Helsinki.
Data Collection Instrument
Data were collected through a survey that comprised 57
questions categorized under eight sections. The subject headings
of the survey categories were as follows: (1) demographic character-
istics and daily activities; (2) equipment features used in the home-
working environment; (3) equipment features previously used in the
work environment; (4) changes in work time during the working
from home period; (5) environmental information on the home-
workplace; (6) break-rest characteristics; (7) health status during the
period of working from home; (8) working from home productivity
(Table 1). The stages of the study were carried out in accordance
with the recommendations regarding online research.19 Descriptive
analyses of the data per section are provided below.
Section 1: Demographic Characteristics and Daily
Activities
In Section 1; we evaluated age, sex, height, weight, marital
status, and profession information of the participants. We also asked
routine job descriptions, physical activity of the participants before
and after the pandemic (the questions benefited from the Interna-
tional Physical Activity Questionnaire.20) (Table 1).
Section 2: Equipment Features Used in Home-Working
Environment
Section 2 consists of equipment features used in the home
working environment. Chair type whether the chair was specifically
bought for working from home the usage time the points that
participants consider while buying chairs in general, the ergonomic
features of the chair (based on the Rapid Office Strain Assess-
ment21). Only the participants who marked the specific types of
chairs in Q3 were asked to answer Q4, Q5, Q6, and Q7 (Table 1).
In Q8, we evaluated the expectations from the chair being
used during working from home in terms of comfort using a five-
point Likert scale. Daily computer usage before and after the
pandemic, the desk type used for working from home using eight
different types of desks with pictures and an ‘‘other’’ option was
provided if necessary the type of computer used for working from
home, screen height, glare, and reflections on the screen forcing
sitting position change the distance between the screen and the
participant. Ergonomic difficulties and frequency of posture
changes during working from home, the keyboard and mouse
features, phone or headset usage, used ergonomic supports before
and after the pandemic were also evaluated (Table 1).
Section 3: Equipment Features Previously Used in
Work Environment
Section 3 consists of equipment features used in the work-
place before the pandemic. We evaluated the type of chair the
ergonomic features of the chair used in the workplace, computer
type, screen height, the distance between the participant and the
screen, the keyboard and mouse type, and the telephone and headset
type before the pandemic in the workplace (Table 1).
Section 4: Changes in Working Time During the
Working From Home Period
Section 4 evaluated the changes during working from home
in terms of daily working time, the reasons for daily working time
changes with an open-ended question, working hour ranges, and
meeting lengths (Table 1).
Section 5: Environmental Information of the Home-
Workplace
In Section 5, we evaluated working from home environ-
ment and questioned the room type used for working from home
the light and illumination level the sound level, whether the
participant shared the working environment with someone else,
the frequency of the shared workplace the changes in the working
environment after transitioning to work from home whether the
participant changed the working environment during the workday
and which spaces, places, or positions they have changed to
(Table 1).
Section 6: Break-Rest and Nutrition Features
We evaluated the break and resting behavior of the par-
ticipants when working from home and evaluated the frequency
of the break-rest, meal and nutritional quality, changes in weight
during the pandemic, quality time spent with your family and for
yourself during working from the home period, daily rest quality,
methods used to rest, sleep time, sleep quality, and sleep quality
during working from home compared with before the pandemic
(Table 1).
Section 7: Health Status During the Period of Working
From Home
We evaluated the health status and musculoskeletal pain
during the working from home period using multiple questions.
The Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire and Visual Analog
Scale were used to assess work-related pain.22 We asked general
health status, any comorbidities, smoke usage, the change in the
number of cigarettes smoked during the pandemic and then
evaluated musculoskeletal pain before the pandemic in the
workplace, musculoskeletal pain during working from home
period after the pandemic, usage of painkillers, doctor’s
visit and sick leave during the working from home period
(Table 1).
Section 8: Working From Home Efficiency
We evaluated productivity during the working from home
period with four questions, via self-assessment. We questioned the
total duration of working from home after the pandemic started, the
level of stress or comfort compared with the workplace, productivity
compared with the workplace, quality of work compared with the
workplace (Table 1).
Statistical Analysis
We used IBM SPSS ver. 20.0 software for the analysis. The
Shapiro-Wilk test was employed to determine whether the varia-
bles were normally distributed. We calculated the means and
standard deviations of continuous, normally distributed variables.
We present the frequencies of categorical variables and compared
them using the chi-squared test. For the comparison of the values
before and after the pandemic, a paired samples t test was used.
Thematic content analysis was used to analyze the open-ended
question and the data were scanned twice by a single coder. The
intraclass correlations were used to test reliability of the coder
(which was 0.92). Later, coding units were created in the light of
this data. Categorized patterns were reached by using coding units.
Then, a frequency table was created according to the number of
repetitions of the coding units for question 27. Multivariate step-
wise linear regression analysis was conducted to explore the
association of the low back pain increase and weight gain with
other variables. The multivariate regression model included inde-
pendent variables that were with Pp-values< 0.05 in the univariate
analyses. An overall P-value< 0.05 was considered to
reflect significance.
Guler et al JOEM � Volume 63, Number 9, September 2021
732 � 2021 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
Copyright © 2021 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited 
TABLE 1. Questionnaire to Assess Ergonomics, Musculoskeletal Pain, Work Duration, and Productivity
Questions Variables Method
(Q1) Indicate your routine activities during the daily
working time
Nine different activities: data/text entry, data/text correction,
file examination, speaking on the phone, answering e-
mails, meeting attendance, making a presentation, light
or heavy lifting, and an ‘‘other’’ option
Multiple input
(Q2) Please indicate the daily activity level in hours before
and after the pandemic
Outside activities, indoor activity/standing, sedentary
activities, and sleep (hours)
Short answers
(Q3) Which of the following fits the type of chair you use
while working at home?
Ten different chair types: two different types of armchair,
bar stool (with or without back support), dining chair
(soft), small study chair (with or without arm support),
manager’s chair, high office chair, and couch/sofa.
Multiple input
(Q4) Did you buy the chair you use at home for working
purposes?
Yes/no question Binary
(Q5) How long have you been using this chair at home? Six different time intervals: ‘‘less than onemonth,’’ ‘‘1–3
months,’’ ‘‘3–6 months,’’ ‘‘6–12 months,’’ ‘‘1–3 years,’’
and ‘‘more than 3 years.’’
Single input
(Q6) Which of the following did you pay attention to while
buying a chair for your home working purposes?
Six features (price, design, color, durability, brand, and
reliability)
Multiple input
(Q7) Please indicate the ergonomic features of the chair
used to work from home.
Seven different choices: backrest, neck rest, armrest, chair
height adjustment, arm height adjustment, back support
adjustment, and wheels.
Multiple input
(Q8) Does the chair you use while working at home meet
your expectations for comfort?
Definitely yes, yes, unsure, no, definitely no. Five-point Likert scale
(Q9) How would you evaluate your total daily computer
usage time? (Please indicate average time in hours for
both before and after the pandemic.)
Hours Short answers
(Q10) Which of the following fits the type of desk you use
at home
Eight different desk types: small computer table, coffee
table, high-adjustable desk, dining table, coffee table,
computer table, and laptop stand.
Multiple input
(Q11) Which one of the following is the type computer you
use while working at home?
Six different choices: ‘‘Company laptop,’’ ‘‘Company
desktop computer,’’ ‘‘Company tablet,’’ ‘‘My own
laptop,’’ ‘‘My own desktop computer,’’ ‘‘My own
tablet’’
Multiple input
(Q12) How do you evaluate the screen height you use while
working from home?
Three choices: below eye level, at eye level or above eye
level.
Single input
(Q13) How often do you have to lean right / left / forward /
backward while working at home because of reflections
or glare on the screen?
Always, often, sometimes, rarely, never Five-point Likert scale
(Q14) Which of the following option suits best for the
distance between you and the screen while working
from home?
Three choices: shorter than arm span, at arm span, and
longer than arm span.
Single choice
(Q15) How often do you have to lean towards/approach the
screen while working at home to see the small details /
texts on the screen?
Always, often, sometimes, rarely, never Five-point Likert scale
(Q16) Which option fits the mouse and keyboard you use at
home?
Seven different choices: ‘‘Oversized Mouse/Fits all palm,’’
‘‘Ergonomic Mouse,’’ ‘‘Small Size Mouse / Can be used
with Fingertips,’’ ‘‘Oversized Numpad Keyboard,’’
‘‘Ergonomic Keyboard,’’ ‘‘Small Size/No Numpad
Keyboard,’’ ‘‘No mouse / laptop touchscreen’’
Multiple input
(Q17) Are you using a phone or headphone? Six different choices: ‘‘Cellphone,’’ ‘‘Wired headphone /
microphone,’’ ‘‘Bluetooth headphone/ microphone,’’
‘‘Laptop microphone,’’ ‘‘Landline phone,’’ ‘‘Desktop
microphone’’
Multiple input
(Q18) Which of the following ergonomic supports do you
use? Please indicate separately before the pandemic
and after starting to work from home.
Six different choices: back support, seat ring, foot support,
laptop support, document holder, or arm support; before
and after the pandemic.
Multiple input
(Q19) Which of the following fits the type of chair you
used at your workplace before the pandemic?
Ten different chair types: two different types of armchair,
bar stool (with or without back support), dining chair
(soft), small study chair (with or without arm support),
manager’s chair, high office chair, and couch/sofa.
Multiple input
(Q20), Please indicate the ergonomic features of the chair
used at your workplace before the pandemic.
Seven different choices: backrest, neck rest, armrest, chair
height adjustment, arm height adjustment, back support
adjustment, and wheels.
Multiple input
(Q21) Which one of the following is the computer you used
at your workplace before the pandemic?
Six different choices: ‘‘Company laptop,’’ ‘‘Company
desktop computer,’’ ‘‘Company tablet,’’ ‘‘My own
laptop,’’ ‘‘My own desktop computer,’’ ‘‘My own
tablet’’
Multiple input
(Q22) How do you evaluate the screen height you used at
your workplace?
Three choices: below eye level, at eye level, or above eye
level
Single input
JOEM � Volume 63, Number 9, September 2021 Working From Home During The Pandemic
� 2021 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 733
Copyright © 2021 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited 
TABLE 1. (Continued)
Questions Variables Method
(Q23) Which of the following option suited best for the
distance between you and the screen at your
workplace before the pandemic?
Three choices: shorter than arm span, at arm span, and
longer than arm span.
Single input
(Q24) Which one fits the mouse and keyboard you used at
your workplace?
Seven different choices: ‘‘Oversized Mouse / Fits all palm,’’
‘‘Ergonomic Mouse,’’ ‘‘Small Size Mouse/Can be used
with Fingertips,’’ ‘‘Oversized Numpad Keyboard,’’
‘‘Ergonomic Keyboard,’’ ‘‘Small Size/No Numpad
Keyboard,’’ ‘‘No mouse / laptop touchscreen’’
Multiple input
(Q25) Which option fits the mouse and keyboard you used
at work?
Seven different choices: six different choices: ‘‘Cellphone,’’
‘‘Wired headphone / microphone,’’ ‘‘Bluetooth
headphone/ microphone,’’ ‘‘Laptop microphone,’’
‘‘Landline phone,’’ ‘‘Desktop microphone’’
Multiple input
(Q26) How has your daily working time changed with the
transition to working from home?
Seven different time choices: ‘‘Increased more than
3 hours,’’ ‘‘Increased 1–3 hours,’’ ‘‘Increased less than
one hour,’’ ‘‘No changes,’’ ‘‘Decreased less than one
hour,’’ ‘‘Decreased 1–3 hours,’’ ‘‘Decreased more than 3
hours.’’
Single input
(Q27) What do you think could be the reason for the
change in working time in the working from home
process? Please specify.
Open-ended question
(Q28) ‘‘How did your working hours change in the process
of working from home?’’
Four choices: ‘‘similar to working hours,’’ ‘‘earlier hours,’’
‘‘later hours,’’ and ‘‘completely different.’’
Single input
(Q29) ‘‘How did the meeting lengths change in the work-
from-home process?’’
Seven different time choices: (more than 2 hours longer),
(1–2 hours longer), (0–1 hours longer), no change, (0–
1 hour shorter), (1–2 hours shorter), (more than 2 hours
shorter).
Single input
(Q30) Which room (s) do you use as a working
environment in your home?
Seven different choices: ‘‘study room,’’ ‘‘living room,’’
‘‘guest room,’’ ‘‘kitchen,’’ ‘‘bedroom’’, ‘‘balcony/
terrace’’, and an ‘‘other’’ option.
Multiple input
(Q31) Which of the following matches the light and
illumination level of your home working
environment?
Five different choices: ‘‘sunny,’’ ‘‘bright,’’ ‘‘normal,’’
‘‘dim,’’ and ‘‘dark.’’
Single input
(Q32) Which of the following fits the sound and noise level
of your home working environment?
Five different choices: ‘‘Quiet,’’ ‘‘Mostly quiet,’’ ‘‘Normal,’’
‘‘Mostly noisy,’’ and ‘‘Noisy.’’
Single input
(Q33) Do you share your work environment with other
family members?
Seven different choices: ‘‘No, I don’t share,’’ ‘‘working
partner,’’ ‘‘unemployed partner,’’ ‘‘Parents/In-laws,’’
‘‘Kids,’’ ‘‘Pets,’’ and an ‘‘others’’ option.
Single input
(Q34) How often do you share your working environment? Always, often, sometimes, rarely, never Five-point Likert scale
(Q35) What changes have you made in your working
environment after you started working from home?
Four different answers: ‘‘No changes,’’ ‘‘minimal changes,’’
‘‘complete change,’’ and an ‘‘other’’ option
Single input
(Q36) How often do you change your work setting and
move to a different work setting while working at
home?
Six different answers: ‘‘I never change,’’ ‘‘more than 10
minutes,’’ ‘‘every 10–30 minutes,’’ ‘‘every 30–60
minutes,’’ ‘‘every 1–3 hours,’’ ‘‘more than 3 hours.’’
Single Input
(Q37) Which of the following do you consider changing
into among the work setting / positions?
Five different choices: ‘‘Standing,’’ ‘‘Lying down,’’ ‘‘Lying
on the sofa,’’ ‘‘Different table/workplace,’’ and an
‘‘others’’ option.
Multiple input
(Q38) How do you maintain the balance between breaks-
rests while workingfrom home?
Seven different choices: ‘‘Every 10 minutes,’’ ‘‘Every 20
minutes,’’ ‘‘Every 30 minutes,’’ ‘‘Every hour,’’ ‘‘Every
two hours,’’ ‘‘Every three hours,’’ ‘‘Every 4 hours and
more’’
Single input
(Q39) How are your meals and nutritional quality affected
while working from home?
Four different propositions Five-point Likert scale
(Q40) How did your weight change during the pandemic? Kilograms Short answers
(Q41) How did the quality time spent change for yourself
and your family when working from home?
Five different choices: ‘‘much more time,’’ ‘‘more time,’’
‘‘no change,’’ ‘‘less time,’’ ‘‘much less time.’’
Five-point Likert scale
(Q42) How would you evaluate your daily rest quality while
working from home?
Five different choices: ‘‘Much better quality,’’ ‘‘Better
quality,’’ ‘‘Neutral,’’ ‘‘Less quality,’’ ‘‘much less
quality’’
Five-point Likert scale
(Q43) Which of the following do you do to rest? Ten different choices: taking a nap, reading a book (seated),
reading a book (lying down), watching TV (seated),
watching TV (lying down), social media/surfing
(seated), social media/surfing (lying down), listening
music (seated), listening music (lying down) and an
‘‘others’’ option
Multiple input
(Q44) How long is your sleep time when working from
home?
Hours Short answers
(Q45) Please mark the option that best suits you in terms of
your sleep quality.
Five different choices: good, mostly good, variable, mostly
poor, insomnia
5-point Likert scale
Guler et al JOEM � Volume 63, Number 9, September 2021
734 � 2021 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
Copyright © 2021 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited 
RESULTS
Section 1: Demographic Characteristics and Daily
Activities
Descriptive and the physical activity results of the 194
participants (51%, men) were showed in Table 2. Outside activities
were significantly decreased (P< 0.001) and indoor activities of the
participants were significantly increased after the pandemic
(P¼ 0.003). Sedentary activities and sleep duration of the partic-
ipants were also increased significantly after the pandemic
(P< 0.001 and P¼ 0.005, respectively).
Section 2: Equipment Features Used in Home-
Working Environment
The results of the Q3 which was evaluated chair type used
while working from home presented in Table 3. Seventy three of the
participants answered the Q4 and Q5 as they were limited to certain
chair type answers. 79.4% of the participants bought for the chair
working purposes. The majority of the participants reported they
have been using the same chair used while working from home for
more than 3 years (30.1%, n¼ 22) or 1 to 3 years (27.3%, n¼ 20). In
Q6, the participants reported the features they considered when they
bought the chair that was used when working from home as: price
(28.3%, n¼ 55), endurance (20.6%, n¼ 40), design (19.5%,
n¼ 38), reliability (9.2%, n¼ 18), color (6.7%, n¼ 13), and brand
(5.15%, n¼ 10). The comfort expectations from the chair used for
working from home were as follows: definitely no (12.4%, n¼ 24),
no (32%, n¼ 62), unsure (22.2%, n¼ 43), yes (27.3%, n¼ 53), and
definitely yes (6.2%, n¼ 12). As a result, most of the participants
were not happy with the comfort level of their chairs while working
from home. Q10 evaluated the desk type used working from home
and the most common answer was the dining table (n¼ 104) and the
rest were as follows: computer desk (21.1%, n¼ 41), study desk
(19.5%, n¼ 38), height adjustable desk (6.1%, n¼ 12), laptop stand
(5.15%, n¼ 10), desk (4.6%, n¼ 9), coffee table (2.5%, n¼ 5),
small computer desk (1.5%, n¼ 3) and one participant reported
using kitchen countertops and one participant reported using
nothing.
The average time for daily computer usage was 7.28� 2.81
(1–14) hours before the pandemic and 9.48� 3.18 (1–16) hours
during the pandemic while working from home. The average time
for computer usage significantly increased during the pandemic
(P< 0.001). Q15 evaluated the rates of postural changes during
working from home and results were as follows: of the participants
reported ‘‘sometimes’’ (36.6%, n¼ 71), ‘‘rarely’’ (23.2%, n¼ 45),
‘‘often’’ (20.1%, n¼ 39), ‘‘never’’ (14.9%, n¼ 29), and ‘‘always’’
(5.2%, n¼ 10).
TABLE 1. (Continued)
Questions Variables Method
(Q46) Please evaluate your sleep quality according to the
period of working from home compared to before the
pandemic
Five different choices: much better, better, same, worse,
much worse
Five-point Likert scale
(Q47) How would you evaluate your general health
condition, taking into account the time before the
pandemic?
Five different choices: excellent, very good, good, fair, poor Single input
(Q48) Do you have a hereditary or chronic condition/
disease? Please specify if you have any
Yes/no question Binary
(Q49) Do you smoke? Eight different choices: no smoker, passive smoker, less
than 3-pieces,3–10 piece daily,10–20 piece daily, one
package daily,1–2 packages daily
Single input
(Q50) Has there been any change in your smoking status
after the pandemic?
Six different choices: started again, quitted smoking, no
change, decreased, increased
Single input
(Q51) Please rate the pain you experienced while working
at the workplace, before the pandemic, according to
different body regions. Rate your pain scores between
0 and 10 points. 0 points means you have no pain, 10
points means very severe pain.
Nine different body regions: neck, shoulders, upper back,
elbows, wrists/hands, low back, hips/thighs, knees,
ankles/feet
Visual analog scale
(Q52) Please rate the pain you experienced while working
from home during the pandemic according to different
body regions. Rate your pain scores between 0 and 10
points. 0 points means you have no pain, 10 points
means very severe pain.
Nine different body regions: neck, shoulders, upper back,
elbows, wrists/hands, low back, hips/thighs, knees,
ankles/feet
Visual analog scale
(Q53) Please indicate if you have used painkillers / doctor’s
visit and sick leave use for your musculoskeletal pain
during your working from home period.
Nine different body regions: neck, shoulders, upper back,
elbows, wrists/hands, low back, hips/thighs, knees,
ankles/feet
Multiple input
(Q54) How long have you been working from home
continuously after the pandemic started?
Eight different choices: less than 15 days, 15–30 days, 1–2
months, 2–3 months, 3–4 months, 5–6 months, more
than 6 months
Single input
(Q55) How would you evaluate your stress / comfort
experience in the home environment during the
pandemic compared with working at work?
More stressful, stressful, same, relaxed, more relaxed Five-point Likert scale
(Q56) How do you evaluate your productivity / efficiency in
the home environment in general compared to
working in the workplace?
More efficient, efficient, same, inefficient, more inefficient Five-point Likert scale
(Q57) How would you evaluate the quality of your work in
the home environment compared to working
at work?
Much better quality, better quality, same, poor quality, much
poorer quality
Five-point Likert scale
JOEM � Volume 63, Number 9, September 2021 Working From Home During The Pandemic
� 2021 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 735
Copyright © 2021 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited 
Section 3: Equipment Features Previously Used in
Work Environment
The chair type and the ergonomic features of the chair used
for working from home were also significantly different compared
with the workplace chair. The majority of the participants used a
dining chair (soft or hard) during working from home compared
with the workplace where participants were used ergonomic or high
working chair. The participants mainly used their own desktop/
laptop/tablet while working from home and met their own needs.
Screen height was significantly ‘‘below eyelevel’’ and distance to
the screen was ‘‘shorter than arm distance’’ while working from
home compared with the workplace environment. Mouse or key-
board type was not significantly different between working from
home and workplace. The cellphone and wired/Bluetooth or laptop
microphone usage were significantly increased compared with the
workplace (Table 3).
Section 4: Changes in Working Time During the
Working From Home Period
The changes in daily working time after the pandemic,
revealed that the majority of the participants (64.9%, n¼ 126)
reported that the daily working time increased (more than 3 hours
[19.6%, n¼ 38], 1 to 3 hours [38.7%, n¼ 75], less than 1 hour [6.7%,
n¼ 13]). 19.1% (n¼ 37) of the participants reported no changes in
daily working time and 15.9% (n¼ 31) of the participants reported
that their daily working time decreased (more than 3 hours [5.7%,
n¼ 11], 1 to 3 hours [5.2%, n¼ 10], less than 1 hour [5.2%, n¼ 10]).
The main topics affecting the changes in working time
according to the participants were as follows: waiting for each
other due to lack of coordination during online meetings, reduced
time in traffic, the uncertainty of the pandemic, no guests during
working hours and reduced break times, uncertain working hours,
housework, increased demand because of the perception that one
can work more because of the ease of access by superiors, focusing
better and quieter working environment, loneliness, and boredom.
Most of the participants reported similar working hours during
the working from home compared with the before the pandemic
(44.3%, n¼ 86), but the meeting hours increased more than 2 hours
according to the most of the participants (21.6%, n¼ 42).
Section 5: Environmental Information of the
Home-Workplace
The majority of the participants reported that they are
working in other rooms rather than a dedicated study room. The
TABLE 2. Demographic Features, Physical Activity Results Before and After the Pandemic, and Job Descriptions of the
Participants
Age, yrs� 33.97� 7.6 (18–65)
Weight, kg� 73.57� 16.2 (48–140)
Height, cm� 171.35� 8.66 (150–193)
BMI, kg/m2� 24.85� 4.16 (15.4–46.7)
Marital status, %, n
Single 47.9%, n¼ 93
Married 50.5%, n¼ 98
Engaged 0.5%, n¼ 1
Job, %, n
Engineer 35.6%, n¼ 69
Analyst 12.4%, n¼ 24
Academician 11.9%, n¼ 23
Software specialist 9.3%, n¼ 18
Banker 6.2%, n¼ 12
Marketing expert 5.7%, n¼ 11
İnterior architect 5.2%, n¼ 10
Executive 4.6%, n¼ 9
İntern 3.6%, n¼ 7
Consultant 3.6%, n¼ 7
Doctor 2.1%, n¼ 4
Physical Activity Before the Pandemic After the Pandemic P Value��
Outside activities� 2.57� 2.03 (0–15) 1.49� 1.3 (0–8) <0.001
Indoor activity/standing� 2.68� 2.49 (0–15) 3.19� 2.31 (0–11) 0.003
Sedentary activities� 8.22� 4.42 (0–16) 9.72� 3.99 (1–16) <0.001
Sleep� 7.38� 1.51 (1–13) 7.79� 1.85 (1–16) 0.005
Job descriptions, %, (n)
Creating/replying a e-mail 71.6, (139)
Attending an online meeting 68.5, (133)
Speaking on the phone 64.4, (125)
Fast data entry/text writing 48.4, (94)
Correcting data/text 46.9, (91)
Making presentation 44.3, (86)
Viewing/signing a file 32.9, (64)
Carrying light box/file 1, (2)
Carrying heavy items/equipment 0.5, (1)
�Represented as mean� standard deviation (minimum–maximum) in hours.
��Paired samples t test, significance level 0.05.
Guler et al JOEM � Volume 63, Number 9, September 2021
736 � 2021 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
Copyright © 2021 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited 
preferred workspaces of the participants during working from home
were guest room (45.8%, n¼ 89), study room (32.9%, n¼ 64),
living room (32.9%, n¼ 64), bedroom (26.8%, n¼ 52), kitchen
(18%, n¼ 35), and balcony/terrace (13.9%, n¼ 27). The majority of
the participants rated the work environment as optimal in terms of
illumination and sound level. The most of the participants work
alone and do not share the working room with anyone else (55.1%,
n¼ 107). The frequency of the shared room when working was
‘‘Always’’ (9.2%, n¼ 18), ‘‘Often’’ (18%, n¼ 35), ‘‘Sometimes’’
(12.8%, n¼ 25), and ‘‘Rarely’’ (3%, n¼ 6). When we examined the
changes at home after starting to work from home, most of the
participants did not change anything (no changes, 51%, n¼ 99). The
majority of the participants (60.8%, n¼ 118) reported no changes of
work area or working position during working from home period.
The majority of the participants who changed their work area
changed to a different workplace or table or they continued to
work lying on the sofa.
Section 6: Break-Rest and Nutrition Features
In Q38 we evaluated break and rest frequency of the partic-
ipants during working from home. The results were as follows:
‘‘Every 10 minutes’’ (3.1%, n¼ 6), ‘‘Every 20 minutes’’ (1%,
n¼ 2) ‘‘Every 30 minutes’’ (6.7%, n¼ 13), ‘‘Every hour’’ (34.5%,
n¼ 67), ‘‘Every 2 hours’’ (28.4%, n¼ 55), ‘‘Every 3 hours’’
(15.5%, n¼ 30), ‘‘Every 4 hours and more’’ (10.8%, n¼ 21). Q39
evaluated nutrition and meal quality during working from home in
four different propositions (Table 4). Q40 evaluated body weight
changes during the pandemic, and 46.9% (n¼ 91) of the participants
reported an increase in their weight (5.73� 4.39 kg) during the
working from home period after the pandemic. 18% (n¼ 35) reported
that they lost weight (6.13� 5.75 kg) and 35.1% (n¼ 68) reported no
change. The quality time spent for themselves and with their families
were evaluated and the majority of the participants reported that they
spent ‘‘much more time’’ (18.6%, n¼ 36) and ‘‘more time’’ (39.7%,
n¼ 77) after the pandemic. The daily rest quality of the participants
during working from home evaluated and the results were as follows:
neutral (28.9%, n¼ 56), better quality (25.3%, n¼ 49), less quality
(24.2%, n¼ 47), much better quality (11.9%, n¼ 23), much less
quality (9.8%, n¼ 19). The methods used for resting, sleep duration,
sleep quality, and changes in sleep quality during working from home
period and the results presented in Table 4.
Section 7: Health Status During the Period of
Working From Home
The analyses of Section 7 and 8 are core to the findings of the
study and provided in a tabulated format, for ease of comparison,
contrary to the previous six sections which were descriptive in
nature. The participants mostly described their general health as
good, and most of the participants had no comorbidities. Although
the number of smokers is low, the increased consumed numbers in
the majority of the smokers is striking (Table 5). Neck, low back,
hip, and knee pain increased after the pandemic and working from
home period, but only low back pain increased significantly.
Interestingly the participants used medication for the neck pain
mostly, but for the doctors’ visit and sick leave low back pain was
the main reason (Table 6).
Section 8: Working From Home Efficiency
During our study, the majority of the participants had been
working from home for more than 6 months. The participants were
less stressful, more efficient, and had better quality of work during
working from home period according to the self-reported results
(Table 7).
Outdoor Activities—Weight Gain and Nutrition
Quality During the Pandemic While Working From
Home
The participants reported that their outdoor activities signifi-
cantly decreased during the pandemic. Although most of the
participants reported that they ate more regularly (46.4%,
TABLE 3. Comparison of the Ergonomic Features Before
and After the Pandemic
Before
Pandemic
(Workplace)
During Pandemic
(Working
From Home) P Value�
Chair type (Q3–Q19)
Dining chair (Soft) N/A 63 <0.001
Dining chair (Hard) N/A 44
Armchair 5 37
Small work chair
(with arm support)
42 33
Sofa bed/Double or triple sofa N/A 32
Manager’s chair 21 15
Ergonomic working chair 74 11
Small work chair
(without arm support)
8 9
High working chair 49 7
Gamer’s chair 2 4
Back support bar stool N/A 4
Stool 1 2
Plastic folding chair N/A 2
Bed N/A 1
Ergonomicfeatures of the chair (Q7–Q20)
Back support 129 44 <0.001
Neck support 55 15
Arm support 156 60
Seat height adjustment 166 64
Arm height adjustment 111 10
Back support adjustment 93 30
Wheels 154 56
Computer type (Q11–Q21)
Company laptop 120 102 <0.001
Company desktop computer 92 14
Company tablet N/A 3
My own laptop N/A 85
My own desktop computer N/A 29
My own tablet N/A 7
Screen height (Q12–Q22)
Above eye level 14 9 <0.001
Eye level 150 98
Below eye level 29 87
Distance to the screen (Q14–Q23)
Longer than arm distance 23 21 0.009
At arm distance 140 97
Shorter than arm distance 30 76
Mouse and keyboard type (Q16–Q24)
Oversized mouse/fits all palm 72 59 0.104
Ergonomic mouse 50 62
Small size mouse/can be
used with fingertips
29 40
Oversized numpad keyboard 71 48
Ergonomic keyboard 36 26
Small size/no numpad keyboard 32 55
No mouse/laptop touchscreen 5 4
Phone or headphone usage (Q17–Q25)
Cellphone 135 164 0.032
Wired headphone/microphone 95 114
Bluetooth headphone/microphone 48 64
Laptop microphone 27 43
Landline phone 70 2
Desktop microphone 4 3
�Significance level <0.05.
JOEM � Volume 63, Number 9, September 2021 Working From Home During The Pandemic
� 2021 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 737
Copyright © 2021 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited 
n¼ 90), consumed more homemade food (71.1%, n¼ 138), ordered
less food from delivery services, while consuming more junk food
(46.4%, n¼ 90), the majority of the participants reported a weight
gain (46.9%, n¼ 91). We searched for the independent variables
that affected weight gain during the working from home period and
formed a model using multivariate linear regression analysis. Indoor
activity/standing (after the pandemic), eating junk food, elbow pain,
and type of phone/microphone were the independent variables that
affected weight gain during working from home and the coefficient
of determination of the weight gain was 0.573, indicating that these
four factors explain 57% of all variations in weight gain (Table 8).
Low-Back Pain Increase
The participants reported that their back pain significantly
increased (P¼ 0.03) during the working from home period com-
pared with before the pandemic. We used a multivariate linear
regression model to determine the independent variables that
affected low back pain. We included the independent variables
which were significant in the univariate analysis. Lumbar support
usage before the pandemic, stress level during working from home,
general health status, sleep duration, and rest quality during working
from home were the independent variables affected low back pain
increase during working from home period of the participants and
the coefficient of determination of the low back pain increase was
0.483, indicating that these five factors explain 48% of all variation
in this difference (Table 8).
DISCUSSION
In this study, we evaluated ergonomic features, musculoskel-
etal pain, and self-reported work performance during working from
home. The study revealed that employees who switched to working
from home during the pandemic process were caught unprepared in
TABLE 4. Meal and Nutrition Changes of the Participants During Working From Home and Resting Methods, Sleep Duration,
Sleep Quality, and Change in Sleep Quality After the Pandemic
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
I eat more regularly 10.3% (n¼ 20) 36.1% (n¼ 70) 15.5% (n¼ 30) 23.7% (n¼ 46) 14.4% (n¼ 28)
I consume more home food 29.9% (n¼ 58) 40.2% (n¼ 78) 8.2% (n¼ 16) 13.9% (n¼ 27) 7.7% (n¼ 15)
I order more food from delivery services 3.1% (n¼ 6) 11.3% (n¼ 22) 12.4% (n¼ 24) 38.1% (n¼ 74) 35.1% (n¼ 68)
I consume more junk food 10.3% (n¼ 20) 29.9% (n¼ 58) 14.4% (n¼ 28) 28.9% (n¼ 56) 16.5% (n¼ 32)
Rest and sleep features
Resting methods Taking a nap 70
Read a book (seated) 24
Read a book (lying down) 49
Watching TV (seated) 42
Watching TV (lying down) 85
Social media/surfing (seated) 69
Social media/surfing (lying down) 104
Listening to music (seated) 33
Listening to music (lying down) 51
Playing video games 4
Sleep duration, hours Less than 4 hours 1% (n¼ 2)
5 hours 5.2% (n¼ 10)
6 hours 13.4% (n¼ 26)
7 hours 35.6% (n¼ 69)
8 hours 35.1% (n¼ 68)
9 hours 8.2% (n¼ 16)
more than 10 hours 1.5% (n¼ 3)
Sleep quality Good 12.9% (n¼ 25)
Mostly good 29.4% (n¼ 57)
Variable 40.2% (n¼ 78)
Mostly poor 15.5% (n¼ 30)
Insomnia 2.1% (n¼ 4)
Change in sleep quality after the pandemic Much better 14.9% (n¼ 29)
Better 25.3% (n¼ 49)
Same 40.7% (n¼ 79)
Worse 16% (n¼ 31)
Much worse 3.1% (n¼ 6)
TABLE 5. Health Status and Smoking Rates of the Partici-
pants
General health
Excellent 4.1% (n¼ 8)
Very good 16% (n¼ 31)
Good 52.6% (n¼ 102)
Fair 19.1% (n¼ 37)
Poor 8.2% (n¼ 16)
Comorbidities, no (%) 88.6% (n¼ 172)
Smoke usage
No smoker 63.4% (n¼ 123)
Passive smoker 4.6% (n¼ 9)
Less than three pieces 3.1% (n¼ 6)
3–10 piece daily 8.8% (n¼ 17)
10–20 piece daily 9.8% (n¼ 19)
One package daily 7.2% (n¼ 14)
1–2 packages daily 3.1% (n¼ 6)
Change in smoking after the pandemic
Started again 4.6% (n¼ 9)
Quitted smoking 1.5% (n¼ 3)
No changes 78.4% % (n¼ 152)
Decreased 4.1% (n¼ 8)
Increased 11.3% (n¼ 22)
Guler et al JOEM � Volume 63, Number 9, September 2021
738 � 2021 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
Copyright © 2021 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited 
TABLE 6. Musculoskeletal Pain in Nine Body Regions Before and After Starting to Work From Home
Musculoskeletal Pain
Before and
After the Pandemic
Before the
Pandemic in a
Workplace
After the Pandemic,
During Working
From Home P Value�
Medication
Usage Doctor’s Visit Sick Leave
Neck 3.07� 2.89 3.3� 2.95 0.200 30.41% (n¼ 59) 3.09% (n¼ 6) 0.52% (n¼ 1)
Shoulders 2.94� 2.88 2.76� 2.94 0.334 20.10% (n¼ 39) 2.06% (n¼ 4) 0
Upper back 3.8� 2.99 3.86� 3.14 0.779 24.23% (n¼ 47) 3.61% (n¼ 7) 0.52% (n¼ 1)
Elbows 1.16� 2.03 1.07� 1.99 0.415 7.73% (n¼ 15) 0.52% (n¼ 1) 0
Wrists/Hands 1.62� 2.39 1.59� 2.44 0.861 8.25% (n¼ 16) 2.06% (n¼ 4) 0
Low back 3.14� 2.88 3.56� 3.29 0.03 17.53% (n¼ 34) 4.12% (n¼ 8) 1.55% (n¼ 3)
Hips/Thighs 1.58� 2.46 1.77� 2.73 0.215 8.25% (n¼ 16) 3.09% (n¼ 6) 0.52% (n¼ 1)
Knees 1.62� 2.4 1.73� 2.69 0.463 8.25% (n¼ 16) 1.03% (n¼ 2) 0
Ankles/Feet 1.17� 2.13 1.14� 2.13 0.838 5.67% (n¼ 11) 2.58% (n¼ 5) 0.52% (n¼ 1)
�Paired samples t test, significance level <0.05 shown as bold.
TABLE 7. The Time, Stress Level, Productivity, and Quality of the Work After Starting to Work From Home
The time after starting to work from home
Less than 15 days 6.7% (n¼ 13)
15–30 days 5.2% (n¼ 10)
1–2 months 5.2% (n¼ 10)
2–3 months 7.2% (n¼ 14)
3–4 months 8.8% (n¼ 17)
5–6 months 7.7% (n¼ 15)
More than 6 months 59.3% (n¼ 115)
Self-assessed stress level during working from home compared with the workplace
More stressful or stressful 34% (n¼ 66)
Same 20.1% (n¼ 39)
Relaxed or more relaxed 45.8% (n¼ 89)
Self-assessed productivity during working from home compared with the workplace
More efficient or efficient 50.5% (n¼ 98)
Same 12.9% (n¼ 25)
İnefficient or more İnefficient 36.5% (n¼ 71)
Self-assessed quality of work during working from home compared with a workplace
Much better quality or better quality 43.2% (n¼ 84)
Same 39.7% (n¼ 77)
Poor quality or much poorer quality 17% (n¼ 33)
TABLE 8. Multivariate Stepwise Linear Regression Analysis of Factors Affecting Weight Gain and Low Back Pain
B SE b t P Value
Weight gain�
Constant 6.392 3.312 2.417 <0.001
Indoor activity/standing (after the pandemic) –3.255 0.138 –0.411 –6.219 <0.001
Eating junk food –1.245 0.213 –0.496 –2.307 <0.001
Elbow pain –3.009 1.912 –0.232 –1.722 0.04
Type of phone/microphone
Low back pain��
Constant 12.025 4.545 3.106 <0.001
Lumbar support usage before the pandemic –1.337 1.278 –0.202 –8.508 <0.001
Stress level during working from home –0.554 0.224 –0.256 –3.358 <0.001
General healthstatus –1.216 1.348 –0.052 –2.592 <0.001
Sleep duration –1.534 0.321 –0.184 –4.401 <0.001
Rest quality during working from home –0.211 0.258 –0.557 –2.582 0.031
b, standard regression coefficient; B, partial regression coefficient; SE, standard error.
�F¼ 2.913, R¼ 0.756, R2¼ 0.573.
��F¼ 5.407, R¼ 0.694, R2¼ 0.483.
JOEM � Volume 63, Number 9, September 2021 Working From Home During The Pandemic
� 2021 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 739
Copyright © 2021 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited 
many ways. Chair type, desk type, and computer type used for
working from home were mostly inappropriate and the participants
largely met their needs by their own immediately available means.
We aimed to examine all ergonomic aspects of working from
home. We realized that the ergonomic needs of the employees were
met insufficiently due to the rapid changes introduced by the
pandemic. This finding shows parallels to previous research on
the subject. In a study conducted by Davis et al,4 workstations of the
participants were evaluated in the early stages of the pandemic, they
found that equipment used during working from home was not as
suitable as the workplace. Another study found that the pandemic
negatively affected the workers’ performance especially in women
and individuals with disability, and the home office ergonomics was
a crucial factor.16 In our study, the participants were using less
ergonomically appropriate equipment. For example, the majority of
the participants stated that they utilized dining chairs/tables, addi-
tionally most of the participants stated that they did not buy new
equipment specifically for working from home. The majority of the
chairs used, for example, were purchased before the pandemic
(57.4%, more than 1 year before). Moreover, most of the computer
equipment used during working from home was also provided by
the participants themselves. Screen height and the distance between
the screen and participants were also inappropriate according to our
results. All these findings illustrate that employees have not fully
been able to adapt to the process of working from home during the
pandemic. Considering that most employees have been working
from home for more than 6 months and will continue to do so for
some time, it is safe to assume that the problems related to
musculoskeletal pain that we identified will only be exacerbated.
We evaluated working hours during working from home
period in this study. The majority of the participants reported a
significant increase in the time spent using a computer and more
daily working time and meeting times compared with the actual
workplace experience. We also found an increase, although not
significant, in the neck, upper back, hip, and knee pain. Interest-
ingly, the area of the body where painkillers are used the most was
the neck and upper neck. Low back pain was the main reason for the
doctors’ visit due to pain and sick leave. The study by Bloom et al23
concluded that working from home caused fewer sick days. We only
evaluated the musculoskeletal pain-related sick days of the partic-
ipants and only seven out of the 194 participants called in sick
during the working from home period.
The analysis indicated that the use of non-ergonomic equip-
ment increased the severity of low back pain significantly (P¼ 0.03).
We found that the lack of lumbar support, stress levels, general health
status, sleep duration, and rest quality were the independent variables
affecting low back pain increase during working from home. A study
conducted by Toprak Celenay et al18 compared the musculoskeletal
pain of people who stayed at home to continue to work for a period of
3 months of lockdown and found that low back pain increased in the
stay-at-home group, similar to our study. Another study by Siqueira
et al,17 conducted after the pandemic, showed an increased frequency
of pain in the neck, shoulder, and upper back regions in working from
home group. Our study included fewer participants who worked from
home for a longer period of time and we evaluated pain levels using an
11-point rated visual analog scale. A comparison of the findings
indicates increasing pain levels as employees continue to work in sub-
optimal conditions.
The participants consistently described a decrease in their
outdoor activities and an increase in their indoor activities. As a
result, nearly half of the participants (46.9%) reported an increase in
their weight during the working from home period. An online survey
conducted by Flanagan et al24 in the early stages of the pandemic
reported similar results as most people reported eating healthy and
cooking at home more but because of the decreased physical
activity, weight gain was reported in 27.5% of the participants.
Our study was conducted more than 6 months after the pandemic
started, as a result, we found nearly half (46.9%) of the participants
reported an increase in weight.
In our study, we aimed to evaluate productivity during
working from home using three different self-assessed questions
asking stress levels, productivity, and quality of the work output
compared with the workplace before the pandemic. The participants
stated that during the working from home period, they were more
relaxed, more efficient, and they outputted better quality of work.
The findings show parallels to a study conducted before the
pandemic, Bloom et al23 compared the productivity of two groups:
one working from home and the other at actual workplace, and
found that the working from home group was more efficient in terms
of performance increase and working hours.
Limitations
The first limitation of the study is most of the questions were
including ergonomic features were self-reported. Secondly, evalu-
ating musculoskeletal pain before the pandemic might cause a bias,
as asking pain experience prior to the time of the survey. Thirdly,
even though the amount of data collected with the survey is highly
detailed, cross-sectional and respondents covered a large demo-
graphic, the number of participants was limited. Fourthly, the
specific activities that can be practiced at home via treadmill, such
as exercise bikes, pilates, etc were not considered separately.
Another limitation of the study is not evaluating whether the
employees contracted COVID during the working from home
period. Lastly, we did not consider the income changes of the
participants while working from home.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the study revealed that many employees who
rapidly switched to the working from home model following the
pandemic were caught off guard and had to adjust by their own
means. Significant increases were observed in the complaints of low
back pain of employees due to ergonomic deficiencies. In addition,
weight gain was observed compared with before the pandemic. It is
possible to foresee that for employees who are expected to work
from home, the employers should be advised to bear the burden in
terms of either providing or contributing to the purchase of ergo-
nomically appropriate task furniture and accessories. Also, based on
the problems we see in terms of adjusting the task premises, it
should be advised that educational programs that would address the
quality-of-life issues for employees should be developed.
As we have identified in our study, many of the problems
show an increase in severity and impact as the working from home
period extends. Therefore, the data acquired in future studies should
be useful in terms of plotting a trajectory for the severity of the
problems identified in this study. In a future study, a larger sample
pool with extended demographic coverage might be able to pinpoint
the exact reasons for the problems identified in this study.
Even though COVID-19 might be taken under control in a
matter of months or few short years, it should be expected that the
working from home model is here to stay, therefore, studiessuch as
this one and others of the same nature will continue to be relevant for
some time to come.
REFERENCES
1. Fadinger H, Schymik J. The costs and benefits of home office during the
covid-19 pandemic: evidence from infections and an input-output model for
germany. COVID Econ. 2020;9:107–134.
2. Brynjolfsson E, Horton JJ, Ozimek A, Rock D, Sharma G, TuYe H-Y.
COVID-19 and Remote Work: An Early Look at US Data, Working Paper
Series, No. 27344. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research;
2020. pp. 1–25.
3. Alon TM, Doepke M, Olmstead-Rumsey J, Tertilt M. The Impact of COVID-
19 on Gender Equality. Working Paper Number 26947. National Bureau of
Economic Research; 2020.
Guler et al JOEM � Volume 63, Number 9, September 2021
740 � 2021 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
Copyright © 2021 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited 
4. Davis KG, Kotowski SE, Daniel D, Gerding T, Naylor J, Syck M. The home
office: ergonomic lessons from the ‘‘new normal’’. Ergon Des. 2020;28:4–10.
5. Tranel B. The Future Workplace Will Embrace a Hybrid Reality; 2020.
Available at: https://www.gensler.com/research-insight/blog/the-future-
workplace-will-embrace-a-hybrid-reality. Accessed January 13, 2021.
6. HOK. What Will Be the COVID-19 Takeaways for the Workplace; 2020.
Available at: https://www.hok.com/news/2020-03/what-will-be-the-covid-
19-takeaways-for-the-workplace/. Accessed January 13, 2021.
7. Bailey DE, Kurland NB. A review of telework research: findings, new
directions, and lessons for the study of modern work. J Organ Behav.
2002;23:383–400.
8. Xiao Y, Becerik-Gerber B, Lucas G, Roll SC. Impacts of working from home
during COVID-19 pandemic on physical and mental well-being of office
workstation users. J Occup Environ Med. 2021;63:181–190.
9. Karir HK. Role of ergonomics in inducing dynamicity by transforming
sedentary computer workstation. In: DEStech Transactions on Social Science
Education and Human Science; 2018.
10. Carlson NG, Schwartz A, Greenwell J, Casura G. The office changes leading
to sit-to-stand ergonomics. Work. 2018;61:501–507.
11. Luczak H, Kabel T, Licht T. Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics.
New York: Wiley; 2012, 397–440.
12. Ponder N. Consumer attitudes and buying behavior for home furniture. In:
Report Prepared for the Furniture Outreach Program at Franklin Furniture
Institute, Starkville, Mississippi, USA; 2013.
13. Isham A, Mair S, Jackson T. Wellbeing and productivity: a review of the
literature. In: CUSP Working Paper; 2020.
14. Garrett G, Benden M, Mehta R, Pickens A, Peres SC, Zhao H. Call center
productivity over 6 months following a standing desk intervention. IIE Trans
Occup Ergon Hum Factors. 2016;4:188–195.
15. Hagberg M, Tornqvist EW, Toomingas A. Self-reported reduced productivity
due to musculoskeletal symptoms: associations with workplace and indi-
vidual factors among white-collar computer users. J Occup Rehabil.
2002;12:151–162.
16. Ralph P, Baltes S, Adisaputri G, et al. Pandemic programming. Empir
Software Eng. 2020;25:4927–4961.
17. Siqueira LTD, Dos Santos AP, Silva RLF, Moreira PAM, da Silva Vitor J,
Ribeiro VV. Vocal self-perception of home office workers during the
COVID-19 pandemic. J Voice. 2020;31. S0892-1997(20)30407-0.
18. Toprak Celenay S, Karaaslan Y, Mete O, Ozer Kaya D. Coronaphobia,
musculoskeletal pain, and sleep quality in stay-at home and continued-
working persons during the 3-month Covid-19 pandemic lockdown in
Turkey. Chronobiol Int. 2020;37:1778–1785.
19. Ball HL. Conducting online surveys. J Hum Lact. 2019;35:413–417.
20. Craig CL, Marshall AL, Sjöström M, et al. International physical activity
questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
2003;35:1381–1395.
21. Sonne M, Villalta DL, Andrews DM. Development and evaluation of an
office ergonomic risk checklist: ROSA–Rapid office strain assessment. Appl
Ergon. 2012;43:98–108.
22. Alaca N, Safran EE, Karamanlargil Aİ, Timucin E. Translation and cross-
cultural adaptation of the extended version of the Nordic musculoskeletal
questionnaire into Turkish. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2019;19:
472–481.
23. Bloom N, Liang J, Roberts J, Ying ZJ. Does working from home work?
Evidence from a Chinese experiment. Q J Econ. 2015;130:165–218.
24. Flanagan EW, Beyl RA, Fearnbach SN, Altazan AD, Martin CK, Redman
LM. The impact of COVID-19 stay-at-home orders on health behaviors in
adults. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2020;29:438–445.
JOEM � Volume 63, Number 9, September 2021 Working From Home During The Pandemic
� 2021 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 741
https://www.gensler.com/research-insight/blog/the-future-workplace-will-embrace-a-hybrid-reality
https://www.gensler.com/research-insight/blog/the-future-workplace-will-embrace-a-hybrid-reality
https://www.hok.com/news/2020-03/what-will-be-the-covid-19-takeaways-for-the-workplace/
https://www.hok.com/news/2020-03/what-will-be-the-covid-19-takeaways-for-the-workplace/