Telework Before Illness Onset Among Symptomatic Adults Aged ≥18 Years With and Without COVID-19 in 11 Outpatient Health Care Facilities — United States, July 2020

Close

Download Image[JPG]

Since March 2020, large-scale efforts to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), have continued. Mitigation measures to reduce workplace exposures have included work site policies to support flexible work site options, including telework, whereby employees work remotely without commuting to a central place of work.* Opportunities to telework have varied across industries among U.S. jobs where telework options are feasible (1). However, little is known about the impact of telework on risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. A case-control investigation was conducted to compare telework between eligible symptomatic persons who received positive SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test results (case-patients, 153) and symptomatic persons with negative test results (control-participants, 161). Eligible participants were identified in outpatient health care facilities during July 2020. Among employed participants who reported on their telework status during the 2 weeks preceding illness onset (248), the percentage who were able to telework on a full- or part-time basis was lower among case-patients (35%; 42 of 120) than among control-participants (53%; 68 of 128) (p<0.01). Case-patients were more likely than were control-participants to have reported going exclusively to an office or school setting (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.2–2.7) in the 2 weeks before illness onset. The association was also observed when further restricting to the 175 participants who reported working in a profession outside the critical infrastructure^† (aOR = 2.1; 95% CI = 1.3–3.6). Providing the option to work from home or telework when possible, is an important consideration for reducing the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. In industries where telework options are not available, worker safety measures should continue to be scaled up to reduce possible worksite exposures.

This multistate case-control study assessed possible exposures to COVID-19. Methods have been described elsewhere (2). In brief, the investigation included symptomatic adults aged ≥18 years who received their first SARS-CoV-2 test at one of 11 Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness in the Critically Ill (IVY) Network outpatient testing or health care centers^§ during July 1–29, 2020 (3). Laboratory-confirmed case-patients were randomly sampled. Two control-participants were matched based on age, sex, and study location to each case patient, resulting in 615 potential case-patients and 1,212 control-participants. Case-patients and control-participants were contacted 14–23 days after their SARS-CoV-2 test and interviewed to identify participants who were symptomatic and had not been previously tested for SARS-CoV-2. A total of 802 adults (295 case-patients and 507 control-participants) agreed to participate in structured interviews in English or five other languages^¶ administered by CDC personnel via telephone with data collected in REDCap software (version 10.3.8; REDCap Consortium) (4); 163 adults (9%) declined to participate.

Among these 802 adults contacted, 470 (59%) were ineligible (i.e., were not symptomatic or had a previous SARS-CoV-2 test), and 18 (2%) were excluded because of nonresponse to the telework and work-from-home question. The final analytic sample (314) included 153 (49%) case-patients and 161 (51%) control-participants. An unmatched analysis was performed because of the strict inclusion criteria that resulted in many participants being ineligible for the investigation. This activity was reviewed by CDC and participating sites and conducted consistent with applicable federal law and CDC policy.**

Data collected in this investigation included self-reported demographic characteristics, underlying chronic medical conditions,^†† employment status and location, telework status, close contact (within 6 feet for ≥15 minutes) with a person with known COVID-19, and community exposures (2). All questions relating to employment, close contact, and community exposures were asked with reference to the 14 days preceding illness onset. Participants who reported working full-time, part-time, who were self-employed, or who were students were asked additional questions about work, including type of work and telework status.^§§ Descriptive and statistical analyses were performed to assess differences between case-patients and control-participants, as well as between those who reported teleworking and going to an office setting, in terms of demographic characteristics, possible workplace, close contact, and community exposures.

Unconditional logistic regression models, accounting for site-level clustering, were used to estimate odds ratios and 95% CIs for associations between telework status and case-patients and control-participants, adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and presence of one or more underlying chronic medical conditions (2). Analysis was conducted for all participants who reported work and telework status (248) and was then restricted to those working outside the selected critical infrastructure sectors measured (i.e., not in health care, factory, corrections, or education settings) (175). Significance levels were set at p<0.05. Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS software (version 9.4; SAS Institute).

Compared with case-patients, control-participants were more likely to be non-Hispanic White (p<0.01), have a college degree or higher (p<0.01), and report at least one underlying chronic medical condition (p = 0.02) (Table 1). In the 14 days before illness onset, 59% of case-patients and 68% of control-participants reported working full-time. Among the 262 participants who reported some form of employment, 36 (30%) case-patients and 37 (27%) control-participants reported workplace or school closures. Three quarters of case-patients (75%) and nearly two thirds of control-participants (66%) worked outside the critical infrastructure. Just over a third of case-patients (35%) reported working from home or teleworking at least part of the time, compared with approximately one half (53%) of control-participants (p<0.01).

A total of 110 (35%) participants reported teleworking or working from home at least part of the time, and 138 (44%) reported going into an office or school regularly 2 weeks before illness onset (Table 2). Participants who reported teleworking were more likely to be non-Hispanic White (p<0.01), have a college degree or higher (p<0.01), have health insurance (p<0.01), an income of ≥$75,000 (p<0.01), and report close contact with a person with a known COVID-19 case (p = 0.03). No significant differences were noted in most community exposures, including shopping, going to a salon, gym, restaurant, or bar/coffee shop or using public transportation, between participants who did and did not report teleworking. However, those who regularly attended work or school were also more likely to attend church or religious gatherings (15; 11%), compared with those who teleworked at least part of the time (three; 3%) (p = 0.01).

Among the 248 participants who reported telework status and some form of employment during the 2 weeks before illness onset, case-patients were more likely to have reported exclusively going to an office or school setting (aOR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.2–2.7) in the 2 weeks before illness onset than were control-participants. The association persisted when the analysis was restricted to the 175 participants who reported working in a profession outside the selected critical infrastructure sectors (aOR = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.3–3.6).

Corresponding author: Kiva A. Fisher, okm1@cdc.gov.

¹CDC COVID-19 Response Team; ²Epidemic Intelligence Service, CDC; ³Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness in the Critically Ill (IVY) Network; ⁴Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee; ⁵Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts; ⁶Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; ⁷Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota; ⁸Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Massachusetts; ⁹Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio; ¹⁰University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, Washington; ¹¹Stanford University Medical Center, Palo Alto, California; ¹²Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah; ¹³Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland; ¹⁴University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado.

References

1. Dey M, Frazis H, Loewenstein MA, Sun H. Ability to work from home: evidence from two surveys and implications for the labor market in the COVID-19 pandemic. Mon Labor Rev 2020;17:1–9. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2020/article/ability-to-work-from-home.htm
2. Fisher KA, Tenforde MW, Feldstein LR, et al.; IVY Network Investigators; CDC COVID-19 Response Team. Community and close contact exposures associated with COVID-19 among symptomatic adults aged ≥18 years in 11 outpatient health care facilities—United States, July 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69:1258–64. CrossRef PubMed
3. Stubblefield WB, Talbot HK, Feldstein L, et al.; Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness in the Critically Ill (IVY) Investigators. Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 among frontline healthcare personnel during the first month of caring for COVID-19 patients—Nashville, Tennessee. Clin Infect Dis 2020. Epub July 6, 2020. CrossRef
4. Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, et al.; REDCap Consortium. The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform 2019;95:103208. CrossRef PubMed
5. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Supplemental data measuring the effects of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on the labor market. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Labor Statistics; 2020. https://www.bls.gov/cps/effects-of-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic.htm
6. Belzunegui-Eraso A, Erro-Garcés A. Teleworking in the context of the COVID-19 crisis. Sustainability 2020;12:3662. CrossRef
7. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Productivity gains from teleworking in the post COVID-19 era: how can public policies make it happen? Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; 2020. https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/productivity-gains-from-teleworking-in-the-post-covid-19-era-a5d52e99
8. Sethuraman N, Jeremiah SS, Ryo A. Interpreting diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2. JAMA 2020;323:2249–51. CrossRef PubMed
9. Tahamtan A, Ardebili A. Real-time RT-PCR in COVID-19 detection: issues affecting the results. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2020;20:453–4. CrossRef PubMed

* Patients were randomly sampled from 11 academic health care systems that are part of the Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness in the Critically Ill (IVY) Network sites (Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Massachusetts; Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts; University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado; Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah; Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio; Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee; Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland; Stanford University Medical Center, Palo Alto, California; University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, Washington). Participating states include California, Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Utah, and Washington.
^† Other race includes responses of Native American/Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander, and other; these were combined because of small sample sizes.
^§ Insurance status included public, private, or both. No insurance included those who reported having neither private nor public insurance.
^¶ Reported at least one of the following underlying chronic medical conditions: cardiac condition, hypertension, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency, psychiatric condition, diabetes, or obesity.
** Other residence included not specified or refused to answer (5), duplex/two-family home (3), trailer/mobile home (3), group home (2), townhome (2), hotel (1), long-term care facility (1), condominium (1), and lived in university fraternity or sorority housing (1).
^†† Including any other field that works with children aged <18 years.
^§§ Other work exposures are those who reported “No, I do not work in any of these fields” among the possible workplace exposures assessed.
^¶¶ Thirteen participants reported “don’t know/not sure,” and one refused to answer the question. Participants were asked “In the 14 days prior to becoming ill, were you: Going into an office/school regularly; Working from home/teleworking; Both.” Response options were dichotomized with those who reported “both” categorized as “Worked from home or teleworked at least part of the time.”

* Participants were asked “In the 14 days prior to becoming ill, were you: Going into an office/school regularly; Working from home/teleworking; Both.” Among 262 participants who reported working in the 14 days before illness onset, 13 reported “don’t know/not sure,” and one refused to answer the question. Response options were dichotomized with those who reported “both” as teleworking or working from home at least part of the time. Patients were randomly sampled from 11 academic health care systems that are part of the Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness in the Critically Ill (IVY) Network sites (Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Massachusetts; Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts; University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado; Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah; Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio; Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee; Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland; Stanford University Medical Center, Palo Alto, California; University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, Washington). Participating states include California, Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Utah, and Washington.
^† Other race includes responses of Native American/Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander, and other; these were combined because of small sample sizes.
^§ Insurance status included public, private, or both. No insurance included those who reported having neither private nor public insurance.
^¶ Including any other field that works with children aged <18 years.
** Persons who reported “No, I do not work in any of these fields” among the possible workplace exposures assessed.
^†† Participants were asked “In the 14 days before feeling ill about how often did you: 1) Shop for items (groceries, prescriptions, home goods, clothing, etc.); 2) have people visit you inside your home or go inside someone else’s home where there were more than 10 people; 3) have people visit you inside your home or go inside someone else’s home where there were 10 people or less; 4) go to a restaurant (dine-in, any area designated by the restaurant including patio seating); 5) go to a gym or fitness center; 6) go to a salon or barber (e.g., hair salon, nail salon, etc.); 7) attend church or a religious gathering/place of worship; 8) go to a bar or coffee shop (indoors); and 9) use public transportation (bus, subway, streetcar, train, etc.).” Response options were coded as never versus at least once in the 14 days before illness onset. Participants were asked each question separately and could have responded to multiple community exposure questions.