Millions of workers have been uprooted by COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) and been thrown into a “new normal” of working from home offices. To further complicate things, many individuals were provided with only a laptop and little, if any, education on setting up an ergonomically correct workstation. As a result, many home office–based workers potentially face suboptimal working conditions. Based on 41 home office ergonomic evaluations, most ergonomic concerns related to laptop usage, nonadjustable chairs without armrests, low monitor heights, and hard desk surfaces. If home-based office work continues, people need to understand the ramifications of poor workstation.

BACKGROUND: As millions of workers have shifted to telework, special accommodations for workers with respect to ergonomics may be required to ensure the workforce remains healthy. METHODS: A survey about home office ergonomics and discomfort was sent to faculty, staff, and administrators by email and was completed by 843 individuals. RESULTS: Over 40%of the participants reported moderate to severe discomfort (severe low/middle back pain, moderate discomfort in eyes/neck/head, and discomfort in the upper back/shoulders). Laptops (always and often) were widely used (85%) with most using the laptop monitor (55%) of all respondents. Further, less than 45%of the seating conditions were reported as having adjustable arm rests. CONCLUSION: As teleworking in makeshift offices becomes more common, the risk of significant discomfort and potentially more serious musculoskeletal disorders may result from poor static postures. Companies may need to accommodate workers by allowing them to take home office chairs, external monitors, keyboards, and mice as laptops are insufficient, ergonomically.

Chronic stress has been associated with a range of health disparities, but examination of occupational stress, especially in the wake of COVID-19, has been minimal for many careers. A novel methodology involving work stress diaries and collection of salivary cortisol was employed to determine correlations between occupations, occupational stressors, and how well these are related to the physiological response to stress exposure, the release of cortisol. While cortisol levels tended to follow typical circadian rhythm based on sampling times, cortisol levels also followed the subjective stress levels listed in the work stress diaries following linear regression analysis using the pooled study population data (p = 0.042). When comparing the stressors between the studied careers, participants who worked in the healthcare industry accounted for one-third of the total participants, but reported nearly half (42%) of the more severe occupational stressors listed in the diaries. Finally, the most commonly listed emotional reactions to exposures listed included feelings of stress, frustration, anger, anxiety, or overwhelm. As the workplace progresses from the pandemic, the opportunity to reduce occupational stress exposures in the workplace is at hand. Companies that work towards minimizing the stress faced by their workforce would have a healthier and more relaxed workforce.

BACKGROUND: Many individuals continued to work from home even after nearly 9 months since the COVID-19 pandemic started in spring of 2020. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a follow-up survey of the faculty and staff of a large Midwest university to determine whether there had been any changes to their home work environment and health outcomes since a prior survey conducted at the start of the pandemic in spring of 2020. METHODS: An electronic survey was sent out to all employees, staff, and administration (approximately 10,350 individuals) and was completed by 1,135 individuals. RESULTS: It was found that not much had changed after nearly 9 months of working at home. Faculty and staff continued to primarily use laptops without an external keyboard, monitor or mouse. Few participants reported using chairs with adjustable armrests. These conditions continued to result in high levels of body discomfort (49% neck and head, 45% low back, and 62% upper back and shoulders having moderate to severe pain). CONCLUSION: If workers are going to continue to work from home, companies will need to accommodate them with more than a laptop, and should include an external keyboard, monitor, and mouse.

Occupational exposures in on-campus healthcare settings have increasingly been investigated, while the sector of home healthcare typically receives less focus. This study explored work stress exposure and air pollution’s effects on home healthcare workers through the collection of multiple salivary cortisol samples per day, the completion of stress diaries, and the use of low-cost personal air monitors. This study was designed to identify the physiological responses to various types of stress, as well as the impact of air pollution on the home healthcare workforce. Due to the sample size and duration, the data showed that neither the stress levels recorded in the diaries (p = 0.754), nor the air pollution data (with only VOC and PM₁ having Pearson correlation coefficients of >0.25), exhibited a significant association with the cortisol levels. The air sensor data were inconsistent with previously published indoor air pollutant literature. Forty percent of events reported by participants were identified as high stressor (level 6–10) events. One participant in this study accounted for 18% of these high-stress events. The most common emotional responses to these stressor events included feelings of frustration, irritation, anger, and fury, which together comprised 22.4% of the reactions. Future work should include studies with a larger sample size, a more robust air quality monitor, and a longer study duration to improve the power to detect potential associations. Although previous studies have indicated that home healthcare workers experience workplace stress and exposure to multiple air pollutants, this study did not detect a consistent relationship between these exposures and the physiological stress response.