Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

ORIGINAL ARTICLES

Work From Home or Bring Home the Work? Burnout and Procrastination in Brazilian Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Arenas, Daniel Luccas MD; Viduani, Anna BA; Bassols, Ana Margareth Siqueira PhD; Hauck, Simone PhD

Author Information
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine: May 2022 - Volume 64 - Issue 5 - p e333-e339
doi: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000002526

Work is a central part of human life, influencing patterns of identity and sociability, interests, political behavior, family models, and lifestyles.1 In recent years, the work scenario has been changing rapidly and increasingly due to advances in information and communication technologies; and cultural, social, environmental, and economic changes. Different work configurations and labor relations have emerged at an unprecedented pace, demanding quick responses from employers, workers, and labor legislations.2,3

Among the changes in the work scenario, telework stands out, as it allows employees to carry out their duties and responsibilities from an offsite location other than the official workplace. This work configuration emerged in the 70 s during the oil crisis4 but has been progressively more used in high-income countries (HICs) and, more recently, in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).5,6 Among the reasons for the greater adoption of telework are reduced operating costs, greater access to virtual communication devices, greater flexibility and autonomy for employees, greater performance, less emission of air pollutants, and less urban conges- tion.2,5,7–9

With the COVID-19 pandemic and the containment measures to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2, including school and workplace closures, stay-at-home orders, and travel restrictions,10 the number of people working from home (WFH) = an arrangement in which the worker performs their work activities at home = has increased dramatically.6 In this sense, the International Labor Organization (ILO) estimated that, during the second quarter of 2020, 17.4% of the world's workers were WFH, a significant difference from the pre-pandemic scenario, in which only 7.9% of the global workforce adhered to this modality.11

While pre-pandemic studies link remote work to lower levels of stress and exhaustion under ideal circumstances,2,12 both advantages and disadvantages of telework seem to be mediated by work conditions and demands,12 available resources, family demands, and workspace.8,13 Individual factors, such as gender, also seem to exert influence on the well-being of workers who work from home.8 Additionally, WFH can contribute to a blurring of the boundaries between workspace and home space, deepening preexisting gender-related burdens related to formal work, housework, and childcare.

In this sense, workers who WFH during the pandemic seem to show lower levels of physical and mental well-being14 and higher levels of perceived stress and burnout15 compared with the prepandemic scenario. Age, female gender, having no previous experience in telework, difficulty in the workspace, unhealthy lifestyle habits, children at home, workload, communication difficulties, distractions during work time, and procrastination were associated with worse outcomes.14-16

Such abrupt structural changes and potential reduction in social interaction poised by the COVID-19 pandemic generate concerns on the health and well-being of workers. Among the unprecedented challenges for those who are WFH during a pandemic, procrastination (the failure of goal-directed self-regulation that results in a dysfunctional act of postponing a task17) and cyberslacking/cyberloafing (the misuse of the internet for personal purposes during working hours18) are behaviors that can hinder worker's well-being. These behaviors seem to be more frequent in people working from home,8 and they are associated with worse perceived performance, lower job satisfaction, and higher levels of work-related exhaustion and/or Burnout Syndrome.19–22 Procrastination is related to an aversion to less pleasurable tasks and duties.23 It represents a growing and expressive work-related problem with a prevalence of around 20% in workers before the pandemic.17,24 Despite being more studied in students during the COVID-19 pandemic,25–27 the limited literature on procrastination in workers during this period indicates this behavior as one of the main factors responsible for reduced productivity.28 It is related to higher anxiety, depression, and stress levels.29 Some interventions based on cognitive-behavioral therapy appear to be effective in reducing this behavior, although more randomized clinical trials are needed to assess their effectiveness.30

Moreover, recent studies during the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of the study of Burnout, a state of chronic work-related stress31 that can be present in different occupational groups and work modalities.32 The pandemic has impacted workplace and working conditions, and stressors such as long working hours, high demands, imbalance between personal and professional life, low rewards or recognition, and low autonomy may be more present, leaving workers at a greater risk of Burnout.32 This calls for greater attention to workers mental health, especially since burnout can have deep physical, psychosocial, occupational, and economic consequences.33

In this study, we assessed the levels of burnout and procrastination in a sample of Brazilian workers during the COVID-19 pandemic according to their current work mode and individual and family variables. We aimed to investigate whether WFH was related to burnout scores, and whether individual and family variables could work as mediators for this relation. By analyzing these variables, we can identify groups of workers under greater risk of labor-related distress, contributing to the modest body of literature on the influence of WFH arrangements on wellbeing and psychosocial risks in workers in LMICs.

METHODS

Data Source and Study Population

This cross-sectional study used data from an online survey conducted between July and September 2020, when Brazil became the world's COVID-19 epicenter. Containment measures were in place in a decentralized manner, with most states imposing the closure of work-related spaces (such as shopping malls), and schools. In these months, 11% of all Brazilian workers were under telework arrangements34—in 2018, only 5.2% were WFH.35 In this sense, participants were recruited by convenience using targeted advertisement on social media and institutional bulletins of different professional areas. Facebook and Instagram were used for targeted advertisements, using the following criteria: adults residing in Brazil, interest in parenting-related, career development, and labor associations or unions content. Inclusion criteria were being Brazilian over the age of 18 and currently employed. All participants included in the study consented to participate and informed consent was obtained via Survey Monkey® online platform. The project was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre (CAEE: 32480720.1.0000.5327).

Measures

Sociodemographic and work-related data were collected, such as gender, family income, ethnicity, marital status, and education level. If participants had children, they were asked to inform the number of children, whether participants lived with them, age-range of children living at home, and average hours per week dedicated to childcare before and during the pandemic. Regarding their work, participants were asked about average hours per week dedicated to work both before and during the pandemic, changes in role or position at work, whether they were essential workers, if they occupied a leadership position at work, and current and usual work mode. Additionally, 13 variables related to the current work environment were collected by a five-point Likert scale in which higher scores indicated greater agreement.

Burnout was assessed using a Brazilian validated version of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI).36 It is a self-report 19-item questionnaire with five-point Likert scale. Each answer can range from 0 to 100, and answers for each subscale are summed and averaged. Therefore, each subscales total can range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating higher levels of burnout. The CBI includes three sub-dimensions which should be used independently: Personal Burnout (PB—the degree to which one perceives to be physically and psychologically exhausted), Work-related Burnout (WB—the degree to which physical and psychological exhaustion is perceived concerning work activities), and Client-related Burnout (CB—the level of exhaustion that a person perceives that stems from the professional relationship with clients). Continuous scores were calculated using a simple mean for each sub-dimension. Additionally, a cut-off score of 50 in each subscale was also used, based on evidence that equal or greater scores indicate clinically significant levels of burnout.37,38

Procrastination was assessed using a Brazilian validated version of the Irrational Procrastination Scale (IPS).39 It is a brief self-report six-item questionnaire with five-point Likert scale, in which higher scores indicate higher levels of procrastination. The IPS focuses on irrational delay, characterized by a voluntary delay in performing a task even though it is disadvantageous.40

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS IBM software (version 21).41 Descriptive analyses were reported as means and standard deviations (SD), median and interquartile range (IQR), or absolute and relative frequencies. To each variable, the Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess whether the data followed parametric or nonparametric distributions. In all cases, inferential statistics were decided accordingly to the distribution of the data. The groups were compared with Student T-test (for variables with parametric distribution) or Mann-Whitney U-test (non-parametric distribution). The chi-squared test was used to compare categorical variables. ANOVA (complemented with Tukey) or Kruskal-Wallis test was applied to compare variables with more than two groups. Parametric analyses were reported using means and standard deviations (SD), and non-parametric, median, and IQR. Spearman's correlation was used to test the strength and direction of correlations between continuous variables.

The Poisson Regression was performed to control confounding factors related to Burnout scores above the cut-off point. The regression coefficient exponential (Exp(b)) was calculated along with their respective confidence interval of 95% (95% CI) to establish the prevalence ratios. Additionally, the standardized beta coefficient ) was presented as a way of comparing the strength of the association between variables. Enter method was adopted and the criteria for considering the variable in the model was P< 0.20 in the bivariate analysis and the criteria for permanence in the model was P < 0.10 in the final version.

The threshold for statistical significance of 5% (P < 0.05) was adopted. The analyses were performed using the total score in IPS and the individual scores of each subscale of CBI. Tables were created to present the data and the figures were generated in R.42

RESULTS

Sample Characteristics

This study included 435 participants. Table 1 shows the sociodemographic data of the sample. All participants completed the IPS and the PB and WB subscales of CBI. 411 participants completed the CB subscale of the CBI. The means and standard deviations of the instruments were: IPS 17.05 ± 6.17; PB 51.07 ± 21.17 (52.9% >50); WB 46.08 ± 21.33 (47.1% >50); CB 40.71 ± 25.72 (36.3% >50).

TABLE 1 - Sociodemographic Data (n = 435 (%))
Variables Mean (SD)
Age 38.5 (0.5)
Sex
 Female 309 (716)
 Male 126 (29)
Ethnicity
 White 350 (80.5)
 Mixed 51 (11.7)
 Black 22 (5.1)
 Asian 6 (1.4)
 Other 6 (1.4)
Marital status
 Married/stable union 211 (48.5)
 Separated/divorced/widower 42 (9.6)
 Single with boy/girlfriend 93 (21.4)
 Single without boy/girlfriend 89 (20.5)
Income
 <5000 reais 173 (39.8)
 From 5000 to 10,000 reais 127 (29.2)
 >10,000 reais 135 (31)
Education level
 Ungraduated 88 (20.2)
 Graduate 146 (33.6)
 Postgraduate 201 (46.2)
Have children
 Yes 187 (43)
 No 248 (57)
Lives with the children
 Yes 144 (33.1)
 No 291 (66.9)
Age group of children who live with
 Under 12 years old 84 (19.3)
 Between 12 and 18 years old 32 (7.4)
 Over 18 years old 34 (7.8)
Childcare hours per week
 Mean (SD) 54.1 (4.2)
Change in childcare load
 Yes, increased care load 77 (17.7)
 Yes, reduced care load 16 (3.7)
 No 94 (43)
Working from home
 Yes 271 (62.3)
 No 164 (37.7)
Working from home is the usual work mode
 Yes 105 (24.8)
 No 327 (75.2)
Essential services professional
 Yes 152 (34.9)
 No 283 (65.1)
Leadership position
 Yes 92 (21.1)
 No 293 (67.4)
 Not applicable 50 (11.5)
Change of function or position
 Yes 71 (16.3)
 No 364 (83.7)
Working hours per week
 Mean (SD) 39.5 (0.9)
Change in workload
 Yes, increased workload 144 (33.1)
 Yes, reduced workload 118 (27.1)
 No 173 (39.8)
SD, standard deviation.

Work Mode and Work Environment

Figure 1 presents descriptive data of the variables related to the work environment according to the mode of work (WFH or faceto-face work). There was no statistical difference in the comparison between these groups, even when controlled for people whose remote work is not the usual. There was also no statistically significant difference between these groups in all CBI subscales scores. However, there was a difference between the groups in the IPS, with people in the home-office group presenting higher levels of irrational procrastination (Table 2). Analyses comparing burnout and procrastination scores between workers WFH that referred that remote work was not their usual work modality before the pandemic and other workers in the sample (not WFH and WFH as usual arrangement) were not statistically significant.

F1
FIGURE 1:
Descriptive data of the variables related to the work environment according to the work mode.
TABLE 2 - Comparison of IPS and CBI Scores Between Groups
Mothers
Variables Male n = 126 Female n = 309 P Working From Home n = 271 Face-to-face Work n = 164 P Parents n = 187 Nonparents n = 248 P Fathers n = 45 n = 142 P
IPS
 Mean ± SD 16.8 ± 0.6 17.1 ± 0.3 17.8 ± 0.4 15.7 ± 0.4 15.9 ± 0.4 17.9 ± 0.4 - 17.9 ± 6.4 17.9 ± 6.3
 Median (IQR) 16 (12–21) 16 (13–21) 0.633a 17 (13–23) 15.5 (11–19) <0.001a 15 (12–20) 17 (13–22) 0.001a 18 (14–22) 17 (13–22) 0.965a
PB
 Mean ± SD 44.7 ± 1.9 53.7 ± 1.2 51.4 ± 1.2 50.5 ± 0.4 48.4 ± 0.3 53.1 ± 1.3 - 36.2 ± 2.6 52.2 ± 1.7
 Median (IQR) 43.7 (25–62.5) 50 (41.7–66.7) <0.001a 50 (37.5–66.7) 50 (33.3–66.7) 0.652a 45.8 (29.2–66.7) 50 (41.8–66.7) 0.013a 29.2 (25–45.8) 50 (37.5–66.7) <0.001a
PB≥50
 Freq. (%) 49 (38.9%) 181 (58.6%) <0.001° 143 (52.8%) 87 (53%) 0.955° 85 (45.5%) 145 (58.5%) 0.007° 8 (17.8%) 77 (54.2%) <0.001°
WB
 Mean ± SD 42.6 ± 2.0 47.5 ± 1.2 0.03b 46.1 ± 1.2 46.1 ± 1.9 0.96b 41.9 ± 1.6 49.2 ± 1.31 31.9 ± 3 45.0 ± 1.7
 Median (IQR) 42.9 (25–60.7) 50 (35.7–60.7) 46.4 (32.1–60.7) 46.4 (26.8–62.5) 42.9 (25–57.1) 50 (35.7–64.3) <0.001a 32.1 (17.9–46.4) 46.4 (28.6–60.7) <0.001a
WB≥50
 Freq. (%) 49 (38.9%) 156 (50.6%) 0.028° 127 (46.9%) 78 (47.6%) 0.888° 71 (38%) 134 (54%) 0.001° 7 (15.6%) 64 (45.1%) <0.001°
n = 118 n = 293 n = 252 n = 159 n = 183 n = 228 n = 45 n = 138
CB
 Mean ± SD 38.3 ± 2.4 41.7 ± 1.5 39.3 ± 1.5 42.9 ± 2.2 34.9 ± 1.7 45.3 ± 1.7 26.9 ± 3.4 37.8 ± 1.9
 Median (IQR) 37.5 (16.6–58.3) 41.7 (30.8–58.3) 0.250a 37.5 (20.8–51.2) 45.8 (20.8–62.5) 0.172a 33.3 (16.7–50) 45.8 (25–62.5) <0.001a 25 (8.3–37.5) 37.5 (20.8–54.2) 0.002a
CB≥50
 Freq. (%) 43 (34.1%) 115 (37.2%) 0.897° 89 (32.8%) 69 (43.4%) 0.101° 50 (36.7%) 108 (43.5%) <0.001° 40 (88.9%) 45 (31.7%) 0.005a
aMann-Whitney U-test.
bStudent T-test.
cChi-squared test.CB, Client-related Burnout; CBI, Copenhagen Burnout Inventory; EPS, Irrational Procrastination Scale; IQR, interquartile range; PB, Personal Burnout; SD, standard deviation; WB, Work-related Burnout.

Spearman's correlation was performed between instrument scores (IPS and CBI subscales) and the scales related to the work environment (Supplement 1, https://links.lww.com/JOM/B76). The irrational procrastination score showed a strong inverse correlation with the feeling of good productivity at work (P = 0.512, P< 0.001). The PB and WB scores were inversely correlated with job satisfaction (PB: P = −0.563, P< 0.001; WB: P = −0.652, P< 0.001) and with the sense of balance between professional and personal life (PB: P = −0.558, P < 0.001; WB: P = −0.550, P < 0.001). The PB and WB scores were also direct correlated with the feeling that work demands negatively affect family life (PB: P = 0.544, P < 0.001; WB: P = 0.587, P < 0.001).

Gender and Parenting

In the comparison between men and women groups, women presented higher levels of burnout in PB and WB, but with no statistical difference in CB and IPS. Regarding parenting, the parent group had lower levels of procrastination and lower levels of burnout in all CBI subscales than the non-parent group. However, when analyzing the age group of children living at home with their parents, parents of children under 12 years old presented higher procrastination levels (16.9 ± 0.7, 15 ± 0.5, P = 0.027) and higher burnout levels in all subscales of the CBI: PB 58.3 (IQR 41.8–70.8), 41.7 (IQR 29.2–50), P < 0.001; WB 51.8 (IQR 35.7–64.3), 35.7 (IQR 21.4–46.4), P < 0.001; CB 41.7 (IQR 25–54.2), 25 (IQR 12.5–45.8), P = 0.002). When comparing the groups of fathers and mothers, women had higher levels of burnout in all subscales of the CBI (Table 2).

Table 3 presents the results of a statistically significant multiple Poisson regression model to assess the prevalence ratios of factors associated with scores above the cut-off point of the CBI subscales. The factors that most increased the chance of presenting more than 50 points in PB were: being female (2.45 × ), an increase in childcare load during the pandemic (1.75 × ) and living with children under 12 years old (1.47 × ). The factors that increased the most the chance of presenting more than 50 points in WB were: being female (2.52 × ), an increase in childcare load during the pandemic (2.01 × ) and living with children under 12 years old (1.76 × ). The factors that most increased the chance of presenting more than 50 points in CB were: income less than 5000 reais (approximately 925 dollars during data collection) (3.8 × ) and an increase in childcare load during the pandemic (2.09 × ). Exercise regularly was a protective factor for PB, and older age was a protective factor for WB and CB. These data remain significant even when controlled for working from home, home-schooling, and having help with childcare.

TABLE 3 - Result of Multiple Poisson Regression Analysis of the Association Between Burnout Scores and Individual, Work- related, and Family Variables (Omnibus test <0.05)
PB ≥ 50 WB ≥ 50 CB ≥ 50
Variables β Exp(b) (95% CI) P β Exp(b) (95% CI) P β Exp(b) (95% CI) P
Sociodemographic data Female 0.918 2.447 (1.365–4.386) 0.003 0.961 2.522 (1.368–4.650) 0.003 0.683 1.980 (0.852- 4.601) 0.112
 Age −0.014 0.986 (0.967–1.005) 0.146 −0.025 0.975 (0.953–0.998) 0.035 −0.039 0.962 (0.933–0.992) 0,013
 Income <5000 reais 0.127 1.229 (0.848–1.779) 0.276 0.176 1.375 (0.861–2.196) 0.182 1.335 3.802 (1.487–9.719) 0.005
Work
 Increased workload 0.308 1.351 (0.987–1.850) 0.060 0.213 1.221 (0.844–1.766) 0.289 0.103 1.108 (0.662–1.855) 0.695
 To be a student and a worker 0.244 1.305 (0.993–1.716) 0.056 0.146 1.201 (0.842–1.712) 0.312 −0.283 0.753 (0.459–1.236) 0.262
Parenting
 Childcare hours per week <0.001 1.000 (0.998–1.003) 0.949 −0.001 0.999 (0.996–1.002) 0.536 0.001 1.001 (0.997–1.005) 0.609
 Increased childcare load 0.544 1.754 (1.204–2.556) 0.003 0.669 2.013 (1.236–3.277) 0.005 0.737 2.089 (1.202–3.629) 0.009
 Living with children under 12 years old 0.273 1.469 (1.052–2.049) 0.024 0.370 1.765 (1.179–2.641) 0.006 0.046 0.955 (0.564–1.619) 0.865
Lifestyle
 Exercise regularly −0.532 0.585 (0.402–0.850) 0.005 −0.376 0.675 (0.429–1.063) 0.090 −0.198 0.820 (0.472–1.426) 0.482
CB, Client-related Burnout; CI, confidence interval; PB, Personal Burnout; WB, Work-related Burnout.

DISCUSSION

The results drawn by this cross-sectional study suggest that WFH should not be accounted as the single variable related to burnout among Brazilian workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Other variables—especially those related to gender and environmental aspects—seem to play a larger role in influencing well-being and performance of employees. Moreover, our study did not find differences in Burnout or procrastination scores between workers who started WFH during the pandemic and other workers in the sample, as opposed to what has been shown previously in the literature.14,15

In this sense, the present study highlights that the advantages of WFH should be taken cautiously and evaluated in the light of the workers’ context, since its benefits seem to be heavily influenced by work-life balance.36 While previous studies had suggested that WFH appears to have more advantages than disadvantages,8,43,44 negative outcomes of the adoption of WFH arrangements, such as reduced social contact, organizational problems, technological limitations, and difficulties related to the remote work environment43,44 have also been underlined. Hence, WFH implementation and adoption strategies should account for the evaluation of individual and family factors, since WFH seems to affect people's lives differently.44

Regarding this, it is important to acknowledge that structural inequalities play a significant role in who works from home and how telework is performed. Our study shows that women may be in higher risk for burnout in PB and WB, especially when they are also in charge of child rearing of children under 12 years old = even when compared to men who also live with their children. This may be because mothers seem to more frequently engage in practices involving explanation and organization of the environment45 and with issues related to children's education,46 which can also contribute to a greater family interference with work. The increase in the childcare load had an influence on the prevalence of clinical burnout indices in all CBI subscales, being more significant than the increase in workload. This finding highlights a possible sum of functions when schools and day-care centers were closed during the pandemic in addition to concerns about the risks of contamination by SARS-CoV-2.47 Low income and increased childcare load were the main variables related to having higher levels of CB, which may reflect low wages in occupations related to public service and greater interpersonal exhaustion in parents. Healthy lifestyle habits and older age were shown to be protective factors, which corroborates pre-pandemic studies.32,48

Additionally, in LMICs, the access to the necessary technologies for this working modality plays a significant role in determining the proportion of workers who can WFH.6,49 In Brazil, for example, 9.1% of the working population was WFH in the second quarter of 2020, and most of these workers were white (65.3%), women (57.8%), and were college educated (76%).34 This was reflected in the sample of this study: mostly comprised of white, college-educated women (79.8%). In this sense, the study's sample seems to represent those workers who are WFH during the COVID- 19 pandemic in Brazil.

However, this study should also be accounted for considering some limitations. First, the study sample is not representative of the Brazilian population and may not reflect all demands and forms of WFH arrangements happening during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, a large portion of respondents claimed to be essential service professionals (65.1%), meaning they were either engaged in the health sector, public safety sectors, or public cleaning and transportation. Proportionally, these professionals were less likely to WFH during the pandemic, as well as may be facing increased stress during the same period. Also, it is important to acknowledge the inherent limitations of the study design: a cross-sectional study where we can’t infer causalities. Finally, as we do not have data on the pre-pandemic status of the subjects, we could not evaluate prospectively burnout and procrastination levels considering the pre-and post-pandemic scenario.

CONCLUSION

This cross-sectional study highlighted the importance of assessing how individual and family factors are related to the well-being of workers. According to our results, workers working from home had slightly higher levels of irrational procrastination and had no difference in terms of burnout levels on all CBI subscales when compared to workers working face-to-face. When assessing the gender of workers, women—especially mothers—had higher levels of burnout when compared to men. WFH was not configured as a risk factor, appearing to have more advantages than disadvantages under ideal conditions. However, difficulties in work-life balance, increased childcare load, having children under 12 at home, and social and gender inequalities had a major influence on the well-being and exhaustion of workers during the pandemic.

These results corroborate findings of studies carried out in HICs, in which being female, having young children at home, and workspace-related problems were shown to contribute to higher levels of burnout.14–16,50 However, our study showed no difference in terms of burnout and procrastination levels between the workers that started WFH only after the pandemic when compared to workers with previous experience in telework or workers in faceto-face work. It contrasts with the findings of other studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic.14,15 In addition, WFH was not a factor related to worse levels of burnout per. However, unlike previous studies15,51 our study didn’t compare burnout levels with the pre-pandemic period.

Another important point of this study is the access to WFH in LMICs since this work mode seems to be more accessible to the socioeconomically privileged population. Such results become more important when several companies are adopting WFH as the standard work mode for many positions. Further studies are needed to assess the influence of WFH on the mental health and professional performance of workers longitudinally, analyzing individual and family variables to identify vulnerabilities. In this way, it will be possible to plan measures and policies to support vulnerable workers and provide alternatives to social and gender inequalities. In this way, it will be possible to provide a better quality of life and work during and after the pandemic.

REFERENCES

1. Tolfo SR, Piccinini V. Sentidos e significados do trabalho: explorando conceitos, variaveis e estudos empíricos brasileiros. Psicol Soc 2007; 19 (spe):38–46.
2. Gajendran RS, Harrison DA. The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. J Appi Psychol 2007; 92:1524–1541.
3. Golden T. Co-workers who telework and the impact on those in the office: understanding the implications of virtual work for co-worker satisfaction and turnover intentions. Hum Reiat 2007; 60:1641–1667.
4. Belzunegui-Eraso A, Erro-Garces A. Teleworking in the context of the Covid-19 crisis. Sustainability 2020; 12:3662.
5. 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.
6. Sanchez DG, Parra NG, Ozden C, Rijkers B, Viollaz M, Winkler H. Who on Earth Can Work from Home? [Internet]. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2020, p. 36. Report No.: 9347. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10986/34277.
7. Peters P, Tijdens KG, Wetzels C. Employees’ opportunities, preferences, and practices in telecommuting adoption. Inf Manage 2004; 41:469–482.
8. Allen TD, Golden TD, Shockley KM. How effective is telecommuting? Assessing the status of our scientific findings. Psychol Sci Public Interest 2015; 16:40–68.
9. Gajendran RS, Harrison DA, Delaney-Klinger K. Are telecommuters remotely good citizens? Unpacking telecommuting's effects on performance via I-deals and job resources. Pers Psychol 2015; 68:353–393.
10. Prem K, Liu Y, Russell TW, et al. The effect of control strategies to reduce social mixing on outcomes of the COVID-19 epidemic in Wuhan, China: a modelling study. Lancet Public Health 2020; 5:e261–e270.
11. Soares S, Bonnet F, Berg J, Labouriau R. From Potential to Practice: Preliminary Findings on the Numbers of Workers Working from Home During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Organization; 2021, p. 16.
12. Sardeshmukh SR, Sharma D, Golden TD. Impact of telework on exhaustion and job engagement: a job demands and job resources model: impact of telework on exhaustion and job engagement. New Technol Work Employ 2012; 27:193–207.
13. Seidler A, Thinschmidt M, Deckert S, et al. The role of psychosocial working conditions on burnout and its core component emotional exhaustion-a systematic review. J Occup Med Toxicol 2014; 9:10.
14. 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.
15. Hayes SW, Priestley JL, Moore BA, Ray HE. Perceived stress, work-related burnout, and working from home before and during COVID-19: an examination of workers in the United States. SAGE Open 2021; 11:215824402110581.
16. Wang C, Pan R, Wan X, et al. Immediate psychological responses and associated factors during the initial stage of the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic among the general population in China. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020; 17:1729.
17. Steel P. The nature of procrastination: a meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychol Bull 2007; 133:65–94.
18. Vitak J, Crouse J, LaRose R. Personal internet use at work: understanding cyberslacking. Comput Hum Behav 2011; 27:1751–1759.
19. O’Neill TA, Hambley LA, Bercovich A. Prediction of cyberslacking when employees are working away from the office. Comput Hum Behav 2014; 34:291–298.
20. Kumcagiz H, Ersanli E, Alakus K. Hopelessness, procrastination and burnout in predicting job satisfaction: a reality among public school teachers. Int J Acad Res 2014; 6:333–339.
21. Hall NC, Lee SY, Rahimi S. Self-efficacy, procrastination, and burnout in post-secondary faculty: an international longitudinal analysis. PLoS ONE 2019; 14:e0226716.
22. Aghaz A, Sheikh A. Cyberloafing and job burnout: an investigation in the knowledge-intensive sector. Comput Hum Behav 2016; 62:51–60.
23. Blunt AK, Pychyl TA. Task aversiveness and procrastination: a multidimensional approach to task aversiveness across stages of personal projects. Personal Individ Difer 2000; 28:153–167.
24. Ferrari JR, O’Callaghan J, Newbegin I. Prevalence of procrastination in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia: arousal and avoidance delays among adults. North Am J Psychol 2005; 7:1–6.
25. Peixoto EM, Pallini AC, Vallerand RJ, Rahimi S, Silva MV. The role of passion for studies on academic procrastination and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Soc Psychol Educ 2021; 24:877–893.
26. Lim AJ, Javadpour S. Into the unknown: uncertainty and procrastination in students from a life history perspective. Front Psychol 2021; 12:717380.
27. Pelikan ER, Korlat S, Reiter J, et al. Distance learning in higher education during COVID-19: the role of basic psychological needs and intrinsic motivation for persistence and procrastination-a multi-country study. PLoS ONE 2021; 16:e0257346.
28. Wang B, Liu Y, Qian J, Parker SK. Achieving effective remote working during the COVID-19 pandemic: a work design perspective. Appl Psychol 2021; 70:16–59.
29. Steinert C, Heim N, Leichsenring F. Procrastination, perfectionism, and other work-related mental problems: prevalence, types, assessment, and treat- ment—a scoping review. Front Psychiatry 2021; 12:736776.
30. Malouff JM, Schutte NS. The efficacy of interventions aimed at reducing procrastination: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Couns Dev 2019; 97:117–127.
31. Maslach C, Jackson SE. The measurement of experienced burnout. J Organ Behav 1981; 2:99–113.
32. Aronsson G, Theorell T, Grape T, et al. A systematic review including metaanalysis of work environment and burnout symptoms. BMC Public Health 2017; 17:264.
33. Salvagioni DAJ, Melanda FN, Mesas AE, González AD, Gabani FL, de Andrade SM. Physical, psychological and occupational consequences of job burnout: a systematic review of prospective studies. PLoS ONE 2017; 12:e0185781.
34. Goes GS, Martins FDS, Nascimento JAS. Um panorama do trabalho remoto no Brasil e nos estados brasileiros durante a pandemia da COVID-19 [Internet]. Brasilia, Brazil: IPEA; 2021, p. 102. Report No.: 2700. Available at: http://www.ipea.gov.br/portal/publicacoes.
35. Silveira D. Home office bateu recorde no Brasil em 2018, diz IBGE. G1 [Internet]. December 18, 2019 [cited December 5, 2021]; Available at: https://g1.globo.com/economia/concursos-e-emprego/noticia/2019/12/18/home-office-bateu-recorde-no-brasil-em-2018-diz-ibge.ghtml.
36. Moser CM, Santos BTMQ, Arenas DL, et al. Psychometric properties of the Brazilian Portuguese version of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI) in healthcare professionals. Trends Psychiatry Psychother 2021; Online ahead of print. doi: 10.47626/2237-6089-2021-036.
37. Kristensen TS, Borritz M, Villadsen E, Christensen KB. The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory: a new tool for the assessment of burnout. Work Stress 2005; 19:192–207.
38. Moser CM, Monteiro GC, Narvaez JC, et al. Saude mental dos profissionais da saúde na pandemia do coronavirus (Covid-19). Rev Bras Psicoter 2021; 23:107–125.
39. Rocha RZ. Pure Procrastination Scale e Irrational Procrastination Scale: adaptação e evidências de validade para o contexto brasileiro [Master's Thesis]. Porto Alegre, Brazil: UFRgS; 2019.
40. Steel P. Arousal, avoidant and decisional procrastinators: do they exist? Personal Individ Differ 2010; 48:926–934.
41. Nie NH, Bent DH, Hull CH. IBM SPSS Statisticsfor Windows. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp; 2012.
42. R-Core-Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2020.
43. Green N, Tappin D, Bentley T. Working From Home Before, During and Afterthe Covid-19 Pandemic: Implications forWorkers and Organisations.N Z J Employ Relat [Internet]. October 28, 2020 [cited December 5, 2021];45(2). Available at: https://ojs.aut.ac.nz/nzjer/article/view/19.
44. Ipsen C, van Veldhoven M, Kirchner K, Hansen JP. Six key advantages and disadvantages of working from home in Europe during COVID-19. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18:1826.
45. Piccinini C, Alvarenga P, Marin AH. Child-Rearing Practices of Brazilian Mothers and Fathers: Predictors and Impact on Child Development. In: Seidl- De-Moura, M.L., editor. Parenting in South American and African Contexts [Internet]. InTech; 2013 [cited December 5, 2021]. Available at: http://www.intechopen.com/books/parenting-in-south-american-and-african-con-texts/child-rearing-practices-of-brazilian-mothers-and-fathers-predictors-and-impact-on-child-development.
46. Sayer LC, Bianchi SM, Robinson JP. Are parents investing less in children? Trends in mothers’ and fathers’ time with children. Am J Sociol 2004; 110:1–43.
47. Armitage R, Nellums LB. Considering inequalities in the school closure response to COVID-19. Lancet Glob Health 2020; 8:e644.
48. Sprang G, Clark JJ, Whitt-Woosley A. Compassion fatigue, compassion satisfaction, and burnout: factors impacting a professional's quality of life. J Loss Trauma 2007; 12:259–280.
49. Medina HRB, Aguirre RC, Coello-Montecel D, Pacheco PO, Paredes- Aguirre MI. The influence of work-family conflict on burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic: the effect of teleworking overload. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18:10302.
50. Giurge LM, Whillans AV, Yemiscigil A. A multicountry perspective on gender differences in time use during COVID-19. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2021; 118:e2018494118.
51. Lunde L-K, Fløvik L, Christensen JO, et al. The relationship between telework from home and employee health: a systematic review. BMC Public Health 2022; 22:47.
Keywords:

Burnout; COVID-19; parenting; procrastination; telework

Supplemental Digital Content

Copyright © 2022 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine