Working From Home During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to measure the association of working from home (WFH) with work productivity loss due to caregiving responsibilities or health problems during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of family/friend caregivers (n = 150 WFH/75 non-WFH) and patients (n = 95/91) who worked during the past 7 days in May and July 2020, respectively. Absenteeism and presenteeism were measured using the Valuation of Lost Productivity questionnaire. RESULTS: Working from home was associated with higher odds of absenteeism (odds ratio, 2.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.11 to 5.77) and presenteeism (2.79; 1.26 to 6.18) among caregivers and higher odds of presenteeism among patients (2.78; 1.13 to 6.84). However, among caregivers with absenteeism more than 0 days, WFH was significantly associated with fewer absent workdays. CONCLUSIONS: Working from home was not associated with overall absenteeism and presenteeism in caregivers or patients. Working from home allows a more flexible and inclusive workplace without impacting productivity, although further research is needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".