2021 Volume 3 Issue 1 Article ID: 2020-0017-OA
Objectives: This study aimed to investigate workplace measures implemented in response to COVID-19 during the outbreak in Japan from T1 (March 2020) to T2 (May 2020), focusing on the disparities by company size and industry. Methods: A longitudinal study was conducted using a cohort of full-time employees, starting with the baseline online survey on March 19–22, 2020 (T1). An online follow-up survey was conducted on May 22–26, 2020 (T2). The McNemar test was used to assess differences between T1 and T2 in the proportion of implemented measurements. Analysis of covariance was performed to compare the differences in the number of implemented measures across groups classified by company size or industry, adjusting for sex and age. Results: A total of 1,032 participants (response rate: 72.6%) completed the follow-up questionnaire. The final analytic sample comprised n=987. The workplace measures involving the delivery of information on COVID-19 were 88.4% at T2, which significantly increased from T1 (increased 8.6%, p<0.001). As well as the T1 survey, respondents in the smaller companies reported a significantly smaller number of measures, but the disparity compared to large companies became small. The same trend was observed in the type of industry. Conclusions: This study showed an improvement in the implementation of preventive measures in response to COVID-19 in the workplace in Japan through the first wave outbreak. The disparity between companies of different sizes and from different industries decreased at T2, suggesting that company groups that initially implemented fewer measures caught up.
∙ There was no report over time during the COVID-19 outbreak concerning (i) how much progress was achieved and (ii) whether the progress increased or reduced the disparity by company size and industry.
∙ Most of the measures were reported to be implemented greater than 50% respondents at T2.
∙ Respondents in the smaller companies reported a significantly smaller number of measures, but the disparity became small.
Workplace preventive measures of new coronavirus (COVID-19) infections have been expected to be implemented immediately in the pandemic, based on the scientific evidence about its high transmissibility and more asymptomatic patients compared to previous infections1,2). The United States Centers for Disease Control updated the guideline in May 2020 to adopt evidence-based appropriate workplace measures: conducting daily health checks, hazard assessments of the workplace, promoting mask-wearing, social distancing in the workplace, and improving ventilation systems3). In Japan, the Japan Society for Occupational Health, in conjunction with the Japanese Society of Travel Medicine, also added a supplement on the guideline for preventive measures of COVID-19 in the workplace in June 2020: medium- to long-term measures after business resumption (i.e., behavioral change, including avoidance of handshaking; environmental optimization, such as the change of the meeting room layout; workstyle reform, including resigning of paperwork and stamp approvement) and prevention of discrimination against employees infected with COVID-194). The Japan Business Federation (Keidanren) declared the essential policy in its guideline for COVID-19, which emphasized the employer’s responsibility to establishing and revising the preventive measures flexibly, considering the specific characteristics of their workplace, industry, and the phase of pandemic5).
To date, few reports have been created on the extent to which the workplace measures have been implemented in real settings. In a previous cross-sectional study, we reported that the proportion of respondents receiving the announcement of measures taken was high (79.9%), as were proportions of some of the workplace measures6). However, the number of measures implemented was low in smaller-sized companies (less than 50 employees) and companies in retail, wholesale, and transportation industries6). There was no report over time during the COVID-19 outbreak concerning (i) how much progress was achieved and (ii) whether the progress increased or reduced the disparity by company size and industry.
The aim of this study was (i) to investigate a longitudinal change in the implementation of workplace measures during the first huge outbreak of COVID-19 in Japan from T1 (March 2020) to T2 (May 2020) and (ii) to investigate whether the disparity by company size and industry increased or diminished. The study would contribute to the government planning an effective and equitable implementation of the workplace measures respond to COVID-19 outbreak.
The cohort, selected from the panel of an Internet survey company in February 2019, comprised 4,120 full-time employees aged 20–59 years living in Japan. The sample contained an equal number of participants in each of the eight cells stratified by gender and age (20–29, 30–39, 40–49, and 50–59 years). The longitudinal analysis of data collected from online surveys was conducted within that cohort6,7). The participants were invited to complete the baseline survey of this study online on March 19–22, 2020 (T1). After excluding the unemployed, they were further invited to fill out a follow-up survey on May 22–26, 2020 (T2), about 1.5 months after the Japanese Cabinet office declared a state of emergency in response to COVID-198).
The Research Ethics Committee of the Graduate School of Medicine/Faculty of Medicine, University of Tokyo, approved the study protocol (No. 10856-(3)). The study followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines9).
Participant recruitmentThe entire sample comprising full-time employees living in Japan was eligible for T1 and T2. Details regarding the sampling procedure are described elsewhere6,7). Potential candidates who received the invitation from the Internet survey company to complete the online survey accessed the website and completed the T1 online questionnaire. They participated in the research after reading the ethical and privacy considerations related to COVID-19. A total of 1,468 participants completed the T1 questionnaire (response rate: 35.1%). After excluding unemployed respondents (n=27), we surveyed 1,441 respondents on May 22–26, 2020 (T2). A total of 1,032 participants (response rate: 72.6%) completed the follow-up questionnaire at T2. The participants received a small token as a reward.
Measurements Workplace measures to respond to COVID-19: Information delivery by the company (notifications and announcements)An original question asked about the measures that the company has taken concerning COVID-19. “Has any information (notifications or announcements) been sent from the company to employees regarding this new coronavirus infection?” The response options were “Yes,” “No,” or “Unknown” dichotomized into Yes or No (“No” and “unknown”).
Workplace measures in response to COVID-19: Preventive workplace measuresThe list of measures adopted in the workplace in response to COVID-19 was originally developed based on the previous literature of novel influenza (H1N1)10) and discussion among occupational physicians (NS, RK, and NK) who engaged in workplace COVID-19 prevention in Japan. The items were categorized into several categories, (a) prevention to be taken by individuals; (b) prevention to reduce the risk of infection in the workplace; (c) criteria and procedures for waiting at home and for clinical contact; (d) temporary leave when infected or in a pandemic; (e) information about consideration for high-risk people; (f) introduction of reliable information resources; and (g) information on the duration of special measures. The scale included 23 items at T1, and the authors added two items at T2, responding to the current situation of the outbreak (i.e., dissemination of the online meetings, local pandemic in Japan). These two items were “Reduce face-to-face meetings (switch to online meetings)” and “Refrain from domestic business trips,” which were categorized as preventive measures to reduce the risk of infection in the workplace. The response options were “already implemented before March 23, 2020,” “newly implemented after March 23, 2020,” “not implemented,” or “not applicable in my work.” The March 23 time-point was the day that followed the day on which the T1 survey was completed, so we detected the newly implemented measures after the T1 survey. The last response option (i.e., not applicable) was not used for items assessing preventive measures taken by individuals (e.g., hand washing). The response was dichotomized as Yes (“already implemented before March 23, 2020” and “newly implemented after March 23, 2020”) or No (“not implemented” and “not applicable for my work”). We calculated the number of preventive measures among 23 items at both T1 and T2 and 25 items at T2.
Demographic variablesSocio-demographic variables, including sex, age, type of industry, company size, occupational type, and geographic regions, were collected at the T1 survey. The type of industry was classified into 14 groups according to Japan Standard Industrial Classification by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications11). Company size was categorized into ≥1,000, 300–999, 50–299, and <50 employees. The occupational type was classified as managers, non-manual, and manual workers. The living area was shown using the standard classification of the geographic regions in Japan (Hokkaido, Tohoku, Kanto, Chubu, Kansai [Kinki], Chugoku & Shikoku, Kyushu & Okinawa).
Statistical analysisDescriptive analysis was conducted to examine the frequency of the company’s announcements and workplace measures taken (T1: 23 items, T2:25 items) in response to COVID-19 at T1 and T2 by company size and industry. The McNemar test was used to assess differences between T1 and T2 in the proportion of implemented measures.
Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed to compare the difference in the number of implemented measures by company size and industry while adjusting for sex, age, company size, and industry, and we estimated adjusted means and standard errors (SEs). The estimated effect size for ANCOVA was reported in partial Eta squared (η2).
Statistical significance was set as a two-sided p<0.05. SPSS 26.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) was used.
The final sample comprised 987 employees, after excluding participants who quit their job (n=17) and those from a company with unknown size (n=28) from T2 (n=1,032). The participants’ characteristics are shown in Table 1. The mean age was 41.25 (standard deviation [SD], 10.6; range, 21–61) years. Most were in the manufacturing industry (24.4%), in the large company size (≥1,000 employees, 33.7%), non-manual workers (62.7%), and living in Kanto geographic region (39.3%).
| N (%) | Mean (SD) [min - max] | |
|---|---|---|
| Sex | ||
| Male | 498 (50.5) | |
| Female | 489 (49.5) | |
| Age | 41.25 (10.6) [21 – 61] | |
| 20–29 years | 180 (18.2) | |
| 30–39 years | 274 (27.8) | |
| 40–49 years | 256 (25.9) | |
| 50–59 years | 258 (26.1) | |
| ≥60 years | 19 (1.9) | |
| Type of industry | ||
| manufacturing | 241 (24.4) | |
| medical and welfare | 137 (13.9) | |
| retail and wholesale business | 104 (10.5) | |
| finance, insurance, real estate | 83 (8.4) | |
| public service | 75 (7.6) | |
| information and technology services | 75 (7.6) | |
| life-related services and entertainment | 72 (7.3) | |
| professional and technical services | 50 (5.1) | |
| transportation | 43 (4.4) | |
| education and learning support | 44 (4.5) | |
| construction | 36 (3.6) | |
| eating/drinking, hotel business | 14 (1.4) | |
| agriculture and industry | 5 (0.5) | |
| others | 8 (0.8) | |
| Company size | ||
| ≥1,000 employees | 333 (33.7) | |
| 300–999 | 178 (18.0) | |
| 50–299 | 272 (27.6) | |
| <50 | 204 (20.7) | |
| Occupational type | ||
| Managers | 101 (10.2) | |
| Non-manual | 619 (62.7) | |
| Manual | 267 (27.1) | |
| Geographic regions | ||
| Hokkaido | 40 (4.1) | |
| Tohoku | 62 (6.3) | |
| Kanto | 388 (39.3) | |
| Chubu | 175 (17.7) | |
| Kansai (Kinki) | 180 (18.2) | |
| Chugoku & Shikoku | 68 (6.9) | |
| Kyushu & Okinawa | 74 (7.5) |
SD, standard deviation.
The frequencies of implemented measures for COVID-19 at T1 and T2 are reported in Table 2. Any kind of COVID-19 related information delivery from the company at T2 was 88.4%, which significantly increased from T1 (+8.6%, p<0.001). Most measures were reported to be implemented more than 50% respondents at T2, except for refrain from traveling overseas (39.3%), encouragement of staggered working hours (46.4%), changing the working environment (e.g., desk layout, flow lines, installing vinyl curtains) (46.5%), restrictions on the use of employee cafeterias (34.7%), and waiting at home if you have a history of staying abroad (38.9%). The implementation rate of most workplace preventive measures increased from T1 to T2. In particular, enforcement of temperature measurement (+24.0%), disinfection of the work environment (+24.7%), encourage telework (+25.9%), changing the working environment (e.g., desk layout, flow lines, installing vinyl curtains) (+29.2%), and providing information on how long special measures will be taken (+22.5%) increased by more than 20% from T1 to T2. The mean number of measures among 23 items was 14.6 (SD, 5.7) at T2, indicating a significant increase (p<0.001).
| 19–22 March 2020 (N=987) | 22–26 May 2020 (N=987) | p for difference (McNemar) | T2-T1 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | % | ||
| Information delivery by company (notifications and announcements) | 788 | 79.8 | 873 | 88.4 | <0.001 | + 8.6 |
| Workplace measures to respond to COVID-19 | ||||||
| (a) Prevention taken by individuals | ||||||
| Hand washing, gargle enforcement | 873 | 88.4 | 872 | 88.3 | 1.000 | – 0.1 |
| Encouraging finger alcohol disinfection | 857 | 86.8 | 914 | 92.6 | <0.001 | + 5.8 |
| Encourage wearing masks | 791 | 80.1 | 930 | 94.2 | <0.001 | + 14.1 |
| Enforce cough etiquette | 778 | 78.8 | 828 | 83.9 | <0.001 | + 5.1 |
| Enforcement of temperature measurement | 482 | 48.8 | 719 | 72.8 | <0.001 | + 24.0 |
| (b) Prevention to reduce the risk of infection at workplace | ||||||
| Cancel or postpone internal or external business events | 597 | 60.5 | 694 | 70.3 | <0.001 | + 9.8 |
| Disinfection of the work environment | 406 | 41.1 | 650 | 65.9 | <0.001 | + 24.7 |
| Refrain from traveling overseas | 343 | 34.8 | 388 | 39.3 | 0.001 | + 4.6 |
| Restrictions on eating, drinking, and entertainment for work | 337 | 34.1 | 514 | 52.1 | <0.001 | + 17.9 |
| Enforcement of staggered work | 324 | 32.8 | 458 | 46.4 | <0.001 | + 13.6 |
| Encourage telework and telecommuting (including remote work) | 264 | 26.7 | 520 | 52.7 | <0.001 | + 25.9 |
| Changing the working environment (desk layout, flow lines, installing vinyl curtains, etc.) | 171 | 17.3 | 459 | 46.5 | <0.001 | + 29.2 |
| Restrictions on the use of employee cafeterias | 148 | 15.0 | 342 | 34.7 | <0.001 | + 19.7 |
| Reduce face-to-face meetings (switch to online meetings) | NA | NA | 620 | 62.8 | NA | NA |
| Refrain from domestic business trips | NA | NA | 530 | 53.7 | NA | NA |
| (c) Criteria and procedure for waiting at home and clinical contact | ||||||
| Request to refrain from going to work when ill | 759 | 76.9 | 829 | 84.0 | <0.001 | + 7.1 |
| Report request for fever | 696 | 70.5 | 804 | 81.5 | <0.001 | + 10.9 |
| Dissemination of information on home remedies and consultations for COVID-19 | 607 | 61.5 | 694 | 70.3 | <0.001 | +8.8 |
| Waiting at home if you have a history† of staying abroad | 245 | 24.8 | 384 | 38.9 | <0.001 | + 14.1 |
| (d) Temporary leave when infected or pandemic | ||||||
| Providing information on how to deal with infected cases in the workplace | 576 | 58.4 | 721 | 73.0 | <0.001 | + 14.7 |
| Providing information on compensation when waiting at home | 352 | 35.7 | 546 | 55.3 | <0.001 | + 19.7 |
| Provision of information on compensation when taking leave due to infection | 339 | 34.3 | 516 | 52.3 | <0.001 | + 17.9 |
| (e) Information about consideration for high-risk people | ||||||
| Consideration for staff who are at high risk of serious illness in case of infection (elderly people, pregnant women, etc.) | 393 | 39.8 | 575 | 58.3 | <0.001 | + 18.4 |
| (f) Introduction of reliable information resources | ||||||
| Announcement of reliable information collection destinations (such as the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare website) | 415 | 42.0 | 524 | 53.1 | <0.001 | + 11.0 |
| (g) Information on the duration of special measures | ||||||
| Providing information on how long special measures will be taken | 324 | 32.8 | 546 | 55.3 | <0.001 | + 22.5 |
| Mean (SD) [min - max] | Mean (SD) [min - max] | |||||
| The number of preventive measures among 23 items | 11.2 (5.9) [0 – 23] | 14.6 (5.7) [0 – 23] | <0.001 | NA | ||
| Implementation of any of 23 preventive measures | 955 | 96.8 | 978 | 99.1 | <0.001 | + 2.3 |
| The number of preventive measures among 25 items | NA | 15.8 (6.4) [0 – 25] | NA | NA | ||
| Implementation of any of 25 preventive measures | NA | NA | 978 | 99.1 | NA | NA |
SD, standard deviation.
† The item was not restricted to any countries or any period about the history of staying abroad.
The mean number of implemented measures among 23 items was compared by company size and industry (shown in Table 3). As well as the T1 survey, respondents in smaller companies reported fewer number of measures at T2 (F=79.3, p<0.001), but the F values and effect size were small compared to T1 (T1: partial η2=0.229, T2: η2=0.197; respectively). The same trend was observed for the types of industry (T1: F=3.4, η2=0.045; T2: F=2.9, η2=0.038). Among the various types of industry, public service (adjusted mean=15.4), finance, insurance, real estate (15.2), eating/drinking, hotel business (15.1), and medical and welfare (15.0) adopted a greater number of measures. The transportation industry implemented the lowest number (10.7) at T2, as well as at T1.
| Crude | Adjusted | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | T2 | T1 | T2 | |||
| N | Crude mean (SD) | Crude mean (SD) | Adjusted mean (SE) † | Adjusted mean (SE) † | ||
| Company size | ||||||
| >1000 employees | 333 | 14.3 (5.1) | 17.1 (4.5) | 13.8 (0.3) | 16.6 (0.3) | |
| 300–999 | 178 | 12.7 (5.0) | 16.4 (4.8) | 12.3 (0.4) | 16.0 (0.4) | |
| 50–299 | 272 | 10.0 (5.3) | 13.9 (5.3) | 9.6 (0.3) | 13.6 (0.4) | |
| <50 | 204 | 6.3 (4.9) | 10.0 (5.8) | 6.2 (0.4) | 9.8 (0.4) | |
| Test for difference | F = 95.6, p<0.001. | F = 79.3, p<0.001. | F = 95.6, p<0.001 | F = 79.3, p<0.001. | ||
| Effect size (η2) | 0.254 | 0.218 | 0.229 | 0.197 | ||
| Type of industry | ||||||
| manufacturing | 241 | 11.9 (6.7) | 15.3 (6.2) | 11.0 (0.3) | 14.5 (0.3) | |
| medical and welfare | 137 | 11.3 (4.3) | 14.7 (4.5) | 11.7 (0.4) | 15.0 (0.4) | |
| retail and wholesale business | 104 | 9.4 (5.9) | 13.4 (6.7) | 9.9 (0.4) | 13.9 (0.5) | |
| public service | 75 | 13.2 (4.2) | 16.5 (4.0) | 11.9 (0.5) | 15.4 (0.5) | |
| finance, insurance, real estate | 83 | 12.2 (6.0) | 16.2 (4.8) | 11.0 (0.5) | 15.2 (0.5) | |
| information and technology services | 75 | 14.0 (5.2) | 15.9 (5.6) | 12.9 (0.5) | 14.9 (0.5) | |
| life-related services and entertainment | 72 | 9.4 (6.2) | 13.0 (5.9) | 9.7 (0.6) | 13.4 (0.6) | |
| professional and technical services | 50 | 9.2 (5.9) | 13.5 (6.1) | 9.6 (0.7) | 14.0 (0.7) | |
| transportation | 43 | 8.3 (5.2) | 11.0 (5.8) | 8.0 (0.7) | 10.7 (0.7) | |
| education and learning support | 44 | 11.3 (5.0) | 14.7 (4.9) | 11.0 (0.7) | 14.4 (0.7) | |
| construction | 36 | 9.3 (5.3) | 12.6 (4.7) | 10.1 (0.8) | 13.3 (0.8) | |
| eating/drinking, hotel business | 14 | 9.9 (5.9) | 14.7 (5.1) | 10.2 (1.3) | 15.1 (1.3) | |
| agriculture and industry | 5 | 5.6 (6.5) | 7.8 (6.3) | 9.1 (2.2) | 11.2 (2.2) | |
| others | 8 | 10.1 (6.9) | 14.1 (7.0) | 10.7 (1.7) | 14.9 (1.7) | |
| Test for difference | F = 3.4, p<0.001. | F = 2.9, p<0.001. | F = 3.4, p<0.001. | F = 2.9, p<0.001. | ||
| Effect size (η2) | 0.072 | 0.062 | 0.045 | 0.038 | ||
SD, standard deviation; SE standard error.
†Estimated means and SEs using analysis of covariance on sex, age, company size, and industry.
* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, significant difference from the first category
The prevalence with which companies implemented almost all of the measures showed a significant difference by company size and industry (See Appendix). In small companies (<50 employees), as opposed to larger companies, the rate of “Not implemented” was higher; for some items, specifically, reduce face-to-face meetings (switch to online meetings) (74.5%), request to refrain from going to work when ill (33.3%), dissemination of information on home remedies and consultations for COVID-19 (50.5%), and report fever (42.2%). Comparing industries, the transportation and construction showed a high rate of “Not implemented” regarding measures for temporary leave when infected and pandemic (i.e., providing information on compensation when waiting at home [67.4% in transportation and 69.4% in construction], when taking leave due to infection [69.8% in transportation and 69.4% in construction]). The detailed information about each workplace measure by company size and industry is reported in the Appendix.
The implementation of most of the workplace measures increased from T1 (March 2020) to T2 (May 2020). Measures which were already implemented well at T1, such as prevention taken by individuals, promoting social distancing (canceling or postponing internal or external business events), refraining from going to work when ill, and providing information about how to deal with infected cases in the workplace, showed increased rates of implementation at T2. The measures that were modestly or less implemented at T1 were also more frequently implemented at a later time-point. At T1, respondents in the smaller companies and some industries (i.e., transportation) reported fewer number of measures implemented. However, the disparity between companies of different sizes and from different industries decreased at T2.
Most of the respondents (88.4%) received some COVID-19 related announcements by the company at T2. Yet, one in ten participants has not still been informed, indicating that the employer did not state the measures and provide appropriate information to protect employees’ health. Furthermore, some measures were still reported to be implemented less than half of respondents, such as changing the working environment (e.g., desk layout, flow lines, installing vinyl curtains), despite great improvement from T1 to T2. Workplace social distance can be achieved at every worksite, and it has shown its effectiveness in reducing the risk of being infected12). It is important to increase the distance not only between employees and customers/clients but also between individual employees. To avoid confined/crowded workplaces and refrain from close contact with co-workers, employers should seek advice from occupational health professionals. We should note that respondents who worked from home may have answered “not applicable” to this question. In addition, employees may not recognize workplace measures correctly because of their wide variety. For instance, avoiding sitting down face-to-face or having lunch by spacing out is also included in changing the working environment13).
Among the measures that improved from T1 to T2, some showed a more significant improvement compared to others: enforcement of body temperature measurement (T1, 48.8%; T2, 72.8%), disinfection of the work environment (T1, 41.1%; T2, 65.9%), encourage telework and telecommuting (T1, 26.7%; T2, 52.7%), changing the working environment (T1, 17.3%; T2, 46.5%), and providing information on how long special measures will be taken (T1, 32.8%; T2, 55.3%). The guidelines that were revised during T1 and T2 to emphasize the health-checkup of employees and environmental sanitation affected body temperature and disinfection measures3,4). The actual implementation of remote work in Japan was 25.7% at the end of May, though 35.2% of Japanese employees received the recommendations from their companies/organizations, reported in the private company’s survey (n=20,000)14). Compared to the data, our study showed a high proportion of companies encouraging telework, which may have been due to a large number of companies belonging to large-sized companies. Information on how long the measures would be taken was also disseminated. Another possible reason is that the situation is constantly changing, so such an announcement also has to be changed.
The number of measures implemented in small-to-medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) was lower compared to large companies. However, this disparity diminished from T1 to T2. The possible reason for it may be that the Japanese government declared a state of national emergency on April 16, which continued until May 25. Moreover, a previous study reported that the economic effect of COVID-19 burdened mainly small businesses, including layoffs and closures, due to its financial fragility15). This study thus implied that SME owners became aware of the social benefits of implementing all possible preventive measures at the workplace to keep their business.
Nevertheless, the low number of measures implemented in SMEs is considered partly due to the lack of occupational health resources in SMEs. For example, companies with less than 50 employees are not obligated to appoint an occupational health physician. Therefore, regional service sectors should keep providing and disseminating relevant information to them16,17).
Among various types of industries, some industries, like public service, finance/insurance/real estate, eating/drinking, hotel business, and medical and welfare, implemented a greater number of preventive measures compared to others. Service workers in these industries might not be able to avoid commuting or going to their workplaces. Work in capital intensive factories or hospitality and leisure tends to be harder to perform online18), so the findings suggested that these companies paid sufficient attention to control the risk of COVID-19 infections. However, we should note the possibility of the confusion between measures targeting “customers” and “them (i.e., employees).” On the other hand, the transportation industry showed a low rate of implementation of measurements. While some measures (e.g., remote work) cannot be applicable by all industries, the study revealed that transportation and construction industries were least likely to adopt measures providing information of compensation when they are ill or stay home and of consideration for high-risk people. The guidelines for a specific industry, which are being adopted worldwide, emphasize training workers on the COVID-19 prevention plan in the workplace19). The provision of appropriate information and training opportunities may be needed in each industry.
LimitationsThis study has several limitations. Since the sample was recruited through an Internet survey company, the generalizability of the findings to general workers is limited. The data was collected using self-reported questionnaires. The understanding of COVID-19 measures might vary by employees’ status and positions. This study was conducted among employees; therefore, the implementation rate might be underestimated. Even if companies implement measures, employees may not be aware of them. Yet, measures will only be effective if employees are trained and informed. Thus, it is still important to know the prevalence of workplace measures implemented in response to COVID-19 from employees’ perspectives. Besides, the scale of workplace measures was developed through discussion among professions, and as such, it is not fully evidence-based nor comprehensive. For example, we did not collect data on introducing personal protective equipment, ventilation, and internal rules to avoid close contact with workers.
This study showed great overall improvement in the implementation of preventive measures in response to COVID-19 in the workplace in Japan through the 1st wave of the pandemic. The disparity between companies by size and industry was reduced over time, suggesting that preventive measures have been steadily disseminated in Japan. However, additional support for small businesses and some specific industry is still needed.
Conflict of Interest DisclosuresNK reports grants from Fujitsu LTD., SBAtWork Corp., personal fees from Occupational Health Foundation, Japan Dental Association, Sekisui Chemicals, Junpukai Health Care Center, Osaka Chamber of Commerce and Industry, non-financial support from Japan Productivity Center, outside the submitted work.
Funding/SupportThis work was supported by internal funds of the Department of Mental Health, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo.
Role of the Funder/SponsorThe sponsors played no role in the design of the study; in collecting or managing the study; in data analysis; in the interpretation of the data; in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Approval of the research protocolThe Research Ethics Committee approved this study of the Graduate School of Medicine/Faculty of Medicine, The University of Tokyo (No. 10856-(3)).
Author contributionNK was in charge of this study, supervising the process and providing his expert opinion on the subject. NS and NK organized the study design. The questionnaire was created through discussions with collaborators (RK and KT). NS, MK, US, HA, and MI analyzed the data. NS and KI wrote the first draft of the manuscript, and all other authors revised the manuscript critically. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.
Supplementary materialThis article contains supplementary material (Appendix), which is available in the online version (doi: 10.1539/eohp.2020-0017-OA)
