Volume 29, Number 2—February 2023
Research
Relationship between Telework Experience and Presenteeism during COVID-19 Pandemic, United States, March–November 2020
Table 2
Characteristic | Worked onsite during illness* |
Adjusted odds ratio (95% CI)† | |
---|---|---|---|
Yes, n = 318 | No, n = 629 | ||
Telework experience before illness | |||
Yes | 44 (21.5) | 161 (78.5) | 0.45 (0.30–0.68) |
No |
274 (36.9) |
468 (63.1) |
Referent |
COVID-19 case | |||
Yes | 51 (22.1) | 180 (77.9) | 0.36 (0.24–0.53) |
No |
267 (37.3) |
449 (62.7) |
Referent |
Telework experience before illness: Yes | |||
COVID-19 case | |||
Yes | 2 (6.5) | 29 (93.6) | 0.16 (0.03–0.82) |
No |
42 (24.1) |
132 (75.9) |
Referent |
Telework experience before illness: No | |||
COVID-19 case | |||
Yes | 49 (24.5) | 151 (75.5) | 0.38 (0.26–0.57) |
No | 225 (41.5) | 317 (58.5) | Referent |
*Among 318 persons categorized as having worked onsite during illness, 58 persons worked both onsite and remotely. Persons categorized as not having worked onsite during illness consisted of persons who did not work or solely teleworked. †Dependent variable in the multi-level logistic regression model is worked onsite during illness (0 = No, 1 = Yes). Independent variables are telework experience before illness (0 = No, 1 = Yes), COVID-19 case (0 = No, 1 = Yes), race/ethnicity, education, healthcare personnel status, hours typically worked per week before illness, illness onset period, and study site.
Page created: December 06, 2022
Page updated: January 21, 2023
Page reviewed: January 21, 2023
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.