Recognition of COVID-19 with occupational origin: a comparison between European countries.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to present an overview of the formal recognition of COVID-19 as occupational disease (OD) or injury (OI) across Europe. METHODS: A COVID-19 questionnaire was designed by a task group within COST-funded OMEGA-NET and sent to occupational health experts of 37 countries in WHO European region, with a last update in April 2022. RESULTS: The questionnaire was filled out by experts from 35 countries. There are large differences between national systems regarding the recognition of OD and OI: 40% of countries have a list system, 57% a mixed system and one country an open system. In most countries, COVID-19 can be recognised as an OD (57%). In four countries, COVID-19 can be recognised as OI (11%) and in seven countries as either OD or OI (20%). In two countries, there is no recognition possible to date. Thirty-two countries (91%) recognise COVID-19 as OD/OI among healthcare workers. Working in certain jobs is considered proof of occupational exposure in 25 countries, contact with a colleague with confirmed infection in 19 countries, and contact with clients with confirmed infection in 21 countries. In most countries (57%), a positive PCR test is considered proof of disease. The three most common compensation benefits for COVID-19 as OI/OD are disability pension, treatment and rehabilitation. Long COVID is included in 26 countries. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 can be recognised as OD or OI in 94% of the European countries completing this survey, across different social security and embedded occupational health systems.

[Impact of work place stresses on work ability index in patients with depressive disorders].

INTRODUCTION: Depression seriously affects one's ability to perform work tasks and function at work. We studied the impact of both the individual and work factors on work ability index in patients suffering from depression. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The prospective study, which was conducted by using questionnaires, included 210 patients with depression, who had been on sick leave from 60 to 360 days. The individual factors were evaluated by the standardized abridged form of Occupational Stress Questionnaire, while the work place factors in relation to work ability were evaluated by the work ability index. RESULTS: Poor work ability was observed in 151 (71%) of subjects suffering from depression. All workplace stresses, lack of support by colleagues and supervisors, ergonomically not adjusted work and huge work load are statistically associated with poor work ability index (P=0.001). More than 95% of variables of the evaluated work ability index are the result of varying in the group of stresses at work place (R2=0.95). Perception of bad health condition (Rsq=0.412, P=0.001), low level of life satisfaction (Rsq=0.309, P=0.001), low level of motivation and work knowledge (Rsq=0.309, P=0.001) are predictors for poor work ability. The work ability cannot be related with age and sex. CONCLUSION: The key activities for maintaining the work ability at the times when epidemic of depression emerges, as it is nowadays, are timely carrying out the psycho-treatments, mental and professional rehabilitation, occupational therapy and adapted work place.