Systematic review of empiric studies on lockdowns, workplace closures, and other non-pharmaceutical interventions in non-healthcare workplaces during the initial year of the COVID-19 pandemic: benefits and selected unintended consequences.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a systematic review aimed to evaluate the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions within non-healthcare workplaces and community-level workplace closures and lockdowns on COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, selected mental disorders, and employment outcomes in workers or the general population. METHODS: The inclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies of interventions. The exclusion criteria included modeling studies. Electronic searches were conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, and other databases from January 1, 2020, through May 11, 2021. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Meta-analysis and sign tests were performed. RESULTS: A total of 60 observational studies met the inclusion criteria. There were 40 studies on COVID-19 outcomes, 15 on anxiety and depression symptoms, and five on unemployment and labor force participation. There was a paucity of studies on physical distancing, physical barriers, and symptom and temperature screening within workplaces. The sign test indicated that lockdown reduced COVID-19 incidence or case growth rate (23 studies, p < 0.001), reproduction number (11 studies, p < 0.001), and COVID-19 mortality or death growth rate (seven studies, p < 0.05) in the general population. Lockdown did not have any effect on anxiety symptoms (pooled standardized mean difference = -0.02, 95% CI: -0.06, 0.02). Lockdown had a small effect on increasing depression symptoms (pooled standardized mean difference = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.10, 0.21), but publication bias could account for the observed effect. Lockdown increased unemployment (pooled mean difference = 4.48 percentage points, 95% CI: 1.79, 7.17) and decreased labor force participation (pooled mean difference = -2.46 percentage points, 95% CI: -3.16, -1.77). The risk of bias for most of the studies on COVID-19 or employment outcomes was moderate or serious. The risk of bias for the studies on anxiety or depression symptoms was serious or critical. CONCLUSIONS: Empiric studies indicated that lockdown reduced the impact of COVID-19, but that it had notable unwanted effects. There is a pronounced paucity of studies on the effect of interventions within still-open workplaces. It is important for countries that implement lockdown in future pandemics to consider strategies to mitigate these unintended consequences. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration # CRD42020182660.

Relationship between Telework Experience and Presenteeism during COVID-19 Pandemic, United States, March-November 2020.

Persons with COVID-19-like illnesses are advised to stay home to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. We assessed relationships between telework experience and COVID-19 illness with work attendance when ill. Adults experiencing fever, cough, or loss of taste or smell who sought healthcare or COVID-19 testing in the United States during March-November 2020 were enrolled. Adults with telework experience before illness were more likely to work at all (onsite or remotely) during illness (87.8%) than those with no telework experience (49.9%) (adjusted odds ratio 5.48, 95% CI 3.40-8.83). COVID-19 case-patients were less likely to work onsite (22.1%) than were persons with other acute respiratory illnesses (37.3%) (adjusted odds ratio 0.36, 95% CI 0.24-0.53). Among COVID-19 case-patients with telework experience, only 6.5% worked onsite during illness. Telework experience before illness gave mildly ill workers the option to work and improved compliance with public health recommendations to stay home during illness.

Examination of Sleep and Obesity in Children and Adolescents in the United States.

PURPOSE: This study contributes to the growing literature on the association between sleep and obesity by examining the associations between hours of sleep, consistency of bedtime, and obesity among children in the US. DESIGN: Analysis of a nationally representative sample of non-institutionalized children from the 2016-17 National Survey of Children's Health. SETTING: US, national. SUBJECTS: Children ages 10-17 years (n = 34,640). MEASURES: Parent reported weeknight average hours of sleep and consistency of bedtime. Body mass index classified as underweight, normal, overweight or obesity using parent-reported child height and weight information, classified using CDC BMI-for-Age Growth Charts. ANALYSIS: Multivariate logistic regression models were used to estimate associations between measures of sleep and body mass index weight category adjusting for individual, household and neighborhood characteristics. RESULTS: An additional hour of sleep was associated with 10.8% lower odds of obesity, net of consistency in bedtime. After controlling for sleep duration, children who usually went to bed at the same time on weeknights had lower odds of obesity (24.8%) relative to children who always went to bed at the same time. CONCLUSION: Sleep duration is predictive of lower odds of obesity in US children and adolescents. Some variability in weeknight bedtime is associated with lower odds of obesity, though there were no additional benefits to extensive variability in bedtime.