Search

Objective: Much research on the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrates the unequal impact on men and women in many countries but empirical evidence on later stages of the pandemic remains limited. The objective of this paper is to study differences between men and women in work location, the relative division of childcare, and perceived work-life balance across and throughout different phases of the pandemic using six waves of probability-based survey data collected in the Netherlands between April 2020 and April 2022 (including retrospective pre-pandemic measures). Method: The study used descriptive methods (longitudinal crosstabulations) and multivariate modelling (cross-sectional multinomial logits, with and without moderators) in a repeated cross-sectional design. Results: Results suggest the pandemic is associated with several phase-specific differences between men and women in where they worked and their relative division of childcare in the Netherlands. Men were less likely than women to work fully from home at the start of each lockdown and to work on location during the first lockdown. Amongst parents, fathers increased their share of childcare throughout the first phase of the pandemic, and this increase remains visible at the end of the pandemic. Women in the Netherlands did not experience worse work-life balance than men throughout the pandemic, but mothers did experience worse work-life balance than fathers at various points during the pandemic. Discussion: Our results suggest varying long-term implications for gender inequality in society. Gender differences in work location raise concerns about the possible longer-term impact on gender inequalities in career development. Our findings on childcare suggest that many households have experienced different divisions of childcare at different stages of the pandemic, with some potential for longer-term change. Conclusion: Inequalities between men and women in work, childcare, and wellbeing have neither been alleviated by nor unilaterally worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been a lot of discussion about the role of schools in the transmission of severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, where many countries responded with school closures in 2020. Reopening of primary schools in the Netherlands in February 2021 was sustained by various non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) following national recommendations. Our study attempted to assess the degree of regional implementation and effectiveness of these NPIs in South Limburg, Netherlands. We approached 150 primary schools with a structured questionnaire containing items on the implementation of NPIs, including items on ventilation. Based on our registry of cases, we determined the number of COVID-19 cases linked to each school, classifying cases by their source of transmission. We calculated a crude secondary attack rate by dividing the number of cases of within-school transmission by the total number of children and staff members. Two-sample proportion tests were performed to compare these rates between schools stratified by the presence of a ventilation system and mask mandates for staff members. A total of 69 schools responded. Most implemented NPIs were aimed at students, except for masking mandates, which preferentially targeted teachers over students (63% versus 22%). We observed lower crude secondary attack rates in schools with a ventilation system compared to schools without a ventilation system (1.2% versus 2.8%, p<0.01). Mandatory masking for staff members had no effect on the overall crude secondary attack rate (2.0% versus 2.1%, p = 0.03) but decreased the crude secondary attack rate among staff members (2.3% versus 1.7%, p<0.01). Schools varied in their implementation of NPIs, most of which targeted students. Rates of within-school transmission were higher compared to other studies, possibly due to a lack of proper ventilation. Our research may help improve guidance for primary schools in future outbreaks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The COVID-19 outbreak disrupted regular health care, including the Emergency Department (ED), and resulted in insufficient ICU capacity. Lockdown measures were taken to prevent disease spread and hospital overcrowding. Little is known about the relationship of stringency of lockdown measures on ED utilization. Objective: This study aimed to compare the frequency and characteristics of ED visits during the COVID-19 outbreak in 2020 to 2019, and their relation to stringency of lockdown measures. Material and methods: A retrospective multicentre study among five Dutch hospitals was performed. The primary outcome was the absolute number of ED visits (year 2018 and 2019 compared to 2020). Secondary outcomes were age, sex, triage category, way of transportation, referral, disposition, and treating medical specialty. The relation between stringency of lockdown measures, measured with the Oxford Stringency Index (OSI) and number and characteristics of ED visits was analysed. Results: The total number of ED visits in the five hospitals in 2019 was 165,894, whereas the total number of visits in 2020 was 135,762, which was a decrease of 18.2% (range per hospital: 10.5%-30.7%). The reduction in ED visits was greater during periods of high stringency lockdown measures, as indicated by OSI. Conclusion: The number of ED visits in the Netherlands has significantly dropped during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, with a clear association between decreasing ED visits and increasing lockdown measures. The OSI could be used as an indicator in the management of ED visits during a future pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

COVID-19 has made working from home routine for many. People who have had to maintain their productivity, particularly in physically and/or socially unacceptable home-working situations, experienced one of the pandemic's disadvantages. The experience can vary substantially among individuals as well as by country. This study presents the results of a comparative study of the Netherlands and Korea. Working from home was not uncommon in the Netherlands before the pandemic; however, in Korea, employers adopted working from home from its start, and that increased rapidly. An online survey enabled us to compare the physical and social conditions of current home workspaces in both countries, to understand how well-equipped they were to support people who had to work from home. We studied the changes in productivity and physical/mental health before and during COVID-19, to learn how people coped with working from home in both countries. Contrary to expectations, Koreans showed better scores than people in the Netherlands, in terms of changes in health and productivity. This article discusses various aspects of that result, such as satisfaction with home workspace, housing type, job position and prior experience, compulsoriness, and frequency of working from home. Relieving stress and concentration appeared to be the most important dimensions of telecommuters' satisfaction with working from home environments in both countries. The results are the basis for suggesting the development of strategies for a desirable WFH environment, considering different background contexts, experiences and cultures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]