Quality of life and associated factors on employees of a public university working remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic

INTRODUCTION: The pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 imposed restrictions to movement, generating new work dynamics especially in the education sector, where remote working has become the rule. The overlapping of work-related and domestic tasks and the fear of the virus generated an additional burden to workers, with unknown effects on their quality of life. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the quality of life of employees of the education sector who were working remotely during the pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and identify associated factors. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study performed with a sample of 317 government employees of a federal university between August 25 2020 and September 11 2020. Standardized questionnaires concerning sociodemographic and economic aspects were constructed using the Google Forms tool. The European Health Interview Survey - Quality of Life 8-item index was used to assess quality of life. Multiple linear regression was used to check for associations between variables using quality of life scores as outcome (alpha value of 5%). This research proposal was approved by the National Research Ethics Commission, with a Certificate of Presentation for Ethical Appreciation No. 33636220.1.0000.0056. RESULTS: The European Health Interview Survey - Quality of Life 8-item index resulted in mean adjusted scores of 3.5 ± 1.9. Quality of life was independently associated with age (β = 0.01, 95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.02, p = 0.015), physical activity (β = 0.19, 95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.38, p = 0.049), smoking habits (β = 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.19 to 0.88, p = 0.002), having a dedicated workspace (β = 0.14, 95% confidence interval 0.02 to 0.26, p = 0.023), performing housework (β =-0.20, 95% confidence interval-0.32 to-0.08, p < 0.001), financial difficulties (β =-0.26, 95% confidence interval-0.40 to-0.12, p < 0.001), and the impact of social distancing at work (β =-0.33, 95% confidence interval-0.47 to-0.19, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The level of quality of life within the sample was reasonable; it was higher among older participants who were physically active and did not smoke, and lower when the socioeconomic situation was unfavorable. This highlights the importance of constructing support strategies while the effects of the pandemic linger.