ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Work from Home or Bring Home the Work? Burnout and
Procrastination in Brazilian Workers During the
COVID-19 Pandemic
Daniel Luccas Arenas, MD, Anna Viduani, BA, Ana Margareth Siqueira Bassols, PhD,
and Simone Hauck, PhD
Objective: To investigate burnout and procrastination in a sample of Brazil-
ian workers during the COVID-19 pandemic according to their current work
mode. Methods: This cross-sectional study used data from an online survey
conducted in 2020: 435 workers were included. The Copenhagen Burnout
Inventory and the Irrational Procrastination Scale were used to access
burnout and procrastination respectively. Results: There was no difference
between workers working from home (WFH) and at face-to-face work
regarding burnout symptoms. However, the WFH group had higher levels
of procrastination. Clinically significant levels of burnout were associated
with being female, increased childcare load and living with children under
12years old. Conclusions: WFH may have more advantages than disadvan-
tages in ideal conditions. However, work-life imbalances seem to be a key
aspect regarding distress among workers WFH, especially in women with
small children.
Keywords: Burnout, COVID-19, parenting, procrastination, telework
W ork is a central part of human life, influencing patterns of
identity and sociability, interests, political behavior, family
models, and lifestyles.1 In recent years, the work scenario has been
changing rapidly and increasingly due to advances in information
and communication technologies; and cultural, social, environmen-
tal, and economic changes. Different work configurations and labor
relations have emerged at an unprecedented pace, demanding quick
responses from employers, workers, and labor legislations.2,3
Among the changes in the work scenario, telework stands out,
as it allows employees to carry out their duties and responsibilities
from an offsite location other than the official workplace. This work
configuration emerged in the 70 s during the oil crisis4 but has been
progressively more used in high-income countries (HICs) and, more
recently, in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).5,6 Among
the reasons for the greater adoption of telework are reduced
operating costs, greater access to virtual communication devices,
From the Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
(Dr Arenas, Ms Viduani, Dr Bassols, and Dr Hauck); Hospital de Clı́nicas de
Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil (Dr Bassols and Dr Hauck).
This research received non-specific grant from any funding agency in the public,
commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Ethical considerations: All procedures performed in this study involving human
participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional
and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and
its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The study was
approved by the Bioethics Committee of the Hospital de Clı́nicas de Porto
Alegre (CAEE: 32480720.1.0000.5327). Informed consent was obtained
from all individual participants included in the study via Survey Monkey1
online platform.
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Supplemental digital contents are available for this article. Direct URL citation
appears in the printed text and is provided in the HTML and PDF versions of
this article on the journal’s Web site (www.joem.org).
Address correspondence to: Daniel Luccas Arenas, MD, Department of Psychia-
try, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Rua Ramiro
Barcelos, 2400, 2nd Floor, Porto Alegre, RS 90035-003, Brazil (dan.are-
nas@gmail.com).
Copyright © 2022 American College of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine
DOI: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000002526
JOEM  Volume 64, Number 5, May 2022
Copyright © 2022 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
greater flexibility and autonomy for employees, greater perfor-
mance, less emission of air pollutants, and less urban conges-
tion.2,5,7 –9
With the COVID-19 pandemic and the containment measures
to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2, including school and work-
place closures, stay-at-home orders, and travel restrictions,10 the
number of people working from home (WFH) ¼ an arrangement in
which the worker performs their work activities at home ¼ has
increased dramatically.6 In this sense, the International Labor
Organization (ILO) estimated that, during the second quarter of
2020, 17.4% of the world’s workers were WFH, a significant
difference from the pre-pandemic scenario, in which only 7.9%
of the global workforce adhered to this modality.11
While pre-pandemic studies link remote work to lower
levels of stress and exhaustion under ideal circumstances,2,12 both
advantages and disadvantages of telework seem to be mediated by
work conditions and demands,12 available resources, family
demands, and workspace.8,13 Individual factors, such as gender,
also seem to exert influence on the well-being of workers who
work from home.8 Additionally, WFH can contribute to a blurring
of the boundaries between workspace and home space, deepening
preexisting gender-related burdens related to formal work, house-
work, and childcare.
In this sense, workers who WFH during the pandemic seem to
show lower levels of physical and mental well-being14 and higher
levels of perceived stress and burnout15 compared with the prepan-
demic scenario. Age, female gender, having no previous experience
in telework, difficulty in the workspace, unhealthy lifestyle habits,
children at home, workload, communication difficulties, distrac-
tions during work time, and procrastination were associated with
worse outcomes.14-16
Such abrupt structural changes and potential reduction in
social interaction poised by the COVID-19 pandemic generate
concerns on the health and well-being of workers. Among the
unprecedented challenges for those who are WFH during a pan-
demic, procrastination (the failure of goal-directed self-regulation
that results in a dysfunctional act of postponing a task17) and
cyberslacking/cyberloafing (the misuse of the internet for personal
purposes during working hours18) are behaviors that can hinder
worker’s well-being. These behaviors seem to be more frequent in
people working from home,8 and they are associated with worse
perceived performance, lower job satisfaction, and higher levels of
work-related exhaustion and/or Burnout Syndrome.19–22 Procrasti-
nation is related to an aversion to less pleasurable tasks and duties.23
It represents a growing and expressive work-related problem with a
prevalence of around 20% in workers before the pandemic.17,24
Despite being more studied in students during the COVID-19
pandemic,25– 27 the limited literature on procrastination in workers
during this period indicates this behavior as one of the main factors
responsible for reduced productivity.28 It is related to higher anxiety,
depression, and stress levels.29 Some interventions based on cogni-
tive-behavioral therapy appear to be effective in reducing this
behavior, although more randomized clinical trials are needed to
assess their effectiveness.30
e333
 Arenas et al
Moreover, recent studies during the COVID-19 pandemic
highlighted the importance of the study of Burnout, a state of
chronic work-related stress31 that can be present in different occu-
pational groups and work modalities.32 The pandemic has impacted
workplace and working conditions, and stressors such as long
working hours, high demands, imbalance between personal and
professional life, low rewards or recognition, and low autonomy
may be more present, leaving workers at a greater risk of Burnout.32
This calls for greater attention to workers mental health, especially
since burnout can have deep physical, psychosocial, occupational,
and economic consequences.33
In this study, we assessed the levels of burnout and procras-
tination in a sample of Brazilian workers during the COVID-19
pandemic according to their current work mode and individual and
family variables. We aimed to investigate whether WFH was related
to burnout scores, and whether individual and family variables could
work as mediators for this relation. By analyzing these variables, we
can identify groups of workers under greater risk of labor-related
distress, contributing to the modest body of literature on the
influence of WFH arrangements on wellbeing and psychosocial
risks in workers in LMICs.
METHODS
Data Source and Study Population
This cross-sectional study used data from an online survey
conducted between July and September 2020, when Brazil became
the world’s COVID-19 epicenter. Containment measures were in
place in a decentralized manner, with most states imposing the
closure of work-related spaces (such as shopping malls), and
schools. In these months, 11% of all Brazilian workers were under
telework arrangements34—in 2018, only 5.2% were WFH.35 In this
sense, participants were recruited by convenience using targeted
advertisement on social media and institutional bulletins of different
professional areas. Facebook and Instagram were used for targeted
advertisements, using the following criteria: adults residing in
Brazil, interest in parenting-related, career development, and labor
associations or unions content. Inclusion criteria were being Brazil-
ian over the age of 18 and currently employed. All participants
included in the study consented to participate and informed consent
was obtained via Survey Monkey1 online platform. The project
was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Hospital de
Clı́nicas de Porto Alegre (CAEE: 32480720.1.0000.5327).
Measures
Sociodemographic and work-related data were collected,
such as gender, family income, ethnicity, marital status, and educa-
tion level. If participants had children, they were asked to inform the
number of children, whether participants lived with them, age-range
of children living at home, and average hours per week dedicated to
childcare before and during the pandemic. Regarding their work,
participants were asked about average hours per week dedicated to
work both before and during the pandemic, changes in role or
position at work, whether they were essential workers, if they
occupied a leadership position at work, and current and usual work
mode. Additionally, 13 variables related to the current work envi-
ronment were collected by a five-point Likert scale in which higher
scores indicated greater agreement.
Burnout was assessed using a Brazilian validated version of
the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI).36 It is a self-report 19-
item questionnaire with five-point Likert scale. Each answer can
range from 0 to 100, and answers for each subscale are summed and
averaged. Therefore, each subscales total can range from 0 to 100,
with higher scores indicating higher levels of burnout. The CBI
includes three sub-dimensions which should be used independently:
Personal Burnout (PB—the degree to which one perceives to be
e334 © 2022 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
Copyright © 2022 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
JOEM  Volume 64, Number 5, May 2022
physically and psychologically exhausted), Work-related Burnout
(WB—the degree to which physical and psychological exhaustion is
perceived concerning work activities), and Client-related Burnout
(CB—the level of exhaustion that a person perceives that stems from
the professional relationship with clients). Continuous scores were
calculated using a simple mean for each sub-dimension. Addition-
ally, a cut-off score of 50 in each subscale was also used, based on
evidence that equal or greater scores indicate clinically significant
levels of burnout.37,38
Procrastination was assessed using a Brazilian validated
version of the Irrational Procrastination Scale (IPS).39 It is a brief
self-report six-item questionnaire with five-point Likert scale, in
which higher scores indicate higher levels of procrastination. The
IPS focuses on irrational delay, characterized by a voluntary delay in
performing a task even though it is disadvantageous.40
Statistical Analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS IBM software
(version 21).41 Descriptive analyses were reported as means and
standard deviations (SD), median and interquartile range (IQR), or
absolute and relative frequencies. To each variable, the Shapiro-Wilk
test was used to assess whether the data followed parametric or
nonparametric distributions. In all cases, inferential statistics were
decided accordingly to the distribution of the data. The groups were
compared with Student T-test (for variables with parametric distribu-
tion) or Mann-Whitney U-test (non-parametric distribution). The chi-
squared test was used to compare categorical variables. ANOVA
(complemented with Tukey) or Kruskal-Wallis test was applied to
compare variables with more than two groups. Parametric analyses
were reported using means and standard deviations (SD), and non-
parametric, median, and IQR. Spearman’s correlation was used to test
the strength and direction of correlations between continuous variables.
The Poisson Regression was performed to control confound-
ing factors related to Burnout scores above the cut-off point. The
regression coefficient exponential (Exp(b)) was calculated along
with their respective confidence interval of 95% (95% CI) to
establish the prevalence ratios. Additionally, the standardized beta
coefficient (b) was presented as a way of comparing the strength of
the association between variables. Enter method was adopted and
the criteria for considering the variable in the model was P < 0.20 in
the bivariate analysis and the criteria for permanence in the model
was P < 0.10 in the final version.
The threshold for statistical significance of 5% (P < 0.05)
was adopted. The analyses were performed using the total score in
IPS and the individual scores of each subscale of CBI. Tables were
created to present the data and the figures were generated in R.42
RESULTS
Sample Characteristics
This study included 435 participants. Table 1 shows the
sociodemographic data of the sample. All participants completed
the IPS and the PB and WB subscales of CBI. 411 participants
completed the CB subscale of the CBI. The means and standard
deviations of the instruments were: IPS 17.05  6.17; PB 51.07
 21.17 (52.9% >50); WB 46.08  21.33 (47.1% >50); CB 40.71
 25.72 (36.3% >50).
Work Mode and Work Environment
Figure 1 presents descriptive data of the variables related to
the work environment according to the mode of work (WFH or
faceto-face work). There was no statistical difference in the com-
parison between these groups, even when controlled for people
whose remote work is not the usual. There was also no statistically
significant difference between these groups in all CBI subscales
scores. However, there was a difference between the groups in the
 JOEM  Volume 64, Number 5, May 2022 Burnout and Procrastination in Brazilian Workers

remote work was not their usual work modality before the pandemic
TABLE 1. Sociodemographic Data (n ¼ 435 (%))
and other workers in the sample (not WFH and WFH as usual
Variables Mean (SD) arrangement) were not statistically significant.
Spearman’s correlation was performed between instrument
Age 38.5 (0.5) scores (IPS and CBI subscales) and the scales related to the work
Sex environment (Supplement 1, http://links.lww.com/JOM/B76). The
Female 309 (716) irrational procrastination score showed a strong inverse correlation
Male 126 (29)
Ethnicity
with the feeling of good productivity at work (P ¼ 0.512,
White 350 (80.5) P < 0.001). The PB and WB scores were inversely correlated with
Mixed 51 (11.7) job satisfaction (PB: P ¼ 0.563, P < 0.001; WB: P ¼ 0.652,
Black 22 (5.1) P < 0.001) and with the sense of balance between professional
Asian 6 (1.4) and personal life (PB: P ¼ 0.558, P < 0.001; WB: P ¼ 0.550,
Other 6 (1.4) P < 0.001). The PB and WB scores were also direct correlated with
Marital status the feeling that work demands negatively affect family life (PB:
Married/stable union 211 (48.5) P ¼ 0.544, P < 0.001; WB: P ¼ 0.587, P < 0.001).
Separated/divorced/widower 42 (9.6)
Single with boy/girlfriend 93 (21.4) Gender and Parenting
Single without boy/girlfriend 89 (20.5)
Income In the comparison between men and women groups, women
<5000 reais 173 (39.8) presented higher levels of burnout in PB and WB, but with no
From 5000 to 10,000 reais 127 (29.2) statistical difference in CB and IPS. Regarding parenting, the parent
>10,000 reais 135 (31) group had lower levels of procrastination and lower levels of
Education level burnout in all CBI subscales than the non-parent group. However,
Ungraduated 88 (20.2) when analyzing the age group of children living at home with their
Graduate 146 (33.6) parents, parents of children under 12 years old presented higher
Postgraduate 201 (46.2) procrastination levels (16.9  0.7, 15  0.5, P ¼ 0.027) and higher
Have children
Yes 187 (43)
burnout levels in all subscales of the CBI: PB 58.3 (IQR 41.8–70.8),
No 248 (57) 41.7 (IQR 29.2–50), P < 0.001; WB 51.8 (IQR 35.7–64.3), 35.7
Lives with the children (IQR 21.4–46.4), P < 0.001; CB 41.7 (IQR 25–54.2), 25 (IQR
Yes 144 (33.1) 12.5–45.8), P ¼ 0.002). When comparing the groups of fathers and
No 291 (66.9) mothers, women had higher levels of burnout in all subscales of the
Age group of children who live with CBI (Table 2).
Under 12 years old 84 (19.3) Table 3 presents the results of a statistically significant
Between 12 and 18 years old 32 (7.4) multiple Poisson regression model to assess the prevalence ratios
Over 18 years old 34 (7.8) of factors associated with scores above the cut-off point of the CBI
Childcare hours per week
Mean (SD) 54.1 (4.2)
subscales. The factors that most increased the chance of presenting
Change in childcare load more than 50 points in PB were: being female (2.45  ), an increase
Yes, increased care load 77 (17.7) in childcare load during the pandemic (1.75  ) and living with
Yes, reduced care load 16 (3.7) children under 12 years old (1.47  ). The factors that increased the
No 94 (43) most the chance of presenting more than 50 points in WB were:
Working from home being female (2.52  ), an increase in childcare load during the
Yes 271 (62.3) pandemic (2.01  ) and living with children under 12 years old
No 164 (37.7) (1.76  ). The factors that most increased the chance of presenting
Working from home is the usual work mode more than 50 points in CB were: income less than 5000 reais
Yes 105 (24.8)
No 327 (75.2)
(approximately 925 dollars during data collection) (3.8  ) and an
Essential services professional increase in childcare load during the pandemic (2.09  ). Exercise
Yes 152 (34.9) regularly was a protective factor for PB, and older age was a
No 283 (65.1) protective factor for WB and CB. These data remain significant
Leadership position even when controlled for working from home, home-schooling, and
Yes 92 (21.1) having help with childcare.
No 293 (67.4)
Not applicable 50 (11.5) DISCUSSION
Change of function or position The results drawn by this cross-sectional study suggest that
Yes 71 (16.3)
No 364 (83.7)
WFH should not be accounted as the single variable related to
Working hours per week burnout among Brazilian workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Mean (SD) 39.5 (0.9) Other variables—especially those related to gender and environ-
Change in workload mental aspects—seem to play a larger role in influencing well-being
Yes, increased workload 144 (33.1) and performance of employees. Moreover, our study did not find
Yes, reduced workload 118 (27.1) differences in Burnout or procrastination scores between workers
No 173 (39.8) who started WFH during the pandemic and other workers in the
sample, as opposed to what has been shown previously in the
SD, standard deviation.
literature.14,15
In this sense, the present study highlights that the advantages
of WFH should be taken cautiously and evaluated in the light of the
IPS, with people in the home-office group presenting higher levels workers’ context, since its benefits seem to be heavily influenced by
of irrational procrastination (Table 2). Analyses comparing burnout work-life balance.36 While previous studies had suggested that
and procrastination scores between workers WFH that referred that WFH appears to have more advantages than disadvantages,8,43,44

© 2022 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine e335

Copyright © 2022 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Arenas et al
FIGURE 1. Descriptive data of the variables related to the work environment according to the work mode.
negative outcomes of the adoption of WFH arrangements, such as
reduced social contact, organizational problems, technological lim-
itations, and difficulties related to the remote work environment43,44
have also been underlined. Hence, WFH implementation and
adoption strategies should account for the evaluation of individual
and family factors, since WFH seems to affect people’s lives
differently.44
Regarding this, it is important to acknowledge that structural
inequalities play a significant role in who works from home and how
telework is performed. Our study shows that women may be in
higher risk for burnout in PB and WB, especially when they are also
in charge of child rearing of children under 12 years old ¼ even
when compared to men who also live with their children. This may
be because mothers seem to more frequently engage in practices
involving explanation and organization of the environment45 and
with issues related to children’s education,46 which can also con-
tribute to a greater family interference with work. The increase in
the childcare load had an influence on the prevalence of clinical
burnout indices in all CBI subscales, being more significant than the
increase in workload. This finding highlights a possible sum of
functions when schools and day-care centers were closed during the
pandemic in addition to concerns about the risks of contamination
by SARS-CoV-2.47 Low income and increased childcare load were
the main variables related to having higher levels of CB, which may
reflect low wages in occupations related to public service and
greater interpersonal exhaustion in parents. Healthy lifestyle habits
and older age were shown to be protective factors, which corrob-
orates pre-pandemic studies.32,48
Additionally, in LMICs, the access to the necessary technol-
ogies for this working modality plays a significant role in deter-
mining the proportion of workers who can WFH.6,49 In Brazil, for
example, 9.1% of the working population was WFH in the second
quarter of 2020, and most of these workers were white (65.3%),
women (57.8%), and were college educated (76%).34 This was
reflected in the sample of this study: mostly comprised of white,
college-educated women (79.8%). In this sense, the study’s sample
seems to represent those workers who are WFH during the COVID-
19 pandemic in Brazil.
However, this study should also be accounted for considering
some limitations. First, the study sample is not representative of the
Brazilian population and may not reflect all demands and forms of
WFH arrangements happening during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Additionally, a large portion of respondents claimed to be essential
service professionals (65.1%), meaning they were either engaged in
the health sector, public safety sectors, or public cleaning and
transportation. Proportionally, these professionals were less likely
e336 © 2022 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
Copyright © 2022 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
JOEM  Volume 64, Number 5, May 2022
to WFH during the pandemic, as well as may be facing increased
stress during the same period. Also, it is important to acknowledge
the inherent limitations of the study design: a cross-sectional study
where we can’t infer causalities. Finally, as we do not have data on
the pre-pandemic status of the subjects, we could not evaluate
prospectively burnout and procrastination levels considering the
pre-and post-pandemic scenario.
CONCLUSION
This cross-sectional study highlighted the importance of
assessing how individual and family factors are related to the
well-being of workers. According to our results, workers working
from home had slightly higher levels of irrational procrastination
and had no difference in terms of burnout levels on all CBI subscales
when compared to workers working face-to-face. When assessing
the gender of workers, women—especially mothers—had higher
levels of burnout when compared to men. WFH was not configured
as a risk factor, appearing to have more advantages than disadvan-
tages under ideal conditions. However, difficulties in work-life
balance, increased childcare load, having children under 12 at
home, and social and gender inequalities had a major influence
on the well-being and exhaustion of workers during the pandemic.
These results corroborate findings of studies carried out in
HICs, in which being female, having young children at home, and
workspace-related problems were shown to contribute to higher
levels of burnout.14–16,50 However, our study showed no difference
in terms of burnout and procrastination levels between the workers
that started WFH only after the pandemic when compared to
workers with previous experience in telework or workers in fac-
eto-face work. It contrasts with the findings of other studies con-
ducted during the COVID-19 pandemic.14,15 In addition, WFH was
not a factor related to worse levels of burnout per. However, unlike
previous studies15,51 our study didn’t compare burnout levels with
the pre-pandemic period.
Another important point of this study is the access to WFH in
LMICs since this work mode seems to be more accessible to the
socioeconomically privileged population. Such results become
more important when several companies are adopting WFH as
the standard work mode for many positions. Further studies are
needed to assess the influence of WFH on the mental health and
professional performance of workers longitudinally, analyzing indi-
vidual and family variables to identify vulnerabilities. In this way, it
will be possible to plan measures and policies to support vulnerable
workers and provide alternatives to social and gender inequalities.
In this way, it will be possible to provide a better quality of life and
work during and after the pandemic.
© 2022 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

JOEM  Volume 64, Number 5, May 2022

TABLE 2. Comparison of IPS and CBI Scores Between Groups
Mothers

Working
From Face-to-face Non
Male Female Home Work Parents parents Fathers
Variables n ¼ 126 n ¼ 309 P n ¼ 271 n ¼ 164 P n ¼ 187 n ¼ 248 P n ¼ 45 n ¼ 142 P

IPS
Mean  SD 16.8  0.6 17.1  0.3 – 17.8  0.4 15.7  0.4 – 15.9  0.4 17.9  0.4 - 17.9  6.4 17.9  6.3 –
Median (IQR) 16 (12–21) 16 (13–21) 0.633a 17 (13–23) 15.5 (11–19) <0.001a 15 (12–20) 17 (13–22) 0.001a 18 (14–22) 17 (13–22) 0.965a
PB
Mean  SD 44.7  1.9 53.7  1.2 – 51.4  1.2 50.5  0.4 – 48.4  0.3 53.1  1.3 - 36.2  2.6 52.2  1.7 –
Median (IQR) 43.7 (25–62.5) 50 (41.7–66.7) <0.001a 50 (37.5–66.7) 50 (33.3–66.7) 0.652a 45.8 (29.2–66.7) 50 (41.8–66.7) 0.013a 29.2 (25–45.8) 50 (37.5–66.7) <0.001a
PB50
Freq. (%) 49 (38.9%) 181 (58.6%) <0.0018 143 (52.8%) 87 (53%) 0.9558 85 (45.5%) 145 (58.5%) 0.0078 8 (17.8%) 77 (54.2%) <0.0018
WB
Mean  SD 42.6  2.0 47.5  1.2 0.03 b
46.1  1.2 46.1  1.9 0.96 b
41.9  1.6 49.2  1.31 – 31.9  3 45.0  1.7 –
Median (IQR) 42.9 (25–60.7) 50 (35.7–60.7) – 46.4 (32.1–60.7) 46.4 (26.8–62.5) – 42.9 (25–57.1) 50 (35.7–64.3) <0.001a 32.1 (17.9–46.4) 46.4 (28.6–60.7) <0.001a
WB50
Freq. (%) 49 (38.9%) 156 (50.6%) 0.0288 127 (46.9%) 78 (47.6%) 0.8888 71 (38%) 134 (54%) 0.0018 7 (15.6%) 64 (45.1%) <0.0018

n ¼ 118 n ¼ 293 n ¼ 252 n ¼ 159 n ¼ 183 n ¼ 228 n ¼ 45 n ¼ 138

CB
Mean  SD 38.3  2.4 41.7  1.5 – 39.3  1.5 42.9  2.2 – 34.9  1.7 45.3  1.7 – 26.9  3.4 37.8  1.9
Median (IQR) 37.5 (16.6–58.3) 41.7 (30.8–58.3) 0.250a 37.5 (20.8–51.2) 45.8 (20.8–62.5) 0.172a 33.3 (16.7–50) 45.8 (25–62.5) <0.001a 25 (8.3–37.5) 37.5 (20.8–54.2) 0.002a

Burnout and Procrastination in Brazilian Workers

CB50
Freq. (%) 43 (34.1%) 115 (37.2%) 0.8978 89 (32.8%) 69 (43.4%) 0.1018 50 (36.7%) 108 (43.5%) <0.0018 40 (88.9%) 45 (31.7%) 0.005a
a
Mann-Whitney U-test.
b
Student T-test.
c
Chi-squared test.
CB, Client-related Burnout; CBI, Copenhagen Burnout Inventory; EPS, Irrational Procrastination Scale; IQR, interquartile range; PB, Personal Burnout; SD, standard deviation; WB, Work-related Burnout.
e337

Copyright © 2022 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Arenas et al JOEM  Volume 64, Number 5, May 2022

TABLE 3. Result of Multiple Poisson Regression Analysis of the Association Between Burnout Scores and Individual, Work-
related, and Family Variables (Omnibus test <0.05)
PB  50 WB  50 CB  50

Variables b Exp(b) (95% CI) P b Exp(b) (95% CI) P b Exp(b) (95% CI) P

Sociodemographic data Female 0.918 2.447 (1.365–4.386) 0.003 0.961 2.522 (1.368–4.650) 0.003 0.683 1.980 (0.852- 4.601) 0.112
Age 0.014 0.986 (0.967–1.005) 0.146 0.025 0.975 (0.953–0.998) 0.035 0.039 0.962 (0.933–0.992) 0,013
Income <5000 reais 0.127 1.229 (0.848–1.779) 0.276 0.176 1.375 (0.861–2.196) 0.182 1.335 3.802 (1.487–9.719) 0.005
Work
Increased workload 0.308 1.351 (0.987–1.850) 0.060 0.213 1.221 (0.844–1.766) 0.289 0.103 1.108 (0.662–1.855) 0.695
To be a student and a worker 0.244 1.305 (0.993–1.716) 0.056 0.146 1.201 (0.842–1.712) 0.312 0.283 0.753 (0.459–1.236) 0.262
Parenting
Childcare hours per week <0.001 1.000 (0.998–1.003) 0.949 0.001 0.999 (0.996–1.002) 0.536 0.001 1.001 (0.997–1.005) 0.609
Increased childcare load 0.544 1.754 (1.204–2.556) 0.003 0.669 2.013 (1.236–3.277) 0.005 0.737 2.089 (1.202–3.629) 0.009
Living with children under 0.273 1.469 (1.052–2.049) 0.024 0.370 1.765 (1.179–2.641) 0.006 0.046 0.955 (0.564–1.619) 0.865
12 years old
Lifestyle
Exercise regularly 0.532 0.585 (0.402–0.850) 0.005 0.376 0.675 (0.429–1.063) 0.090 0.198 0.820 (0.472–1.426) 0.482

CB, Client-related Burnout; CI, confidence interval; PB, Personal Burnout; WB, Work-related Burnout.

REFERENCES
1. Tolfo SR, Piccinini V. Sentidos e significados do trabalho: explorando
conceitos, variaveis e estudos empı́ricos brasileiros. Psicol Soc. 2007;19
(spe):38–46.
2. Gajendran RS, Harrison DA. The good, the bad, and the unknown about
telecommuting: meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual
consequences. J Appi Psychol. 2007;92:1524–1541.
3. Golden T. Co-workers who telework and the impact on those in the office:
understanding the implications of virtual work for co-worker satisfaction and
turnover intentions. Hum Reiat. 2007;60:1641–1667.
4. Belzunegui-Eraso A, Erro-Garces A. Teleworking in the context of the
Covid-19 crisis. Sustainability. 2020;12:3662.
5. Bloom N, Liang J, Roberts J, Ying ZJ. Does working from home work?
Evidence from a Chinese experiment. Q J Econ. 2015;130:165–218.
6. Sanchez DG, Parra NG, Ozden C, Rijkers B, Viollaz M, Winkler H. Who on
Earth Can Work from Home? [Internet]. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2020,
p. 36. Report No.: 9347. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10986/34277.
7. Peters P, Tijdens KG, Wetzels C. Employees’ opportunities, preferences, and
practices in telecommuting adoption. Inf Manage. 2004;41:469–482.
8. Allen TD, Golden TD, Shockley KM. How effective is telecommuting?
Assessing the status of our scientific findings. Psychol Sci Public Interest.
2015;16:40–68.
9. Gajendran RS, Harrison DA, Delaney-Klinger K. Are telecommuters
remotely good citizens? Unpacking telecommuting’s effects on performance
via I-deals and job resources. Pers Psychol. 2015;68:353–393.
10. Prem K, Liu Y, Russell TW, et al. The effect of control strategies to reduce
social mixing on outcomes of the COVID-19 epidemic in Wuhan, China: a
modelling study. Lancet Public Health. 2020;5:e261–e270.
11. Soares S, Bonnet F, Berg J, Labouriau R. From Potential to Practice:
Preliminary Findings on the Numbers of Workers Working from Home
During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour
Organization; 2021, p. 16.
12. Sardeshmukh SR, Sharma D, Golden TD. Impact of telework on exhaustion
and job engagement: a job demands and job resources model: impact of
telework on exhaustion and job engagement. New Technol Work Employ.
2012;27:193–207.
13. Seidler A, Thinschmidt M, Deckert S, et al. The role of psychosocial working
conditions on burnout and its core component emotional exhaustion-a
systematic review. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2014;9:10.
14. Xiao Y, Becerik-Gerber B, Lucas G, Roll SC. Impacts of working from home
during COVID-19 pandemic on physical and mental well-being of office
workstation users. J Occup Environ Med. 2021;63:181–190.
15. Hayes SW, Priestley JL, Moore BA, Ray HE. Perceived stress, work-related
burnout, and working from home before and during COVID-19: an exami-
nation of workers in the United States. SAGE Open. 2021;11:
215824402110581.
16. Wang C, Pan R, Wan X, et al. Immediate psychological responses and
associated factors during the initial stage of the 2019 coronavirus disease
(COVID-19) epidemic among the general population in China. Int J Environ
Res Public Health. 2020;17:1729.
17. Steel P. The nature of procrastination: a meta-analytic and theoretical
review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychol Bull. 2007;133:
65–94.
18. Vitak J, Crouse J, LaRose R. Personal internet use at work: understanding
cyberslacking. Comput Hum Behav. 2011;27:1751–1759.
19. O’Neill TA, Hambley LA, Bercovich A. Prediction of cyberslacking when
employees are working away from the office. Comput Hum Behav.
2014;34:291–298.
20. Kumcagiz H, Ersanli E, Alakus K. Hopelessness, procrastination and burnout
in predicting job satisfaction: a reality among public school teachers. Int J
Acad Res. 2014;6:333–339.
21. Hall NC, Lee SY, Rahimi S. Self-efficacy, procrastination, and burnout in
post-secondary faculty: an international longitudinal analysis. PLoS ONE.
2019;14:e0226716.
22. Aghaz A, Sheikh A. Cyberloafing and job burnout: an investigation
in the knowledge-intensive sector. Comput Hum Behav. 2016;62:
51–60.
23. Blunt AK, Pychyl TA. Task aversiveness and procrastination: a multidimen-
sional approach to task aversiveness across stages of personal projects.
Personal Individ Difer. 2000;28:153–167.
24. Ferrari JR, O’Callaghan J, Newbegin I. Prevalence of procrastination in the
United States, United Kingdom, and Australia: arousal and avoidance delays
among adults. North Am J Psychol. 2005;7:1–6.
25. Peixoto EM, Pallini AC, Vallerand RJ, Rahimi S, Silva MV. The role of
passion for studies on academic procrastination and mental health during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Soc Psychol Educ. 2021;24:877–893.
26. Lim AJ, Javadpour S. Into the unknown: uncertainty and procrastination in
students from a life history perspective. Front Psychol. 2021;12:717380.
27. Pelikan ER, Korlat S, Reiter J, et al. Distance learning in higher education
during COVID-19: the role of basic psychological needs and intrinsic
motivation for persistence and procrastination-a multi-country study. PLoS
ONE. 2021;16:e0257346.
28. Wang B, Liu Y, Qian J, Parker SK. Achieving effective remote working
during the COVID-19 pandemic: a work design perspective. Appl Psychol.
2021;70:16–59.
29. Steinert C, Heim N, Leichsenring F. Procrastination, perfectionism, and other
work-related mental problems: prevalence, types, assessment, and treat-
ment—a scoping review. Front Psychiatry. 2021;12:736776.
30. Malouff JM, Schutte NS. The efficacy of interventions aimed at reducing
procrastination: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Couns
Dev. 2019;97:117–127.
31. Maslach C, Jackson SE. The measurement of experienced burnout. J Organ
Behav. 1981;2:99–113.
32. Aronsson G, Theorell T, Grape T, et al. A systematic review including
metaanalysis of work environment and burnout symptoms. BMC Public
Health. 2017;17:264.

e338 © 2022 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

Copyright © 2022 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 JOEM  Volume 64, Number 5, May 2022
33. Salvagioni DAJ, Melanda FN, Mesas AE, González AD, Gabani FL, de
Andrade SM. Physical, psychological and occupational consequences of job
burnout: a systematic review of prospective studies. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:
e0185781.
34. Goes GS, Martins FDS, Nascimento JAS. Um panorama do trabalho remoto
no Brasil e nos estados brasileiros durante a pandemia da COVID-19
[Internet]. Brasilia, Brazil: IPEA; 2021, p. 102. Report No.: 2700. Available
at: http://www.ipea.gov.br/portal/publicacoes.
35. Silveira D. Home office bateu recorde no Brasil em 2018, diz IBGE. G1
[Internet]. December 18, 2019 [cited December 5, 2021]; Available at:
https://g1.globo.com/economia/concursos-e-emprego/noticia/2019/12/18/
home-office-bateu-recorde-no-brasil-em-2018-diz-ibge.ghtml.
36. Moser CM, Santos BTMQ, Arenas DL, et al. Psychometric properties of the
Brazilian Portuguese version of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI) in
healthcare professionals. Trends Psychiatry Psychother. 2021. Online ahead
of print. doi: 10.47626/2237-6089-2021-036.
37. Kristensen TS, Borritz M, Villadsen E, Christensen KB. The Copenhagen
Burnout Inventory: a new tool for the assessment of burnout. Work Stress.
2005;19:192–207.
38. Moser CM, Monteiro GC, Narvaez JC, et al. Saude mental dos profissionais
da saúde na pandemia do coronavirus (Covid-19). Rev Bras Psicoter.
2021;23:107–125.
39. Rocha RZ. Pure Procrastination Scale e Irrational Procrastination Scale:
adaptação e evidências de validade para o contexto brasileiro [Master’s
Thesis]. Porto Alegre, Brazil: UFRgS; 2019.
40. Steel P. Arousal, avoidant and decisional procrastinators: do they exist?
Personal Individ Differ. 2010;48:926–934.
41. Nie NH, Bent DH, Hull CH. IBM SPSS Statisticsfor Windows. Armonk, NY:
IBM Corp; 2012.
42. R-Core-Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.
Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2020.
© 2022 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
Copyright © 2022 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Burnout and Procrastination in Brazilian Workers
43. Green N, Tappin D, Bentley T. Working From Home Before, During and
Afterthe Covid-19 Pandemic: Implications forWorkers and Organisations.N
Z J Employ Relat [Internet]. October 28, 2020 [cited December 5, 2021];45
(2). Available at: https://ojs.aut.ac.nz/nzjer/article/view/19.
44. Ipsen C, van Veldhoven M, Kirchner K, Hansen JP. Six key advantages and
disadvantages of working from home in Europe during COVID-19. Int J
Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:1826.
45. Piccinini C, Alvarenga P, Marin AH. Child-Rearing Practices of
Brazilian Mothers and Fathers: Predictors and Impact on Child
Development. In: Seidl- De-Moura, M.L., editor. Parenting in South
American and African Contexts [Internet]. InTech; 2013 [cited December 5,
2021]. Available at: http://www.intechopen.com/books/parenting-in-south-
american-and-african-con-texts/child-rearing-practices-of-brazilian-mothers-
and-fathers-predictors-and-impact-on-child-development.
46. Sayer LC, Bianchi SM, Robinson JP. Are parents investing less in children? Trends
in mothers’ and fathers’ time with children. Am J Sociol. 2004;110:1–43.
47. Armitage R, Nellums LB. Considering inequalities in the school closure
response to COVID-19. Lancet Glob Health. 2020;8:e644.
48. Sprang G, Clark JJ, Whitt-Woosley A. Compassion fatigue, compassion
satisfaction, and burnout: factors impacting a professional’s quality of life. J
Loss Trauma. 2007;12:259–280.
49. Medina HRB, Aguirre RC, Coello-Montecel D, Pacheco PO, Paredes-
Aguirre MI. The influence of work-family conflict on burnout during the
COVID-19 pandemic: the effect of teleworking overload. Int J Environ Res
Public Health. 2021;18:10302.
50. Giurge LM, Whillans AV, Yemiscigil A. A multicountry perspective on
gender differences in time use during COVID-19. Proc Natl Acad Sci.
2021;118:e2018494118.
51. Lunde L-K, Fløvik L, Christensen JO, et al. The relationship between
telework from home and employee health: a systematic review. BMC Public
Health. 2022;22:47.
e339