The Effects of Teleworking in a Pandemic Context on the Well-Being of People with Disabilities: A Canadian Qualitative Study

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1821632/v1

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to numerous changes in work environments. Thousands of workers quickly found themselves having to telework without being prepared, which had consequences on their well-being. Authors proposed telework practices that promote the well-being of workers in a pandemic context, but less attention has been paid to consider the needs of disabled workers.

Purpose. This study aimed to explore the effects of telework during the pandemic on the well-being of people with disabilities.

Methods. Following an interpretive descriptive research design, interviews were conducted with 16 workers with disabilities (i.e., motor, or sensory). The data were analyzed using a thematic analysis strategy.

Results. The results revealed 15 factors that influence the well-being of teleworkers with disabilities. These factors are related to interactions between three spheres of the worker's life: the individual, the organization, and the environment. Ten recommendations are proposed to consider the reality of disabled individuals in the telework practices.

Conclusion. Given that telework has expanded since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and will likely continue to remain a widespread modality of work delivery, it becomes even more important to expand knowledge about it, to benefit the well-being of disabled teleworkers.

Disability

Telework

Wellbeing

Organizational health

COVID-19

Job Demand-Control-Support Model

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared that the COVID-19 virus had become a global pandemic and a health emergency [1].To save as many lives as possible, the WHO strongly suggested that countries adopt measures to prevent infections and reduce transmission. Several countries, including Canada, implemented such specific measures as closing nonessential businesses and services. This unprecedented situation prompted many companies to turn to telework to deliver work while reducing physical contact between individuals, thereby limiting the spread of the virus. As of June 2020, 39% of Canadians were teleworking, compared to only 17% prior to the declaration of the pandemic [2]. The rate of Canadian teleworkers has continued to increase since [3]. In addition, approximately one-quarter of Canadian companies have considered offering teleworking to more employees once the COVID-19 pandemic ends [3]. A similar phenomenon occurred in the United Kingdom, where the proportion of people teleworking increased from 5.7% in January 2020 to 43.1% in April 2020 [4]. Also, 74% of British business leaders mentioned they would continue to increase the number of workers teleworking after the pandemic [5]. Slightly more than half said their organization will consider reducing the long-term use of physical workplaces [5], and 44% called this reduction a response to the perceived greater efficiency of telework, compared to face-to-face work [5].

In 2011, 968,000 Canadians with disabilities were employed [6], a considerable proportion of the country's workforce. In these times of labor shortages, the contribution of all worker populations, including those with disabilities, is essential. In Europe, the literature reports that 64% of French workers with disabilities turned to telework during the pandemic, compared to 53% of the general working population [7]. Although the pandemic has caused the employment rate of people with disabilities to drop [8], teleworking remains an option for these workers to maintain their employment during this time, particularly because it has become a viable work delivery method and a means of accommodation for these workers since the 1990s [9, 10]. Employers who did not previously offer teleworking to their employees have had to adopt it due to the pandemic, a situation not without impacts on the well-being of disabled teleworkers.

1.1 Teleworking and Well-Being of Workers with Disabilities

Authors can vary in conceptualizing telework [11]. Current knowledge supports defining telework as work for an organization that workers perform primarily outside of a shared office environment, which must include the use of information and communication technologies (i.e., computer, network, database) [12]. Telework has constituted a work accommodation for people with disabilities for over 20 years, and the scientific literature documents its effects on the well-being of this unique population of workers. For example, the flexibility that telework affords contributes to well-being by allowing work-schedule adjustments, accommodation of disabilities, and performing work tasks from a variety of locations [13]. This flexibility can benefit teleworkers who live with pain, fatigue, or the need for regular breaks during the day [14]. According to Davis's (2018) study, teleworking also saves time by avoiding travel, a definite benefit to workers’ well-being, especially those with disabilities [15]. The ability to work in an environment that is familiar also favors this type of worker [16] because it eliminates architectural barriers in the workplace or in transportation [9, 14]. Their home usually already provides people with disabilities with the necessary accommodations to meet their needs, an added value to their well-being [17]. Because teleworking provides fewer occasions for other workers to encounter the worker's disabilities, equity with other workers and the opportunity to be more independent contribute to the well-being of individuals with disabilities [13]. Studies show that the cost of living for teleworkers with disabilities decreases, particularly due to reduced transportation costs [13, 18]. Technological barriers remain an issue for people with disabilities who are teleworking, particularly technological tools not adapted to workers' abilities [9]. Finally, feelings of isolation and decreased social contact may represent issues for the well-being of disabled teleworkers, as these individuals are already likely to experience more social isolation than the general population [15, 19]. Furthermore, teleworking can decrease the sense of "visibility" within the organization for people with disabilities, as they have a limited physical presence in the workplace [20, 21]. This decreased visibility may result in employers being unaware of their needs and challenges in the telework environment. Despite this knowledge regarding the well-being of teleworkers with disabilities, the pandemic has disrupted the relationship between telework and well-being for this singular population.

1.2 Teleworking in the Context of the Pandemic for Workers with Disabilities

The pandemic has brought many changes to the labor market, and they have affected the well-being of teleworkers with disabilities. Among French workers with disabilities, 37% reported having experienced a decline in their physical well-being, and 32% noted a decline in their mental well-being because of the pandemic [7]. Also, 69% of workers with disabilities report experiencing intense stress, anxiety, or nervousness during certain periods of the day once the start of the pandemic began to increase their concerns about their work and their future [7]. Finally, disabled teleworkers experience more depressive symptoms, fatigue, and isolation than the general population [7]. Among several reasons for this is that some accommodations (e.g., enlarged handwriting, changing handwriting colors to change contrast) are more visible to others, a factor that affects the well-being of some teleworkers with disabilities, influencing facets of their identity [22]. This aspect of visibility has changed during the pandemic. Teleworkers with disabilities went from being invisible to being more visible, impacting their well-being.

To support organizations and workers in this alternative work-delivery environment, authors have recently identified favorable teleworking practices in the context of the pandemic [23–25]—for example, using technological means to maintain contacts with colleagues. However, these recommendations come from data concerning the general population of workers. Thus, current knowledge does not provide an understanding of how actual teleworking conditions influence the well-being of workers with disabilities. Over the long term, the pandemic is likely to substantially impact the well-being of more vulnerable groups, including people with disabilities, [26]. Further studies could aid in understanding the telework experience of people with disabilities during the pandemic and the effects on their well-being.

Considering 1) the significant number of workers with disabilities contributing to the economic life of society, 2) the certain effects of the shift to telework on the well-being of this singular population of workers, 3) the scarcity of studies to understand the experience of teleworkers with disabilities during the pandemic, and 4) the lack of "best practices" accounting for their particular reality, the purpose of this study was to explore the effects of telework during the pandemic on the well-being of people with disabilities.

Among the various definitions of well-being at work, many authors agree on its multidimensional aspects, including mental (e.g., cognition, affect), social (e.g., sense of belonging), and physical (e.g., lifestyle habits, physiological disorders) dimensions [27–29]. This conceptualization of well-being is similar to the WHO definition of health, arguing that it includes "a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being" [30]. This holistic definition of health involving mental, social, and physical dimensions often appears in work-related literature[31, 32] and structures the present study.

Over the years, several authors have proposed models to describe and explain workers’ well-being (or lack of it) [e.g., 33, 34–36]. Work characteristics, such as demands, resources, or suffering, may influence workers' well-being. To clearly identify how the various characteristics of telework during the pandemic influence the well-being of workers with disabilities, Karasek and Theorell’s (1990) job demand-latitude-support model appears particularly relevant for structuring the present study. Indeed, current scientific knowledge supports that telework during the pandemic has characteristics that can contribute positively and negatively to the well-being of workers with disabilities, with respect to variables that relate to demands (e.g., workload modulation), latitude (e.g., schedule flexibility) and support (e.g., reduced social contact). Thus, the job demand-latitude-support model [37] makes it possible to integrate these characteristics and understand their interactions and influence on workers' well-being. Other studies used this model to examine well-being and teleworking [38], including the well-being of workers with disabilities [39].

According to the model [37], demand refers to the employer's requirements for work performance. Measuring this demand is possible using the factors of intensity, quantity, and complexity of the work, as well as the time available to accomplish it. Latitude comprises two important aspects: decision-making authority and skill development. Decision-making authority refers to the autonomy that the worker has to make decisions concerning the work. Skill development allows the worker to use his or her strengths as benefits or to develop new ones within the workplace. Support can come from various actors, e.g., supervisors or colleagues, and can be emotional or social.

In a mechanism of interactions, these three components of the model combine to create different situations that the worker can experience, which influence well-being. For example, a worker who must deal with high demand can compensate if he or she has a high degree of latitude, thus preserving well-being. Also, support can reduce the effects of high demand or low latitude. All in all, the interaction between demand, latitude, and support provides insight into how the characteristics of telework during the pandemic contribute to the well-being of disabled workers.

3.1 Design

Consistent with the purpose of the current study, a descriptive qualitative research design [40, 41] was appropriate, describing a phenomenon in terms of the perceptions of those it involves.

3.2 Participants

Participants in the study met the following criteria: They 1) had a physical disability (i.e., motor or sensory), 2) had been employed part-time or full-time for at least 24 months, and 3) had teleworked during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study reached the final number of participants at the point of reaching saturation and redundancy in the data collection. Given the specificity of the study, between 12 and 24 participants was the initial estimate [42, 43].

3.3 Procedure

The researchers conducted phone and videoconference interviews to document the disabled teleworkers’ perceptions of their experience of teleworking during the pandemic and its effects on their well-being. Participants completed a socio-demographic questionnaire prior to the interviews, providing such information as age, gender, job type, type of disability, percentage of time teleworking, workload, and accommodations received at work. The interviews followed an interview guide containing six main sections: 1) field of work (e.g., “Tell me about your field of work.”); 2) conditions under which teleworking occurred (e.g., “Tell me about the conditions under which your teleworking experience occurred, in terms of your home environment, home organization, and technology.”); 3) individual and organizational practices (e.g., “Tell me about your own ways of working, e.g., schedule management, routines, in the past few months.”); 4) positive moves and facilitators (e.g., “If you think back on your teleworking experience in the past few months, tell me about the thing that was most helpful.”); 5) challenges and obstacles (e.g., “If you think back on your teleworking experience over the past few months, tell me what was most detrimental.”); 6) improvement opportunities (e.g., “If another pandemic were to occur, how could the teleworking experience be improved to support workers’ well-being?”). Interviews, conducted in French, lasted an average of 43 minutes and were digitally recorded with participant consent.

3.4 Analyses

The recordings were first transcribed verbatim and then analyzed using a thematic analysis strategy [44]. This was applied to the data corpus using a systematic five-step process: 1) repeated readings of the data corpus allowed the researchers to develop a sense of immersion; 2) initial coding was started ( i.e., descriptive codes were assigned to the meaning units found in the corpus); 3) the meaning units were then transformed into expressions indicative of the participants' perceptions; 4) the synthesis of the expressions made it possible to organize the data into a general structure (the codes [micro level] were grouped into categories [meso level] and/or themes [macro level]); 5) “back-and-forth” views of the raw data and the general structure made it possible to clarify and interpret the data with respect to the participants' perceptions. In keeping with the descriptive qualitative research design [40], an inductive posture characterized the analytical process.

Nvivo 1.5 software was used to support the analysis. Two individuals independently analyzed the first four interviews and then reviewed them as a pair, to compare, enhance, and standardize the coding process. A third person also reviewed the coding for these first four interviews. This step reduced the risk of bias by ensuring that the coding did not reflect the perception of a single individual. Two individuals jointly coded subsequent interviews. Regular team meetings ensured that the coding reflected the ideas the participants expressed. This iterative process of creating successive versions of an outcome structure based on participants' perceptions continued until the research team agreed that the analysis it produced represented the data as accurately as possible.

4.1 Description of participants

Of the 16 participants, 11 were women (68.8%) and 5 were men (31.3%). The mean age of the participants was 44.8 ± 8.6 years (31–56 years). Eleven participants had a sensory impairment, 80% of them visual and 20% a hearing impairment. Three participants had a motor impairment, and 2 participants had both motor and sensory impairments. At the time of the interview, these participants had an average of 11.2 ± 8.2 years’ experience in their current job (0.5–27 years). During the period of the pandemic, 25% (4/16) of the teleworking participants experienced an increase in work accommodations, 6.3% (1/16) experienced a decrease in work accommodations, 62.5% (10/16) noted no change, and one participant did not respond. These accommodations included access to human assistance, computer equipment, or office equipment. For some, they included font enlargement software, text-to-speech devices, or note-takers with Braille displays. In their homes, 7 participants performed their work activities in a room dedicated to this purpose, while the majority (9/16) did not. Two participants (12.5%) experienced a work-related injury while teleworking due to the pandemic. These were all physical in nature (i.e., eye and muscle fatigue, aches, back pain). The descriptive characteristics of the participants appear in Table 1.

Table 1

Characteristics of participants
Participants	Gender*	Age (years)	Type of disability**	Hours worked per week	Percentage of work time teleworked BEFORE the pandemic (%)	Percentage of work time teleworked DURING the pandemic (%)
01	M	41	MO	35	100	100	Office agent
02	M	31	S	35	10	100	Case manager
03	M	42	S	35	5	90	Assistant manager
04	F	56	MO	35	0	99	Residence coordinator
05	F	55	S	28	0	100	Executive director
06	M	33	S	40	90	99	Technology support
07	F	36	MO and S	35	100	75	Sign Language Teacher
08	F	41	MO	30	60	100	Drafting technician
09	F	48	S	35	0	100	Employment Support Consultant
10	F	49	MO and S	5	40	100	Project Manager
11	F	56	S	35	0	100	Office agent
12	F	34	S	35	10	100	Lawyer
13	M	52	S	35	0	100	IT Analyst
14	F	41	S	32	0	80	Braille Language Technician
15	F	54	S	28	0	100	Provincial civil servant
16	F	48	S	32	0	95	Vision Rehabilitation Specialist
*F = Female, M = Male
**MO = Motor; S = Sensory

4.2 Factors Influencing the Well-Being of Teleworkers with Disabilities in the Context of the Pandemic

The analysis of the data collected from the participants revealed 15 factors over 7 categories that influenced the well-being of disabled teleworkers in the context of the pandemic.

4.2.1 Access to Equipment

Access to an appropriate computer, technology, and office equipment is a critical element in participants' ability to telework. In fact, having access to disability-friendly computer equipment [factor 1] is very helpful for some participants. For example, technology equipped with screens, a Braille note-taker, or a headset makes it easier to accommodate visual or hearing disabilities and, thus, to telework properly while maintaining well-being. For example, one participant "invested in a huge screen . . . a smart [vision] TV [which she] turned into a computer screen" [P10],[1] so she could see and do her work better, despite her visual impairment. Access to high-performance IT equipment, such as a computer, phone, and tablet, is also essential for the use of software and technology platforms used in telework. The accessibility of these technology platforms [factor 2] is also an element the participants raised as affecting their well-being. For example, some people with visual impairments often find it more difficult to access these technology platforms and retrieve documents. A participant reported, "[My work team uses a virtual communication platform] to share documents. [...] For me, it was an ordeal going in there to get documents" [P13]. Having access to an accessible platform allows workers to get work done more efficiently and contributes to their well-being. Many participants require access to technology infrastructure, such as wi-fi, the organization's VPN, or a phone system linked to the office. Without it, some participants involuntarily had to stop working for a period of time, a difficult event for their well-being.

To connect, to do the work I needed to do, you had to log in, authenticate via a VPN [...]. To authenticate to the VPN, you need a numerical code. He [the employer] only knew one way to get that code, and that was through a little electronic token that everyone puts on their keyring. But I was unable to read it because I live alone. [...] Then, afterward, I contacted someone in IT security as well because [I didn't] have a laptop. So, I couldn't work. [P13]

Finally, having access to ergonomic office equipment [factor 3] is conducive to the comfort and safety of the teleworker, thus promoting his or her well-being:

[I] bought myself [...] a desk and an ergonomic chair on purpose to be comfortable because I still spend my day reading on the computer, so I have to be really comfortable and well set-up. [P14].

The fit between various equipment can sometimes challenge the well-being of teleworkers with disabilities:

When I talk [...] through the laptop speakers, [...] I hear directly through my hearing aids. But it gives me a headache. This is very difficult for me. [...] The more the meetings progress, the more I lower the sound. [...] I once had an all-day meeting, and by the end of it, [I] wanted to "hang my head" on the walls. [I couldn’t] stand it anymore. [P15]

In essence, accessibility to ergonomic and disability-adapted equipment, such as computers, technology, and office equipment, improves the well-being of workers with disabilities.

4.2.2 Social Contacts

Several participants mentioned feeling a decrease in the quality of relationships with colleagues [factor 4] during the pandemic telework experience, making them feel isolated and negatively affecting their well-being, as "that's the hardest thing. .. in terms of morale" [P09]. Several participants mentioned that it is more difficult to "bond [...] a little bit more with some colleagues" [P06] while teleworking, which can sometimes compromise team building. Participants also noted that exchanges can be more difficult and "cold" [P01] via technology. Not having direct, face-to-face contact brings a formality to the exchanges, according to the participants, and diminishes the possibility of having spontaneous and informal exchanges like those that face-to-face work enables. Although social contacts via technology are not optimal, according to the participants, they still appreciated having access to it, rather than having nothing at all. In fact, maintaining oral (i.e., verbal or with signs) communication [factor 5] with colleagues, beyond written communication, is beneficial for many participants because it allows them to maintain a link and contact between employees. This also allows for better collaboration between colleagues, which can foster commitment to the work and, thus, promote the worker's well-being. The following excerpt shows the influence on the well-being of a participant of maintaining a relationship between colleagues:

[Among] the practices that made me feel engaged at work, [I would say] being able to talk [orally] with the team and then collaborate with everyone, even while teleworking behind a screen. [P06]

Thus, participants brought up the quality of social relationships and oral communication as elements that influence their well-being.

4.2.3 Support

Having support from the manager [factor 6] is helpful for teleworkers. Being supported, understood, and feeling comfortable communicating their needs and fears to their manager is beneficial in maintaining well-being in telework, according to the participants. One participant expressed the idea as follows:

Well, if [I'm] stressed [and not] feeling well, [...] I talk to my boss about it as soon as possible. I get it out as soon as possible and then it's fine. Because she'll give me advice, she'll give me ideas, then after that, it's settled. [P07]

One element participants reported as facilitating well-being was feeling their manager listened to them. The fact that they can talk about their problems or simply that their boss has an attentive ear, "that he [the boss] really takes the time to listen until the end, until [the teleworkers] are satisfied with the exchange they have had" [P07], even at a distance, allows teleworkers to feel more supported in this new reality. Having a manager who is adaptable to the reality of the disability is a helpful element in teleworking for many participants. One participant's experience shows that her manager "adapts her presentations because she [the teleworker] can't see; the manager reads everything in the PowerPoint and even more because she comments on it [...], so [the teleworker] doesn't lose information" [P13]. On the contrary, a manager who does not adapt to this reality is a major obstacle for the well-being of some participants.

Also, the support of colleagues [factor 7] regarding the teleworker's disability is an essential element in feeling that the team includes and supports him or her. Conversely, if co-workers are not aware of disability issues, it can create some frustration, as one participant mentioned when talking about the issues of connecting her headset in relation to her hearing loss:

Every time I call with [a virtual communication platform], every time I try to pair or unpair [my headphones], people [...] get tense and say, “It’s okay, [I can] hear you!" Well, yes, but ME, I cannot hear you well! [P13]

Thus, support from managers and co-workers is essential in promoting the well-being of workers with disabilities in the context of the pandemic.

4.2.4 Schedule Management

Personal schedule management is a wellness element that participants named. For many, the teleworking situation allowed for schedule flexibility [factor 8]. Control over the management of their schedule helps them feel good about teleworking and lets them organize themselves as they see fit:

Sometimes, if [I haven't] done all my hours in the day, [I] recover in the evening, working a little bit more in the evening. So, I organize myself like that. But I'm lucky because I have a job that’s still pretty flexible. .. [P07]

Also, this mode of work delivery grants teleworkers greater freedom to take regular breaks and return to their work whenever they want. This provides more motivation and comfort in their work, respecting their personal limits:

[You know], sometimes [I] take little breaks, [I] go do something else, and then [...], I come back to the computer. That keeps me motivated. [P07]

Despite this flexibility, some participants felt the need to set a routine [factor 9] to be satisfied with their work. The following excerpt provides an example of a work routine that helps a participant feel good about teleworking:

I used to dress in joggers, but at some point, I realized that if I want to be [...] functional, [I] needed to have [a] routine as if I was going to work. So, in the morning, I get up, I do everything that I used to do to go to work. The only thing is I [don't] have to leave the house. .. [P09]

However, this routine may differ from what it was before starting telework. Some participants reported being able to create routines that made them feel good during their workday and allowed them, for example, to get up at the time they wanted and, thus, reduce their daily stress level. One participant refers to this decrease in stress related to establishing his own routine: "[I] wake up at the time I want, get my things ready, go get settled in my office. That decreased a lot of stress for me." [P07]

Thus, the flexibility and control offered to disabled teleworkers in the personal management of their schedules, as well as in the establishment of a work routine, contributes to their well-being.

4.2.5 Transportation

Each day, teleworking saves participants transportation time [factor 10]. This time can be reclaimed to accomplish more things in the day, both in personal life and in work. Some participants have returned to doing more of the activities they enjoy and that they did not have time to do before teleworking. This influences their well-being, as one participant described:

I read a lot more, I do a lot more of my passions that [I] was doing before. And that has an impact on my work because when I settle down to work, I feel really available, I feel good, I feel happy to do this work because I [also do] something I’m passionate about. I love astronomy, so I read a lot, I listen to astronomy lectures. I have time to do that. Before, I didn't have the time. [P04]

Finishing work and already being home allows one to be ready to do other tasks or activities and is a very positive benefit for many participants. One participant mentioned, "That's the big, big, big plus" [P02] of being a teleworker.

However, this time saved by not commuting can, in some cases, be recouped by doing more work. This has the effect of increasing the workload, which can influence the worker's well-being. The following excerpt illustrates the influence of reduced transportation time on workload: "The time I had recovered, from not taking adapted transport, I spent working for [employer's name]." [P04]

Some teleworkers with disabilities reported several times that paratransit is very burdensome, especially in terms of waiting time and scheduling, more so than regular public transportation:

By car, it would have taken maybe 30 minutes to get to my old [workplace]. With adapted transport, it was two hours each way. Sometimes I had to wait even three hours [for the transport to arrive]. It [didn't] make any sense, any sense at all. [P06]

Participants mention that using paratransit often takes them longer and causes them to lose a lot of time in their day, which can cause some frustration: "It's... AH! I HATE it. The worst of the worst of the worst" [P06]. Thus, there are wellness benefits to not having to use this mode of transportation daily. The reduction in stress related to the use of transportation [factor 11] and its planning was mentioned several times as a positive aspect of teleworking. Indeed, "most of the stress is not the work to be done, it's the traveling. It's being able to get there for such and such a time and then [to] get back for such and such a time [...]” [P11]. So, not having to travel before going to work can take much pressure off the shoulders of people with disabilities.

Teleworking can have an impact on transportation time, along with the stress of using it.

4.2.6 Workload

Several participants noted a shift in their workload [factor 12] as a result of the transition to telework during the pandemic; the situation "added to [the] workload" [P03]. Some described it as overload that they felt was affecting their well-being. Consequently, some mentioned that they did not have time to do everything in a day:

Then, the problem is that, in our case, the work never stops. I always have emails to deal with. I always have too many meetings in a day, [so] I always feel like—or almost—[that] at the end of the day, [I haven't] managed [to do] everything that I would have liked to do in my day. [P02]

To maintain their well-being despite this increased workload, several participants mentioned the importance of setting limits on their work hours. The following excerpt illustrates this idea:

In the sense that it's dangerous for mental health [...] During the first few months, I was very work-oriented: "I have to get the work done, I have to get my stuff done" [...]. Then, in December, I made the decision that it was too much, it [was] enough. No, [I'm] not going to be perfect. Yes [I] am going to have backlogged stuff, but I thought about my health first. If [it's] not done, [it's] okay. At 3 o'clock, [if I'm] not done, [I'll] go] take my walk anyway. [P15]

Another participant explains that he has learned to set boundaries [factor 13] so that he can drop out of work and maintain his well-being:

At first, at night, if I happened to be connected [and] someone emailed me at 11:00 pm, I would respond. Eventually, I realized that [ was] not a good idea, because it gets into people's heads that [you] are available, [which makes] them go on. [P02]

Workload modulation impacts the well-being of workers with disabilities. Defining and setting limits on workload is another essential element in maintaining well-being.

4.2.7 Home Environment

The physical environment [factor 14] in which participants telecommute can also affect their well-being. Working in a quiet environment reduces the distractions that were present when working in person, enabling teleworkers to be more focused and efficient. For example, they no longer must worry about unexpected disturbances from co-workers or uncontrollable outside noise; that contributes to their well-being while teleworking:

Doing our work in a much quieter environment where [you] don't hear other people talking, where [you] aren't afraid to disturb others by [talking to] yourself... [...] It's much better, much, much better, that's another big advantage. [P16]

Notably, participants mentioned that having a specific room in which to do their telework was facilitating:

I even have a room dedicated to my work, [so]that's wonderful too, an office space that I can close off. [So], when [there are online] meetings, it's nice to be able to isolate yourself from the others. [P11]

Yet, depending on the social environment at home [factor 15], it is not always possible to have this quiet workspace. For some participants, the environment at home has been difficult for their well-being while teleworking during the pandemic, especially for those with young children:

[There are] plenty of times when the daycare was closed because [there] were cases of COVID. [So], the two weeks of isolation at home with my daughter, [...] how do you [handle it] [...]? [...] With my partner it was really a puzzle sometimes: "Okay, you have a meeting at 4 o'clock and I have a meeting at 3 o'clock. Okay, we'll hand off [her daughter's name] at such and such a time. [You] don't want one's meeting to end too late [...]. [...] Right now, she's two years old, she’s still too young to say, "Okay,” she'll take care of herself. [I] [must] be next to her. [P12]

Teleworking can allow the worker to be in a quieter environment with fewer distractions, which facilitates concentration, efficiency, and hence, his well-being. However, some situations do not always allow for this optimal environment, especially for workers with young children.

4.3 Interaction of Factors Influencing the Well-Being of Teleworkers with Disabilities in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Analysis of the collected data revealed 15 factors that influence the well-being of disabled teleworkers, as Fig. 1 shows. These factors arise in the societal context of the COVID-19 pandemic and relate to interactions between three spheres of the worker's life: the individual, the organization, and the environment. First, the individual is an important actor in well-being. He or she has the power to make decisions about the way to organize and carry out work, particularly through the establishment of routines and limits or by way of the installation of office equipment. The organization for which the individual works also has a role in maintaining well-being. Indeed, the organization can influence the well-being of teleworkers through workload modulation and by offering support, be it social or equipment-related. Finally, the work environment, whether physical (e.g., the location in the home where the telework takes place), social (e.g., the people with whom the teleworker shares his or her daily life at work or at home), or societal (e.g., transportation services), greatly influences the well-being of the teleworker with a disability, either by facilitating or complicating it. Understanding that the individual, the organization, and the environment cannot be appreciated individually is important. The factors that relate to these three spheres influence each other dynamically in their interactions, as the overlapping circles in Fig. 1 illustrate. For example, the factor of access to equipment is a function of both the environment, given its nature, and the organization, via the financial or technical support it offers to the worker with respect to this specific equipment. Finally, the worker influences access to the equipment, depending on the possibilities of his or her home and personal resources. Similarly, the quality of social relations and verbal communications is a matter for both the social environment (since the people in the worker's environment carry them out) but also for the organization that provides the processes to facilitate them (or not).

[1] Verbatim extracts from the participants’ interviews exemplify the factors. The extracts are a free translation from the original French transcripts. Numbers (1 to 16) in the brackets refer to the participant’s number.

The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of telework during the pandemic on the well-being of people with disabilities. Analysis of qualitative data collected from 16 teleworkers revealed 15 factors grouped within 7 categories. The results of this study contribute to the advancement of knowledge along two main lines: 1) They shed light on how the theory of the demand-latitude-support model can help explain the contemporary phenomenon of disabled teleworkers’ well-being in the context of the pandemic. 2) They highlight the importance of the environment in supporting the well-being of teleworkers with disabilities in the context of the pandemic. The study results lead to recommendations that organizations and workers can implement to support that well-being.

5.1 The Influence of Demand, Latitude, and Support on the Well-Being of Teleworkers with Disabilities

On a theoretical level, the results of this study highlight how Karasek and Theorell's (1990) demand-latitude-support model can help explain the contemporary phenomenon of the well-being of disabled teleworkers in the context of the pandemic. Results suggest several factors that relate to the telework environment during the pandemic and contribute to increased work demands on disabled teleworkers. For example, an increase in the amount of work to be done augmented the workload for many. Also, the complexity of work has increased for two main reasons: 1) inconsistent access to technological accommodations and 2) issues related to work-life balance. Indeed, the difficulty in accessing office or computer equipment as well as disability-friendly technological infrastructure makes work more complex for many workers. The interaction between work and family in the home environment also adds to the complexity of work, as the literature reports [38]. However, decreasing transportation usage was an important element that participants named as decreasing demands on them because it typically generates much stress. Thus, decreasing the headache that the use of transportation generates is a favorable element for the well-being of disabled teleworkers, decreasing psychological strain. However, some participants felt compelled to recoup the time saved by the absence of transportation in their day, by increasing their amount of work, thus negating the full benefits of this factor for their well-being. Other authors report this pressure to increase the amount of work, to demonstrate effectiveness when teleworking [45]. Moreover, our results are in line with the study by Kelly and Moen (46), according to which teleworking would increase latitude at work, particularly schedule flexibility, which would have a particularly positive influence on workers' well-being. This form of autonomy allows them to develop methods or strategies to adapt the work to their needs, giving them leeway to perform the work while preserving their well-being. For example, in our study, some participants created work routines adapted to their teleworking reality, which allowed them control over their situation. On the other hand, our results highlight the importance of support for the well-being of the teleworker with a disability. First, those who participated in our study noticed an overall decrease in the quality of their relationships with their employers and colleagues. The difficulty in building relationships due to distance and the emotionlessness of digital exchanges affected the perception of disabled teleworkers regarding the support they received in their workplace. The decrease in the quality of relationships also may have contributed to worker isolation and, in turn, decreased their well-being. Nevertheless, maintaining oral communication within the organizational environment was seen as beneficial to the well-being of disabled teleworkers. This practice promoted greater engagement at work and a greater sense of inclusion. Finally, in the results, the support of colleagues and managers emerged as a key factor in the well-being of teleworkers with disabilities. Colleagues' and managers' understanding of the issues related to the teleworker's disability was a major factor in the support that these workers felt.

Since the different factors in Kasarek and Theorell’s (1990) demand-latitude-support model interact with each other and modulate the well-being the disabled teleworker experiences, it is important to consider all factors together rather than individually, to better understand certain situations affecting well-being [39]. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, certain elements of psychological demand and support affect well-being more negatively among disabled teleworkers. Our results, however, support implementing other strategies, such as maintaining oral communication in the organizational setting or allowing flexibility in work schedules, which can mitigate these effects. Although each factor has a different impact on the well-being of the teleworker with a disability, paying attention to their interactions to fully understand the dynamics that potentially lead to well-being is even more important.

5.2 The Importance of the Environment for the Well-Being of Disabled Teleworkers

The second contribution of this study is that several important elements in the well-being of disabled teleworkers revolve around their environment, whether physical, organizational, or social. Indeed, 11 of the factors that this study identifies concern the environment. This finding is consistent with Baker, Moon (18), who suggest the importance of creating environments that are sensitive to the diverse needs and inclusion of disabled teleworkers.

First, the physical environment is important because it allows the disabled teleworker to have a space that allows him or her to feel comfortable in the job and access to tools adapted to his or her specific needs. This study highlights the necessity for the worker to have access to an isolated or quiet space for work. This allows the worker to eliminate distractions from the home environment (i.e., noisy children, talking in the same room) and to work with maximum peace of mind. Moreover, other authors also report that indoor noise that roommates or family cause would have a significant impact on workers’ ability to work [47]. Second, access to equipment (i.e., technology platforms, computer, and office equipment) also emerges in the results as a central factor in the well-being of disabled workers in telework settings. Accessibility of equipment adapted to the worker's condition allows him or her to not only avoid work-related injuries but also experience less stress in the face of the employer's demands, by feeling more confident of meeting expectations. In addition to having access to equipment adapted to their needs, obtaining technical assistance regarding the installation and operation of the various technologies is important. In a study by Montreuil and Lippel (48), more than half of the teleworkers (59.7%) did not have access to assistance when needed, and this would have negatively impacted their work experience.

The organizational environment, especially the attitude of the manager, seems to be a key element contributing to the well-being of disabled teleworkers. A manager who listens to their needs and concerns and allows them to verbalize their limitations establishes honest, safe, and healthy relationships in the workplace. This fosters inclusiveness and transparency in the organization and promotes a sense of well-being at work. In addition, reduced social isolation among the teleworkers may result from support that the organization offers [49]. Nevertheless, a lack of consideration for the difficulties that teleworkers with disabilities experience significantly impacts their well-being. Moreover, other authors have raised this idea in situations where the teleworker must manage problematic situations without receiving help quickly and readily [48].

Finally, our results identify gaps in the social environment related to the pandemic context, which influence the well-being of teleworkers. For example, since distance reduces the quality of contacts and the support colleagues offer is less in some cases, the worker may feel that he or she does not have an adequate support network in case of difficulties. The feeling of loneliness the physical distance between colleagues and the teleworker can cause also can count as a major disadvantage in the life of the latter [50]. Nevertheless, maintaining oral communication became a mitigating factor for these negative effects. This type of communication can then compensate for the social environment that is less present in the life of the teleworker with a disability in the context of a pandemic and, by the same token, increase his or her well-being.

These results are consistent with theoretical models in occupational health that recognize the link between the environment and well-being [e.g., 33, 34–36].

5.3 Recommendations

In light of these findings, it is possible to make some practical recommendations that contribute to the well-being of workers with disabilities. These recommendations relate to both the elements of the environment (i.e., physical, social, and organizational) and the factors of Karasek and Theorell's (1990) demand-latitude-support model, which Table 2 illustrates.

Table 2

Practical recommendations contributing to the well-being of disabled teleworkers
Type of environment	Practical recommendations	Factors of the Karasek and Theorell model
Physical Environment	Access to technology and equipment appropriate to the needs of the disabled teleworker.	Demand
Physical Environment	Access to a workspace with minimal distractions.
Organizational Environment	Adapting the workload to the needs of the disabled teleworker.
	Allowing the teleworker to manage his/her work schedule and break times.	Latitude
	Support the expression of personal boundaries at work to the manager.	Latitude
	Provide training to disabled teleworkers on telework organization, communication, isolation issues, etc.	Support
	Listen and follow up on teleworker's questions/concerns.
	Allow you to work in the office a few hours a week.
Social Environment	Maintain social contact with colleagues and manager to break isolation.
Social Environment	Encourage oral communication with colleagues and employer.

5.4 Strengths and Limitations of the Study

This study has some strengths in terms of the type of study chosen to address the primary objective. The qualitative study provided the unique perspectives of workers with disabilities on the elements that influence their well-being at work. It makes available a better understanding of some of the complex and unique elements of telework and their impact on disabled people. The well-distributed study sample, in terms of age, gender, and type of disability, may improve representativeness. In addition, the methodology described in detail allows for replication. However, since the workers recruited were all from the province of Quebec (Canada), it is difficult to guarantee transferability to other contexts. An overrepresentation of visually impaired participants in our sample may also have oriented the results. Finally, it is also important to remember that this exploratory study is descriptive and, as such, does not make possible the establishment of causal links between the factors identified and the well-being of the individuals.

The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of teleworking during the pandemic on the well-being of disabled people. Interviews with disabled teleworkers identified 15 factors influencing their well-being. These results can be integrated with Karasek and Theorell's (1990) demand-latitude-support theoretical model. Moreover, they highlight the influence of the environment, whether physical, organizational, or social, on well-being. The influence of these different factors allows for the development of various practical recommendations applicable to promoting well-being among disabled teleworkers. Given that telework has expanded since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and will likely continue to remain a widespread modality of work delivery, it becomes even more important to expand knowledge about it, to benefit the well-being of disabled teleworkers. Finally, quantitative studies may be of interest in the future to measure the links the results of our study suggest.

Points of interest

The COVID-19 pandemic has had many impacts on workers' lives and well-being. This study concern telework which is a work delivery modality that has drastically increased and will remain in the long term.
Our study made it possible to better understand the factors that contribute to the well-being of a less studied population, namely teleworkers with disabilities.
The qualitative design used promoted the unique perspectives of workers with disabilities on the elements that influence their well-being at work.
The nine practical recommendations that emerged from this study represent concrete and applicable levers to consider the reality of people with disabilities in the telework practices.

Funding

This work was supported by a research grant from the [removed for review process].

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to acknowledge [removed for review process], research assistants, for their help with the conduction of this study.

Conflict of interest

None of the authors has any conflict of interest to declare.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Ethics

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were per the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Ethical certification was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of [removed for review process].

Authors’ contributions

XX, XX, XX and XX contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by XX, assisted by XX, XX and XX. Literature search was performed by XX. The first draft of the manuscript was written by XX and all the authors commented on the previous versions of the manuscript. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Listings of WHO’s. response to COVID-19 [press release]. 29 janvier 2021 2021.
Zossou C. Partage des tâches domestiques: faire équipe pendant la pandémie. Statistique Canada; 2021.
Statistics Canada. Enquête canadienne sur la situation des entreprises: les répercussions de la COVID-19 sur les entreprises au Canada 2020 [Available from: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/fr/daily-quotidien/200714/dq200714a-fra.pdf?st=9mGGRyKF.
Felstead A, Reuschke D. Homeworking in the UK: before and during the 2020 lockdown. 2020.
Institute of Directors. Home-working here to stay, new IoD figures suggest 2020 [Available from: https://www.iod.com/news/news/articles/Home-working-here-to-stay-new-IoD-figures-suggest.
Turcotte M. Les personnes avec incapacité et l'emploi. Ottawa: Statistique Canada; 2014.
Association de gestion du fonds pour l'insertion des personnes handicapées. Comment les personnes en situation de handicap ont-elles vécu la crise de la Covid en 2020 ? Analyse et résultats 2021 [Available from: https://www.agefiph.fr/sites/default/files/medias/fichiers/2021-03/Agefiph-Etude_Covid_17%20mars.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3pSg3WgjwUCJcPUarSmVW0JGrsdesz0I-yHl9iOX3nXMPXKnIhV28d_zw.
Schur LA, Ameri M, Kruse D. Telework After COVID. A "Silver Lining" for Workers with Disabilities? J Occup Rehabil. 2020;30(4):521–36.
Moon NW, Linden MA, Bricout JC, Baker PM. Telework rationale and implementation for people with disabilities: considerations for employer policymaking. Work. 2014;48(1):105–15.
Till M, Leonard T, Yeung S, Nicholls G. Profil des expériences sur le marché du travail: adultes canadiens de 15 ans et plus ayant une incapacité, 2012 2015 [Available from: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-654-x/89-654-x2015005-fra.htm.
Haddon L, Brynin M. The character of telework and the characteristics of teleworkers. New Technol Work Employ. 2005;20(1):34–46.
Garrett RK, Danziger JN. Which telework? Defining and testing a taxonomy of technology-mediated work at a distance. Social Sci Comput Rev. 2007;25(1):27–47.
Heisey AG. Teleworking. Work/Life Balance of Online Instructors with Disabilities: A Phenomenological Study. ProQuest LLC; 2012.
Linden M, Milchus K. Teleworkers with disabilities: Characteristics and accommodation use. Work. 2014;47(4):473.
Davis LA. A Narrative Examination of the Perception of Employment by the Visually Disabled. ProQuest LLC; 2018.
Murray B, Kenny S. Telework as an Employment Option for People with Disabilities. Int J Rehabil Res. 1990;13(3):205–14.
Granger JC, Kleiner BH. Benefit programmes for disabled employees. Equal Opportunities International. 2003.
Baker P, Moon NW, Ward AC. Virtual exclusion and telework: Barriers and opportunities of technocentric workplace accommodation policy. Work. 2006;27(4):421–30.
Anderson J, Bricout JC, West MD. Telecommuting. Meeting the needs of businesses and employees with disabilities. J Vocat Rehabil. 2001;16(2):97–104.
Gewurtz R, Kirsh B. Disruption, disbelief and resistance: A meta-synthesis of disability in the workplace. Work. 2009;34(1):33–44.
Holland P, Clayton S. Navigating employment retention with a chronic health condition: a meta-ethnography of the employment experiences of people with musculoskeletal disorders in the UK. Disabil Rehabil. 2020;42(8):1071–86.
Tang J. Understanding the Telework Experience of People with Disabilities. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction. 2021;5(CSCW1):1–27.
Bjursell C, Bergmo-Prvulovic I, Hedegaard J. Telework and Lifelong Learning. Frontiers in Sociology. 2021;6.
Oakman J, Kinsman N, Stuckey R, Graham M, Weale V. A rapid review of mental and physical health effects of working at home: how do we optimise health? BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1).
Tremblay D-G, Demers G. Guide d'information et d'implantation. Le télétravail: enjeux et défis 2020.
O'Connor DB, Aggleton JP, Chakrabarti B, Cooper CL, Creswell C, Dunsmuir S, et al. Research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: A call to action for psychological science. Wiley Online Library; 2020.
Jeudy S. Pourquoi courir tant de milles? Montréal: Université du Québec à Montréal; 1984.
Kinderman P, Schwannauer M, Pontin E, Tai S. The development and validation of a general measure of well-being: the BBC well-being scale. Qual Life Res. 2011;20(7):1035–42.
Linton M-J, Dieppe P, Medina-Lara A. Review of 99 self-report measures for assessing well-being in adults: exploring dimensions of well-being and developments over time. BMJ Open. 2016;6(7):e010641.
WHO WHO, editor. Conférence internationale de la santé; 1946; New York.
Achille M. Definir la sante au travail. I. La base conceptuelle d’un modele de la sante au travail. Concilier performance organisationnelle et santé psychologique au travail. 2003:65–90.
St-Hilaire F, Gilbert M-H, Brun J-P. What if subordinates took care of managers’ mental health at work? Int J Hum Resource Manage. 2019;30(2):337–59.
Alderson M. La psychodynamique du travail: objet, considérations épistémologiques, concepts et prémisses théoriques. Santé mentale au Québec. 2004;29(1):243–60.
Demerouti E, Bakker AB, Nachreiner F, Schaufeli WB. The job demands-resources model of burnout. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86(3):499.
Karasek RA. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1979:285–30.
Siegrist J. Effort-reward imbalance at work and health. Historical and current perspectives on stress and health. Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2002.
Karasek R, Theorell T. Healthy work: stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life. New York: Basic Books; 1990.
Duxbury L, Halinski M. When more is less: An examination of the relationship between hours in telework and role overload. Work. 2014;48(1):91–103.
Vassos M, Nankervis K, Skerry T, Lante K. Can the job demand-control-(support) model predict disability support worker burnout and work engagement? J Intell Dev Disabil. 2019;44(2):139–49.
Gallagher F, Marceau M. La recherche descriptive interprétative. In: Corbière M, Larivière N, editors. Méthodes qualitatives, quantitatives et mixtes Dans la recherche en sciences humaines, sociales et de la santé. 2e ed. Québec: Presses de l'Université du Québec; 2020. p. 5–32.
Sandelowski M. Whatever happened to qualitative description? Res Nurs Health. 2000;23(4):334–40.
Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough?: an experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods. 2006;18(1):59–82.
Hennink MM, Kaiser BN, Marconi VC. Code saturation versus meaning saturation: how many interviews are enough? Qual Health Res. 2016;27(4):591–608.
Paillé P, Mucchielli A. L'analyse qualitative en sciences humaines et sociales. 4 ed. Paris: Armand Colin; 2016. 430 p.
Sardeshmukh SR, Sharma D, Golden TD. Impact of telework on exhaustion and job engagement: a job demands and job resources model. New Technol Work Employ. 2012;27(3):193–207.
Kelly E, Moen P. Rethinking the clockwork of work: Why schedule control may pay off at work and at home. Adv Developing Hum Resour. 2007;9(4):487–506.
Andargie MS, Touchie M, O’Brien W. Case study: A survey of perceived noise in Canadian multi-unit residential buildings to study long-term implications for widespread teleworking. Building Acoust. 2021;28(4):443–60.
Montreuil S, Lippel K. Telework and occupational health: a Quebec empirical study and regulatory implications. Saf Sci. 2003;41(4):339–58.
Bentley TA, Teo ST, McLeod L, Tan F, Bosua R, Gloet M. The role of organisational support in teleworker wellbeing: A socio-technical systems approach. Appl Ergon. 2016;52:207–15.
Baugé J. Quelques effets du télétravail sur la santé et la vie quotidienne. Archives des Maladies Professionnelles et de Médecine du Travail. 1994;55(8):644–5.

No competing interests reported.

The Effects of Teleworking in a Pandemic Context on the Well-Being of People with Disabilities: A Canadian Qualitative Study

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction