Work-Related Quality of Life During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Gender Perspectives Among a Brazilian Sample

Abstract

Work-related quality of life (WRQoL) was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly for women. This study sought to evaluate the impacts of COVID-19 on Brazilians’ WRQoL from a gender-based perspective. A sample of 326 participants, 187 women and 139 men, completed an online survey containing the Fear of COVID-19 scale, the Negative Impacts of COVID-19 scale, and the Work-Related Quality of Life scale. t-tests compared the results between genders. Pearson correlation tested the association between the variables. Linear regressions assessed the predictive factors of WRQoL. Women reported significantly higher levels of COVID-19-related fears, and lower levels of all seven dimensions of WRQoL, with significant differences for overall WRQoL, well-being, career satisfaction, and control over work. A negative correlation was found among overall WRQoL, fear of COVID-19, and the negative impact of COVID-19. Gender, fear, and negative impacts of COVID-19 were significant predictors of general well-being (explaining 24.6% of variance); regarding the seven dimensions evaluated, gender explained two of them, fear of COVID-19 explained four, and the negative impact of COVID-19 explained six of them. These results contribute to the analysis of the COVID-19 pandemic’s effects on increasing gender inequality in a manner unfavorable to women in the Brazilian organizational context.

1. Introduction

The first cases of COVID-19 were identified in China in December 2019. The infections were rapidly spread across all continents, and the health crisis was classified as a pandemic [1]. In February 2020, the first cases of COVID-19 were diagnosed in Brazil, and the first deaths occurred in March 2020 [2]. The epidemiological profile of the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil was quite different, both in terms of duration, incidence of infection, and the number of daily deaths, which for many months were the highest in the world [3,4].

It is now known that the COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected Brazil, and among the reasons for the increase in the severity of the crisis we highlight denialism regarding the existence and/or severity of the COVID-19 pandemic at the federal level, delay in purchasing vaccines, dissemination of fake news about vaccination, vaccine hesitancy, poor management of public resources in confronting the pandemic, and lack of coordination between country, states, and municipalities in implementing policies aimed to restrict social contact in critical periods [2,4,5,6,7]. All these factors promoted the emergence and spread of more infectious and more virulent subvariants of COVID-19, which resulted in a significant increase in the number of cases, beyond the accommodation capacity of the Brazilian health system, both public and private, which resulted in an astonishing number of deaths [4,8]. In 2021, the year with the highest mortality related to COVID-19 in the country, 423,470 people died from the infection. The highest number of deaths occurred between the months of March and July 2021, and throughout this period more than a thousand people died each day [9].

The health crisis and its restrictions added to the inefficiency of the federal government in dealing with it, causing significant economic and social impacts on the Brazilian population [9,10,11,12,13,14]. The COVID-19 pandemic, with its restrictions and risks, added to the inefficiency of the Brazilian federal government in confronting it, as well as the underlying economic crisis, which has profoundly affected the mental health of Brazilians [10,15,16]. During the pandemic, not only the disease itself, but the fear of it further worsened the population’s mental health problems [17]. In this regard, a growing body of literature has focused on the mental health effects associated with fear of COVID-19. For example, in a meta-analysis [18] that included 33 studies that used the Fear of COVID-19 scale [19], the authors found positive, strong, and statistically significant associations between fear of COVID-19 and anxiety (r = 0.55), traumatic stress (r = 0.54), distress (r = 0.53), stress (r = 0.47), and depression (r = 0.38) [18].

Regarding fear of COVID-19 from a gender perspective, a Cuban study conducted by Broche-Pérez and colleagues [20], with 772 participants, demonstrated that female participants experienced significantly higher levels of fear of the virus compared to men. In this study, being a woman was a predictor of medium and high levels of fear of COVID-19 [20]. This result is corroborated by other studies, which indicated a greater tendency for psychological impacts related to the pandemic among women, especially in relation to fear and anxiety [21,22]. For example, in a study conducted by Wang and colleagues [23], female gender was identified as a predictor of negative psychological impact during the COVID-19 outbreak. This study included 1210 participants from 194 cities in China. According to the authors, women suffered a more significant psychological impact during the pandemic, as well as higher levels of stress, anxiety, and depression.

Specifically, in relation to women, there were very negative and lasting effects as a result of the pandemic associated with the pre-existing gender inequalities in the country, which have historically positioned Brazilian women in a condition of disadvantage and social injustice, exemplified by lower wages and less political representation, not to mention violence and femicide [24,25,26].

Furthermore, in Brazil, women have been more likely to work from home and are more likely to have stopped working after the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic [25]. In addition, women have also experienced a greater increase in domestic work and family care responsibilities in comparison with men, which has influenced their performance of routine activities and paid work [25,26]. This disparity has also been observed in an academic context, where women have been publishing less scientific research than men due to the increased domestic work and family care demands that were placed upon them during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially because for many months between the beginning of 2020 and the end of 2021 schools, daycare centers, and health services for the elderly remained closed, and the care of these people tended to be assigned to women, driven by stereotypical views of gender roles in Latin America [27,28,29].

According to the theory of “Gender Production” [30], these trends stem from societal perceptions of women and men, in addition to the resulting roles arising from old and solidified social constructions [29,31] that typically view men as workers and family income providers, while domestic work and family care responsibilities usually fall to women [23,24]. This gender polarization is often applied beginning in childhood and is fostered by stereotypical attitudes from an early age that encourage children to develop internal gender schemes that tend to remain into adulthood and shape their relationships with the world [25]. In this regard, studies suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic has also affected the professional aspects of women’s lives directly related to their work-related quality of life (WRQoL) [26,27,28], such as professional autonomy, overload, sense of belonging, job satisfaction [29], career opportunities and security, organizational support, equality in payment, and a collaborative work environment [30,31]. For example, a large population study [32] compared work-related variables before and during COVID-19 pandemic, as well as gender-related differences. The sample addressed 73,296 individuals from the 27 countries of the European Union. The main results indicated an increase in working during leisure time (PR: 1.43, 95% CI 1.34–1.53), lack of psychological detachment from work issues (PR: 1.70, 95% CI 1.45–1.99), and work–life conflict (PR: 1.29, 95% CI 1.17–1.43) compared to before the pandemic. Except for working in leisure time, losses related to work issues were more significant among women and mothers. These results reiterate that work stressors increased disproportionately for women and mothers during the pandemic, highlighting gender inequalities in work-related issues [32].

Although several studies, mostly developed in high-income countries, indicate that the COVID-19 pandemic had a negative impact on mental health and changed people’s working conditions worldwide, it is unclear to what extent these changes differ by gender perspective in Brazil. Identifying work-related gender inequalities is an important step toward addressing systemic gender differences in the Brazilian organizational context, which contributes to greater gender equity and social justice. The selection of a Brazilian sample is especially relevant, since Brazil is a country that has traditionally demonstrated noticeable gender, employment [25,26,27,28,29,30,31], and WRQoL-related inequalities [33]. To the best of our knowledge, there are no Brazilian studies specifically focused on WRQoL perceptions during the COVID-19 pandemic from a gender perspective. Therefore, this study aims to assess the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the WRQoL of Brazilian men and women and to identify the predictive factors for WRQoL among this sample.

Based on previous studies, our main hypotheses are as follows: (1) higher levels of fear of COVID-19 and negative impacts of the pandemic will be verified among women, (2) work-related quality of life will be lower among women, and (3) gender, fear of COVID-19, and negative impacts of the pandemic will be predictors of work-related quality of life.

2. Materials and Methods

This study was carried out using a quantitative method, cross-sectional temporality, and an asynchronous, online process. The selection of research methods was driven by the need to understand work-related quality of life and the experiences associated with the fear and impact of COVID-19 in a diverse sample of Brazilian workers. Additionally, given the pandemic context, data collection through online questionnaires was an appropriate choice, allowing us to reach participants safely, quickly, and efficiently, minimizing the risk of contagion and respecting the mobility restrictions imposed by COVID-19. This study was conducted in several stages. Initially, we performed a literature review to identify gaps and formulate hypotheses. Next, the questionnaire was developed, which included sociodemographic measures, as well as scales related to the impact of COVID-19 on mental health (COVID-19 scale and Negative Impacts of COVID-19 scale) and on quality of life (WRQoL). After obtaining ethical approval, the questionnaire was distributed to a sample of participants through online platforms. Once data collection was complete, the data were statistically analyzed using specialized software. We performed descriptive analyses to characterize the sample, followed by inferential analyses to test the formulated hypotheses. Additionally, we calculated effect sizes, such as Cohen’s d, to quantify the magnitude of the results and regressions to assess possible predictors of WRQoL.

2.1. Sociodemographic Characteristics

To assess participants’ sociodemographic composition, participants were asked to provide information about their age, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, place of residence, educational attainment, socioeconomic status, and employment status.

2.2. Fear of COVID-19 Scale

This is a self-report instrument developed by Ahorsu et al. [19] that aims to evaluate the perception of fear related to COVID-19. The scale was validated to Portuguese by Pereira et al. [34]. The scale comprises seven items measured using a Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 to 5, with higher scores signifying a greater fear of COVID-19 [19]. Participants are asked to respond to statements, such as “It makes me uncomfortable to think about COVID-19”, “When I watch the news and see stories about COVID-19 on social media, I become nervous or anxious”, and “I am afraid of losing my life due to COVID-19”. Both the original scale and its translated version into Portuguese presented good indicators of internal validity, with a Cronbach’s α of 0.82 and 0.86, respectively.

2.3. Negative Impacts of COVID-19 Scale

This instrument, developed by Pereira et al. [34], aims to measure self-reported negative impacts of COVID-19 on participants’ lives. The scale consists of ten items related to different areas of psychosocial functioning and measures participants’ responses using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating greater negative COVID-19-related impacts [34]. Examples of statements are as follows: “Compared to my life before the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been negative impacts—on my professional or academic life; on my family life and on my financial life”. The scale demonstrated an internal consistency of α = 0.87, indicating its excellent reliability [34].

2.4. Work-Related Quality of Life Scale

This study utilized the Portuguese language-validated Work-Related Quality of Life scale [35,36] to assess WRQoL. The Portuguese-validated WRQoL scale is a Likert-type scale with responses ranging from 1 to 5, encompasses 23 items distributed across six dimensions, comprising general well-being, home–work interactions, career satisfaction, control over work, working conditions, and work-related stress, in addition to overall WRQoL [37]. The general well-being (GWB) dimension assesses respondents’ general feelings of happiness and life satisfaction, including psychological and physical health. The home–work interactions (HWIs) dimension addresses issues related to work–life balance and the extent to which an employer is perceived to support employee’s home life, aligning with the concept of work–family conflict. The career satisfaction (CS) dimension measures satisfaction with career opportunities and personal fulfillment provided by work. The control over work (COW) dimension reflects the level of control employees feel they have over their work environment and the decisions affecting their activities. The working conditions (WCs) dimension assesses satisfaction with the physical work environment, job security, and available resources. The work-related stress (WRS) dimension evaluates the perception of excessive demands or pressures at work. Finally, overall work-related quality of life (OW) represents an aggregated score of all these dimensions, providing a holistic measure of work-related quality of life. This scale aims to assess the factors that influence the quality of work-related experiences and possesses excellent reliability (α = 0.93).

2.5. Procedures

This research was carried out using an online webpage between October and December 2020. With the increase in restrictions regarding social contact and the peak of the pandemic in September 2020, which positioned Brazil as the second country with the most COVID-19 cases in the world, data collection was initiated before formal approval was obtained to ensure access to the necessary data, particularly concerning the fear and impact of COVID-19, as well as the variations in work methods. Participation was voluntary, and participants were referred to a linked website created specifically for the purposes of this study. The first page of the questionnaire explained the study objectives and informed participants about how to respond to the study, how to withdraw from the study, and how to contact the study authors for more information. Furthermore, participants were also asked to read and sign an informed consent form following the ethical standards defined by the Declaration of Helsinki [38].

The researchers sent approximately 2000 study invitations, and 340 participants responded voluntarily, resulting in a 17% response rate. Survey dissemination adhered to ethical principles of informed consent, anonymity, and confidentiality. The study did not offer rewards or incentives in exchange for participation. Study inclusion criteria encompassed being older than 18 years of age, being Brazilian, being a native speaker of Brazilian Portuguese, and possessing a formal relationship with an organization/institution/Business at the time of the survey (e.g., students, employed student, self-employed, employees, active retirees, others like freelancers, scholarship holder, temporary workers, and others). The exclusion criteria included people who did not have a formal job and those who did not answer at least 90% of the questions. The research ethics committee of the University of Beira Interior, Portugal (code: CEUBI-Pj-2020-088), granted approval for this study (17 November 2020). If the approval had not been granted, the data collected up to that point would have been excluded, and the study would have been redone.

2.6. Data Analysis

Data analysis was conducted using SPSS statistical software, version 26, with a minimum significance level of 5% (p < 0.05). Initially, descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, and percentages) were calculated to characterize the sample, and differences between comparison groups were assessed using Student’s t-tests and one-way ANOVA. Parametric tests were applied based on the Central Limit Theorem (n > 100), allowing us to infer that the data approximated normality. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to examine associations among the study variables, including COVID-19 fear, negative impacts of COVID-19, and work-related quality of life (WRQoL). Effect sizes between groups were classified as follows: 0.20 for a small effect; 0.50 for a medium effect; and 0.80 or higher for a large effect [39,40].

Subsequently, multiple linear regression analyses were performed to control for the effects of significant sociodemographic variables (age, marital status, place of residence, sexual orientation, and professional status) on WRQoL, aiming to reduce potential confounders. The significant sociodemographic variables were included in the first block of the regression, followed by gender in the second block, and finally, COVID-19 fear and negative impact of COVID-19 in the third block. This structure allowed for the exploration of the direct influences of the study variables (gender, COVID-19 fear, and negative impact of COVID-19) on the dependent variable, WRQoL. The minimum significance level was maintained at 5% (p < 0.05).

3. Results

3.1. Sociodemographic Information

A convenience sample of 326 Brazilian nationals, consisting of 187 (57.4%) women and 139 (42.6%) men over the age of 18, participated in this study. Participants ranged from 18 to 74 years, with a mean age of 38.43 years (SD = 12.40). Men had a significantly higher mean age than women (t = 4.903, p < 0.001). Most participants held a university or higher degree (90%), which was not significative between groups. Regarding sexual orientation, 77.9% identified as heterosexual, and a plurality were married or in a civil union (49.8%), with significant gender differences for both variables (χ² = 8.927, p < 0.05 and χ² = 8.348, p < 0.05, respectively). In terms of residence, most participants lived in urban areas (94.7%), with a significant difference between men and women (χ² = 4.641, p < 0.05). Most participants reported middle to upper-middle socioeconomic status (73%), though this variable showed no statistical significance. Finally, most participants were employed or simultaneously working and studying (70.2%), with statistically significant gender differences (χ² = 11.811, p < 0.05). Additional information regarding the sample’s sociodemographic characteristics is presented in

Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics (n = 326, Mage = 38.43; SD = 12.40).

Variable	Category	M (SD)		t
Age	Men	42.22 (13.25)		4.903 **
	Woman	35.59 (10.93)
Variable	Category	n	%	χ2
Marital Status	Married or in consensual union	162	49.7	8.348 *
	Single	129	39.5
	Divorced or separated	30	9.2
	Widower	4	1.2
Sexual Orientation	Heterosexual	254	77.9	8.927 *
	Bisexual or pansexual	38	11.6
	Gay or lesbian	33	10.1
	Asexual	1	0.3
Educational Attainment	Up to 12 years of schooling	31	9.5	5.139
	Graduate degree	65	19.9
	Master’s degree	128	39.3
	Ph.D. degree	100	30.7
Place of Residence	Rural	16	4.9	4.641 *
	Urban	309	94.7
Socioeconomic Status	Low to low-middle	79	24.2	5.413
	Medium	238	73
	Upper-middle to high	65	2.8
Employment Status	Student	36	11	11.811 *
	Employed student	93	28.5
	Self-employed	41	12.6
	Employed	136	41.7
	Active retirees	11	3.4
	Other (freelancer, scholarship, temporary worker…)	9	2.8

* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.001.

.

3.2. Fear of COVID-19, the Negative Impacts of COVID-19, and the WRQoL Scale

Table 2. Overall results for fear of COVID-19, the negative impacts of COVID-19, and WRQoL.

Variable	M	SD	Min	Max	Cut-Off Point
Fear of COVID-19	2.56	0.91	1	5	3
Negative Impacts of COVID-19	3.05	0.88	1	5	3
General Well-Being	3.33	0.90	1	5	3
Home–Work Interactions	3.33	1.00	1	5	3
Career Satisfaction	3.55	0.78	1.4	5	3.2
Control over Work	3.55	0.86	1.3	5	3.15
Working Conditions	3.27	1.00	1	5	3
Work-Related Stress	2.91	1.05	1	5	3
Overall WRQoL	3.32	0.69	1.2	5	3.1

shows the overall results for the Fear of COVID-19, the Negative Impacts of COVID-19, and the WRQoL scales, respectively. This study found moderate scores for all variables that were close to the cut-off points.

3.3. Results for the Fear of COVID-19, the Negative Impacts of COVID-19, and the WRQoL Scales by Gender

A comparison of scores between men and women revealed significant differences (p < 0.05) concerning their fears of COVID-19, with women exhibiting greater COVID-19 fears than men. Regarding the WRQoL dimensions, results showed significant differences between men and women for general well-being, career satisfaction, control over work, and overall WRQoL, with men reporting higher scores and indicating more positive perceptions concerning these domains than women. An analysis of the negative impacts of COVID-19 found no significant differences between men and women concerning home–work interactions, working conditions, or work-related stress.

Table 3. Results for the Fear of COVID-19, the Negative Impacts of COVID-19, and the WRQoL scales by gender.

Variable	Women		Men		t (df)	p	Cohen’s d
	M	SD	M	SD
Fear of COVID-19	2.66	0.922	2.43	0.886	2.223 (320)	0.027 *	0.907
Negative Impact of COVID-19	3.09	0.865	3.00	0.904	0.911 (320)	0.363	-
General Well-Being	3.20	0.873	3.50	0.915	−3.010 (320)	0.003 *	0.892
Home–Work Interactions	3.28	0.999	3.39	1.00	−0.972 (320)	0.332	-
Career Satisfaction	3.44	0.764	3.71	0.785	−3.108 (320)	0.002 *	0.773
Control over Work	3.44	0.809	3.70	0.916	−2.746 (320)	0.006 *	0.857
Working Conditions	3.24	0.985	3.32	1.00	−0.688 (320)	0.492	-
Work-Related Stress	2.85	1.02	2.99	1.11	−1.152 (320)	0.250	-
Overall WRQoL	3.24	0.647	3.43	0.737	−2.502 (320)	0.013 *	0.687

* p < 0.05.

displays the results for these variables by gender. The magnitude of the effects, indicated by Cohen’s d values, shows that these differences are not only statistically significant, but also have practical relevance, with effect sizes ranging from moderate to large.

3.4. Correlation Between Fear of COVID-19, the Negative Impacts of COVID-19, and WRQoL

A correlation analysis revealed significant correlations (p < 0.001) for most of the associations among the variables, though the strength of these correlations varied from weak to moderate. Overall, WRQoL demonstrated a moderate negative correlation with both the fear of COVID-19 and the negative impacts of COVID-19 scores. A negative moderate correlation was found between fear of COVID-19 and general well-being, and negative weak correlations were observed between fear of COVID-19 and home–work interactions, career satisfaction, control over work, working conditions, and work-related stress. Additionally, negative correlations were identified between the negative impacts of COVID-19 and all WRQoL subscales, except for work-related stress, which had a negative but moderate correlation.

Table 4. Correlation matrix between the Fear of COVID-19, the Negative Impacts of COVID-19, and the WRQoL scales.

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1—Fear of COVID-19	-
2—Negative Impacts of COVID-19	0.440 **	-
3—General Well-Being	−0.337 **	−0.459 **	-
4—Home–Work Interactions	−0.182 **	−0.208 **	0.489 **	-
5—Career Satisfaction	−0.193 **	−0.279 **	0.687 **	0.527 **	-
6—Control over Work	−0.086	−0.094	0.417 **	0.306 **	0.582 **	-
7—Working Conditions	−0.269 **	−0.228 **	0.546 **	0.738 **	0.586 **	0.301 **	-
8—Work-Related Stress	−0.260 **	−0.322 **	0.435 **	0.401 **	0.363 **	0.145 **	0.418 **	-
9—Overall WRQoL	−0.303 **	−0.361 **	0.793 **	0.790 **	0.819 **	0.592 **	0.816 **	0.644 **	-

** p < 0.001.

provides a more detailed depiction of these associations.

3.5. Predictive Variables of WRQoL

Finally, seven linear regression analyses were conducted to assess the predictive effects of the independent variables (gender, fear of COVID-19, and the negative impacts of COVID-19) on all six dimensions of WRQoL and for overall WRQoL. To control for potential confounding effects, significant sociodemographic variables (age, marital status, place of residence, sexual orientation, and professional status) were included in the first model of each regression analysis. In the second model, the variable “gender” was added, and in the third model, “fear of COVID-19” and “negative impact of COVID-19” were included as predictors.

Table 5. Multiple linear regression analyses examining the predictive effects of sociodemographic variables, gender, fear of COVID-19, and negative Impacts of COVID-19 on WRQoL dimensions.

	GWB	HWI	CS	COW	WC	WRS	OW
Age
B	0.005	−0.009	0.008	0.004	−0.006	0.009	0.001
SEB	0.055	0.006	0.004	0.005	0.006	0.006	0.004
b	0.001	−0.108	0.131	0.055	−0.081	0.111	0.019
Marital status
B	0.061	0.073	0.010	−0.013	0.054	−0.023	0.027
SEB	0.055	0.067	0.051	0.059	0.066	0.068	0.004
b	0.064	0.069	0.012	−0.014	0.051	−0.021	0.037
Place of residence
B	−0.118	−0.117	0.022	0.012	−0.035	−0.180	−0.069
SEB	0.106	0.130	0.098	0.114	0.128	0.132	0.085
b	−0.056	−0.050	0.012	0.006	−0.015	−0.073	−0.043
Sexual orientation
B	0.019	0.049	0.036	−0.049	−0.027	0.027	0.009
SEB	0.072	0.088	0.066	0.077	0.086	0.089	0.057
b	0.014	0.033	0.032	−0.039	−0.018	0.017	0.009
Professional status
B	0.011	−0.036	−0.037	0.007	−0.060	−0.045	−0.027
SEB	0.041	0.050	0.038	0.044	0.050	0.051	0.033
b	0.015	−0.045	−0.060	0.010	−0.074	−0.052	−0.048
Gender
B	0.190	0.096	0.146	0.181	0.057	−0.008	0.110
SEB	0.099	0.121	0.091	0.106	0.119	0.123	0.079
b	−0.115 *	0.048	0.095	0.105 *	0.028	−0.004	0.080
Fear of COVID-19
B	−0.155	−0.121	−0.073	−0.049	−0.218	−0.183	−0.133
SEB	0.057	0.070	0.052	0.061	0.069	0.071	0.045
b	−0.155 *	−0.110	−0.086	−0.052	−0.198 *	−0.156 *	−0.175 *
Negative impacts of COVID-19
B	−0.380	−0.183	−0.188	−0.041	−0.163	−0.296	−0.208
SEB	0.059	0.073	0.055	0.063	0.071	0.074	0.047
b	−0.370 **	−0.161 **	−0.215 **	−0.042	−0.143 *	−0.246 **	−0.267 **
R2	0.246	0.068	0.112	0.030	0.098	0.145	0.144
F	12.256 **	2.752 **	4.754 **	1.150	4.094 **	6.377 **	7.504 **

* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.001. Note: GWB = general well-being; HWI = home–work interactions; CS = career satisfaction; COW = control over work; WC = working conditions; WRS = work-related stress; OW: overall WRQoL.

displays the results of the final model for the predictive effects of each independent variable on the dependent variable. The sociodemographic variables were not significant predictors for any of the WRQoL dependent variables. Gender, fear of COVID-19, and the negative impacts of COVID-19 were significant predictors of general well-being, explaining 24.6% of its variance. Additionally, fear of COVID-19 and the negative impacts of COVID-19 were significant predictors of work-related stress (explaining 14.5% of variance), working conditions (explaining 9.8% of variance), and the overall WRQoL score (explaining 14.4% of variance). The negative impact of COVID-19 was the only significant predictor of home–work interaction, explaining 6.8% of variance. Gender alone was the only significant predictor of control over work, explaining 3.0% of its variance, although the overall model for this variable was not statistically significant.

4. Discussion

This study provides preliminary contributions to the understanding of WRQoL-related issues in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic from a gender perspective in Brazil. The results point to moderate levels of fear of COVID-19, negative impacts of COVID-19, and WRQoL effects among the study sample. Women reported greater COVID-19-related fears than men. There were no significant differences between men and women concerning the negative impacts of COVID-19. Furthermore, men demonstrated higher and significant scores for overall WRQoL, general well-being, career satisfaction, and control over work. Additionally, gender, fear of COVID-19, and the negative impacts of COVID-19 were significant predictors of general well-being, explaining 24.6% of its variance. These results are consistent with those of other studies worldwide and raise important questions about gender inequality in Brazil’s organizational context post-COVID-19.

4.1. Fear of COVID-19, Negative Impact of COVID-19, and Gender

Fear is one of the initial reactions in response to an adverse situation [17]. In our study, women reported higher fear of COVID-19 than men. This result corroborates our initial hypothesis as well as the findings of other studies conducted around the globe, such as in Australia [41], India [42], Cuba [20], Portugal [43], Malaysia [44], and Spain [45], emphasizing women’s propensity to experience greater pandemic-related fears. We believe that this result may also be related to two aspects related to gender stereotypes and sexism in Latin American cultures. The first refers to the social role of women in Latino communities, regarding care and responsibility for the health of nuclear and extended family members. The second is related to the discouragement and social stigmatization of men who demonstrate greater vulnerability and talk about their fears and desires more openly.

In contrast, our research found no significant differences between men and women concerning the negative impacts of COVID-19, which contradicts our first hypothesis, according to which women would report more psychosocial losses resulting from the pandemic, compared to men. It also contradicts the results of previous studies [46,47,48,49,50].

This result could be associated with the nature of the “negative impacts” construct, which has a more practical focus and reflects a broad range of personal, social, and professional domains affected by the pandemic. These domains may have influenced men and women more equally in this specific sample. The absence of significant differences could also be attributed to the relatively privileged socioeconomic profile of our participants, who may have had greater resources to mitigate the negative effects of the pandemic. The sample consisted of a plurality of married participants (49.7%) and participants that were predominantly heterosexual (77.9%), living in urban areas (94.7%), with middle to upper-middle socioeconomic status (73%), and holding at least a graduate degree (90.5%). These characteristics suggest that the participants, regardless of gender, may have been better equipped to cope with the pandemic’s challenges. Privileged groups, particularly those with higher education and income levels, have demonstrated greater resilience and the ability to adapt to the pandemic’s impact in Brazil [51,52], which could explain the moderate perceptions of negative impacts reported by both men and women in our study. Thus, these sociodemographic factors might have played a key role in buffering the perceived psychosocial losses among participants, diminishing the gender-based differences typically observed in less privileged populations.

4.2. Work-Related Quality of Life and Gender

When assessing the six dimensions of WRQoL and overall WRQoL, men scored higher than women in all of the variables. These differences were significant in most cases, namely for general well-being, career satisfaction, control over work, and overall WRQoL. These findings corroborate our second hypothesis, given that gender disparities already existed for these dimensions prior to the COVID-19 pandemic [49,50,51], and that gender inequalities in the Brazilian organizational context were already widely highlighted by prominent labor organizations [28,52,53]. Conversely, we found no significant differences between men and women in the domains of stress, home–work interactions, and working conditions. These findings differ from most studies, which have typically shown that women are more negatively affected regarding these dimensions. The divergent findings of earlier studies are most likely related to the increase in the disproportionate share of domestic work and family care burdens placed upon women [54,55,56,57], which can negatively influence and minimize their perceptions of paid and non-paid work [48,58], as well as feelings of stress and exhaustion [48,59].

In this regard, our results contribute to a broader analysis of the gender distribution of domestic work in Brazil, where women have historically been more responsible for domestic chores and family care and often face the need to reconcile those tasks with paid employment [53,60]. Thus, these variables may have been influenced by the internalization of women’s roles as caregivers and domestic workers, while also frequently holding paid employment [30]. Furthermore, as indicated by the study sample, possessing a higher overall quality of life may favor positive coping in response to the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic [61,62].

4.3. Preditors of Work-Related Quality of Life

None of the sociodemographic variables were significant predictors in the model, confirming their lack of influence on WRQoL in our sample. Gender, fear of COVID-19, and the negative impacts of COVID-19 were significant predictors for general well-being, explaining 24.6% of the variance, with men reporting higher scores in this dimension. This finding supports our third hypothesis about predictors of work-related quality of life. Gender was also the sole predictor for the control over work dimension, in which men scored higher. However, gender’s contribution to explaining this variation was modest (10%), and the model was not statistically significant, suggesting other factors also play important roles. These gender differences indicate that women continue to face specific challenges in these aspects, even when other factors are considered. These findings also support the notion that women may have internalized society’s frequently unfavorable perceptions of their careers due to family responsibilities and personal expectations [63,64], potentially impacting their well-being and work control during the COVID-19 pandemic.

When fear of COVID-19 and the negative impacts of COVID-19 were included as predictors, the model’s explanatory power increased significantly for nearly all WRQoL dimensions. The negative impacts of COVID-19 were consistent and significant predictors for six of the seven WRQoL dimensions, while fear of COVID-19 also played a significant role in four of the seven dimensions. These results align with the negative correlation found between fear and negative impacts of COVID-19 and overall WRQoL. Thus, the COVID-19 pandemic appears to be a multifaceted threat against which employment has not functioned as a protective factor, potentially exacerbating the impact on women. Consequently, fear and negative impacts of COVID-19 were most associated with WRQoL as they influenced the types of work conducted and created feelings of threat and insecurity [65,66].

4.4. Implications

This study contributes to the discussion on the impacts of adverse situations such as the COVID-19 pandemic on the WRQoL of Brazilian workers, according to a gender perspective. Its comparison of gender differences found that women reported a lower WRQoL than men. These results could have potentially negative long-term implications for women, especially if existing organizational problems, employment insecurity, and the unequal gender distribution of paid and unpaid labor persist after the pandemic [65]. Thus, the aim of this study was to raise awareness regarding the urgent need to reduce gender disparities in the Brazilian labor market, especially due to the still-uncertain future effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to many preeminent labor organizations [52,64,67,68], enacting policies that place women at the center of change is an essential step in tackling gender inequality in the long run. In addition, organizational measures sharing this focus could help to minimize gender inequality in the workplace and in WRQoL outcomes both during and after the pandemic. In this sense, flexible work arrangements, empathic communication, and reducing gender biases could be particularly effective in promoting a more gender inclusive post-COVID-19 economic recovery [69].

4.5. Limitations and Future Directions

Although we believe that our objectives have been achieved, we must acknowledge this study’s limitations. The first limitation concerns the small study sample size (n = 326) compared to the total Brazilian population (approximately 212 million people in 2020). Our sample was selected based on convenience criteria, and the participants are mostly of a relatively high income and education. This participant profile does not fully represent the population of Brazilian general population. Therefore, generalizations should be made with caution. Our study has a cross-sectional design, which precludes establishing causal relationships between the variables analyzed. Additionally, the role of sexual orientation was not fully explored in this study, despite the substantial percentage of non-heterosexual participants (22% of the participants were non-heterosexual). This factor may have influenced the results, particularly regarding the impact of COVID-19 on mental health and WRQoL.

It is also important to consider that this study was conducted in 2020, but the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil, unlike other countries, lasted until the end of 2021, the year in which the toughest social contact restrictions were implemented and a period of greater collapse of the public and private health system, with the highest mortality rates in the world in the first half of 2021 [2]. Therefore, when the research was carried out, the most critical moments of the health crisis were yet to come. Thus, the results on fear of COVID and specially the negative impact of the pandemic on life and work-related quality of life may have worsened due to the chronification and worsening of the crisis scenario in Brazil. Especially among women, typical caregivers of children, elderly, and the household routine, the accumulation of these demands and paid work, not to mention the increase in domestic violence and feminicide, have reduced WRQoL [14,70].

Furthermore, in the second half of 2020, when the online survey was completed by participants, the Brazilian Portuguese version of the Fear of COVID-19 scale and the Negative Impacts of COVID-19 scale were not yet available. The first was later validated by Faro et al. [18], and the second still does not have its evidence of validity demonstrated for the Brazilian population. Therefore, we used its validated versions for the Portuguese population [34]. Although there are relatively few differences between Portuguese from Portugal and Brazil, potential issues with understanding the items on these instruments cannot be disregarded. Finally, given that the questionnaire was both made available online and self-administered, these characteristics raise concerns regarding the possible influence of selection bias, such as, for example, the exclusion of digitally disadvantaged people.

In order to address these limitations, the researchers suggest that future studies utilize samples that are representative of the Brazilian population as a whole. More representative samples would allow more generalizable and accurate estimates of WRQoL gender differences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, future longitudinal studies could also enhance the understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic’s impacts on WRQoL over time. Future research should also investigate how variables like sexual orientation influenced WRQoL during the pandemic, as well as other intersecting factors. Furthermore, we suggest that future studies should assess samples of transgender men and women, as well as non-binary individuals, in order to clarify the specificities of this population with regard to work-related quality of life during times of sanitary crises. Finally, the incorporation of additional measures in future studies, such as burnout assessment, psychopathological symptoms, and self-efficacy at work, could assist in verifying additional predictive and preventive factors capable of directly influencing WRQoL.

5. Conclusions

We conclude that women exhibited higher and significant levels of fear of COVID-19 compared to men, although no significant gender differences were observed concerning the negative impacts of the pandemic. Additionally, men reported higher and significant levels in overall WRQoL, general well-being, career satisfaction, and control over work. Gender and especially fear and the negative impact of COVID 19 were predictors of poorer quality of life at work and well-being. These results underscore the urgent need for policies that promote gender equality in the labor market, particularly in the post-pandemic context, where measures such as flexible work arrangements, empathetic communication, and reduction in gender biases are crucial. This study’s limitations, including the representativeness of the sample, highlight the importance of future research using more comprehensive samples and longitudinal approaches for a deeper understanding of the pandemic’s impacts on WRQoL over time.