Implementation of anti-epidemic measures in conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic

Introduction. Systemic prevention of communicable diseases among workers is employers’ responsibility as well as one of the most significant activities performed by the Federal Service for Surveillance over Consumer Rights Protection and Human Wellbeing (Rospotrebnadzor).

The aim of the study. To systematize and assess practical implementation of anti-epidemic measures by institutions and enterprises under mass morbidity of communicable diseases.

Materials and methods. A social survey was conducted using online questioning. Goggle Forms was employed as a platform to create a data array. Approximately one thousand institutions and enterprises over the Russian Federation were invited to take part in the survey; overall, 84 of them agreed to participate. The survey was conducted during September–December, 2020. The data was statistically analyzed with SPSS 16.0 software package for Windows.

Results. We systematized obstacles to exist for implementing preventive measures against communicable diseases and established basic needs of the business community within creating a reliable risk management system. The survey identified three groups of barriers: management, financial, and those related to the human factor; management barriers (impossibility to move workers to remote workplaces, difficulties in maintaining proper social distancing) turned out to be the most significant. We established a direct significant correlation between an amount of management and systematization of its approach to prevention of communicable diseases. The study also revealed information and communication demands of the business community. The former are the necessity to get access to systematized, adapted, and easy to understand information products. The latter involve overcoming the gaps between expert knowledge, data presentation, and managers’ abilities and needs by direct communication between experts and creating a system for sharing practical experience between peers working in the same branch.

Limitations. The study was accomplished on a small sample.

Conclusion. We conclude the creating an effective risk management system to require not only financial support but also an available information environment, which includes both digital guidelines and interactive formats for sharing experience.

Compliance with ethical standards. The study was approved by the local ethics committee of the Federal Scientific Center for Medical and Preventive Health Risk Management Technologies of Rospotrebnadzor (The meeting report No.1 dated February 03, 2020). Prior to taking part in the survey, a respondent was provided with information about the aim of the study and had the right to drop out of it at any stage. All survey data were depersonalized.

Contribution of the authors:
Lir D.N. — the study concept, editing the text;
Barg А.О. — data collection and interpretation, writing the text and abstract, development of the questionnaire, data analysis;
Goleva O.I. — data collection and interpretation, writing the text and abstract;
Luzhetskiy К.P. — the study concept, editing the text, data collection and interpretation, writing the text and abstract;
Shur P.Z. — the study concept, editing the text.
All authors are responsible for the integrity of all parts of the manuscript and approval of the manuscript final version.

Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Funding. The study had no sponsorship.

Received: July 18, 2025 / Accepted: September 19, 2025 / Published: October 20, 2025

1. Zvorykina E.I., Politov A.L., Zvorykina Yu.V. Pandemic corporate governance approaches. Menedzhment i biznes-administrirovanie. 2020; (2): 64–76. https://doi.org/10.33983/2075-1826-2020-2-64-76 https://elibrary.ru/ukmuny (in Russian)

2. Brodeur A., Gray D., Islam A., Bhuiyan S. A literature review of the economics of COVID-19. J. Econ. Surv. 2021; 35(4): 1007–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12423

3. Tishutin A.A. Transformation of entrepreneurial activity under the influence of the Covid-19 pandemic. Problemy sotsial’noi gigieny, zdravookhraneniya i istorii meditsiny. 2023; 31(S1): 828–31. https://doi.org/10.32687/0869-866X-2023-31-s1-828-831 https://elibrary.ru/qyiwuw (in Russian)

4. Simachev Yu.V., Dolgopyatova T.G., Yakovlev A.A. Covid-19 pandemic: the reaction of Russian enterprises and challenges for the post-crisis development. Zhurnal Novoi ekonomicheskoi assotsiatsii. 2021; (4): 228–35. https://doi.org/10.31737/2221-2264-2021-52-4-10 https://elibrary.ru/qopyla (in Russian)

5. Mićić L., Mastilo Z. Digital workplace transformation: innovative approach after COVID-19 pandemic. Econ. Innovat. Econ. Res. J. 2022; 10(2).

6. Fainburg G.Z. Safety and health of workers: unwritten lessons from the coronavirus pandemic. Bezopasnost’ i okhrana truda. 2020; (1): 33–42. https://elibrary.ru/maqxgf (in Russian)

7. Loginov D.M., Lopatina M.V. Remote employment in the corona-crisis period: the extent of spread and effectiveness of introduction. Narodonaselenie. 2021; 24(4): 107–21. https://doi.org/10.19181/population.2021.24.4.9 https://elibrary.ru/iirgxc (in Russian)

8. Dembińska I., Barczak A., Rostkowski T., Kauf S., Marska-Dzioba N. Hierarchical analysis of forms of support for employees in the field of health protection and quality of work during the COVID-19 pandemic and the desired post-pandemic forms of support. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2022; 19(23): 15509. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192315509

9. Dekhanova N.G., Sushko V.A., Kholodenko U.A. Russia: the socio-economic impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. Sotsiologiya. 2022; (2): 120–33. https://elibrary.ru/gjyxtr (in Russian)

10. Petrosyan G.A., Petrosyan I.B., Petrosyan H.G. Factor analysis of the causes of uneven economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Sovremennaya mirovaya ekonomika. 2024; 2(4): 24–42. https://doi.org/10.17323/2949-5776-2024-2-4-24-42 https://elibrary.ru/cqdwhp (in Russian)

11. Sulumov S.Kh., Pacagov T.Sh. A systemic approach to switching business-models small business during the new coronavirus infection Covid-19. FGU Science. 2022; (1): 105–11. https://doi.org/10.36684/37-2022-25-1-105-111 https://elibrary.ru/tczbiw (in Russian)

12. Filippova D.S. Changes in internal corporate communications in business during the COVID-19 pandemic. Studencheskii. 2024; (7–2): 11–4. https://elibrary.ru/zaxvqe (in Russian)

13. Sinitsyna A.P., Kopysova M.A. Economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic and post-crisis recovery strategies. In: Development of Science and Practice in a Globally Changing World under Risk Conditions (code – MKRNP): Proceedings of the XXVII International Scientific-Practical Conference [Razvitie nauki i praktiki v global’no menyayushchemsya mire v usloviyakh riskov (shifr – MKRNP): Sbornik materialov XXVII Mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii]. Moscow; 2024: 264–71. https://elibrary.ru/okvlgp (in Russian)

14. Simagaeva T.V. Remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic. Molodoi uchenyi. 2021; (15): 101–3. https://elibrary.ru/ptipga (in Russian)

15. Pryazhnikova O.N. The proliferation of remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic: consequences and prospects. Sotsial’nye i gumanitarnye nauki. Otechestvennaya i zarubezhnaya literatura. Seriya 11: Sotsiologiya. 2021; (3): 116–25. https://doi.org/10.31249/rsoc/2021.03.10 https://elibrary.ru/uqwugt (in Russian)

16. Dneprova A.B. Employee healthcare expenses. Bukhgalterskii uchet. 2022; (3): 49–55. https://elibrary.ru/hzavib (in Russian)

17. Dingel J.I., Neiman B. How many jobs can be done at home? J. Public Econ. 2020; 189: 104235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104235

18. Agoshkov A.I., Kurochkin P.A. § 1.5. Improving the organizational and methodological support for meeting the requirements for the prevention of infectious diseases (based on human factor management). In: Post-Pandemic Restructuring of the Economy: Innovative-Investment Nature and Project Approach in the Context of Digital Transformation of Economic Entities and Business Analysis [Postpandemiinoe konstruirovanie ekonomiki: innovatsionno-investitsionnyi kharakter i proektnyi podkhod v usloviyakh tsifrovoi transformatsii ekonomicheskikh sub”ektov i biznes-analiz]. St. Petersburg; 2021: 80–113. https://elibrary.ru/kebdhu (in Russian)

19. Aloisi A., de Stefano V. Essential jobs, remote work and digital surveillance: Addressing the COVID-19 pandemic panopticon. Int. Labour Rev. 2022; 161(2): 289–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/ilr.12219

20. Hillebrandt A., Barclay L.J. How COVID-19 can promote workplace cheating behavior via employee anxiety and self-interest – and how prosocial messages may overcome this effect. J. Organ. Behav. 2022; 43(5): 858–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2612

21. Koshechko I.I., Saltykova T.S. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the formation of the attitude of the population of the Russian Federation to the prevention of infectious diseases. Problemy sotsial’noi gigieny, obshchestvennogo zdravookhraneniya i istorii meditsiny. 2022; 30(6): 1184–94. https://doi.org/10.32687/0869-866X-2022-30-6-1184-1194 https://elibrary.ru/nygnwj (in Russian)

22. Minkina N.I., Boldyrev R.O. Employees’ refusal to get vaccinated against COVID-19: new problems and social and legal consequences. Meditsinskoe pravo. 2022; (3): 24–8. https://elibrary.ru/fbewrc (in Russian)

23. Cirrincione L., Plescia F., Ledda C., Rapisarda V., Martorana D., Lacca G., et al. COVID-19 pandemic: new prevention and protection measures. Sustainability. 2022; 14(8): 4766. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084766

24. Riva M.A., Paladino M.E., Paleari A., Belingheri M. Workplace COVID-19 vaccination, challenges and opportunities. Occup. Med. (Lond). 2022; 72(4): 235–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqab080

25. Nowrouzi-Kia B., Haritos A.M., Long B.S., Atikian C., Fiorini L.A., Gohar B., et al. Remote work transition amidst COVID-19: Impacts on presenteeism, absenteeism, and worker well-being-A scoping review. PLoS One. 2024; 19(7): e0307087. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307087

26. Kowalski G., Ślebarska K. Remote working and work effectiveness: a leader perspective. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2022; 19(22): 15326. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192215326

27. Ruskin K.J., Ruskin A.C., Musselman B.T., Harvey J.R., Nesthus T.E., O’Connor M. COVID-19, personal protective equipment, and human performance. Anesthesiology. 2021; 134(4): 518–25. https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000003684

28. Dhama K., Patel S.K., Kumar R., Masand R., Rana J., Yatoo M.I., et al. The role of disinfectants and sanitizers during COVID-19 pandemic: advantages and deleterious effects on humans and the environment. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2021; 28(26): 34211–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14429-w

29. Luzhetskii K.P., Ustinova O.Yu., Nosov A.E. Digital technologies for storage and systematization of the main requirements of sanitary legislation in the prevention of infectious diseases among the working population. In: Health Risk Analysis – 2024: Proceedings of the XIV All-Russian Scientific-Practical Conference with International Participation [Analiz riska zdorov’yu – 2024: Materialy XIV Vserossiiskoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii s mezhdunarodnym uchastiem]. Perm’; 2024: 64–72. https://elibrary.ru/lnvtll (in Russian)