Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 590

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A rapid review of mental and physical health effects of working at home: how do we optimise health?

Open access
Oakman, Jodi, Kinsman, Natasha, Stuckey, Rwth, Graham, Melissa, Weale, Victoria·2020·BMC Public Health
DOI 10.1186/s12889-020-09875-z
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in changes to the working arrangements of millions of employees who are now based at home and may continue to work at home, in some capacity, for the foreseeable future. Decisions on how to promote employees’ health whilst working at home (WAH) need to be based on the best available evidence to optimise worker outcomes. The aim of this rapid review was to review the impact of WAH on individual workers’ mental and physical health, and determine any gender difference, to develop recommendations for employers and employees to optimise workers’ health. Method: A search was undertaken in three databases, PsychInfo, ProQuest, and Web of Science, from 2007 to May 2020. Selection criteria included studies which involved employees who regularly worked at home, and specifically reported on physical or mental health-related outcomes. Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion, one author extracted data and conducted risk of bias assessments with review by a second author. Results: Twenty-three papers meet the selection criteria for this review. Ten health outcomes were reported: pain, self-reported health, safety, well-being, stress, depression, fatigue, quality of life, strain and happiness. The impact on health outcomes was strongly influenced by the degree of organisational support available to employees, colleague support, social connectedness (outside of work), and levels of work to family conflict. Overall, women were less likely to experience improved health outcomes when WAH. Conclusions: This review identified several health outcomes affected by WAH. The health/work relationship is complex and requires consideration of broader system factors to optimise the effects of WAH on workers’ health. It is likely mandated WAH will continue to some degree for the foreseeable future; organisations will need to implement formalised WAH policies that consider work-home boundary management support, role clarity, workload, performance indicators, technical support, facilitation of co-worker networking, and training for managers.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12889-020-09875-z

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. The Lancet Public Health. COVID-19 puts societies to the test. Lancet Public Health. 2020;5(5):e235. · DOI
  2. Wenham C, Smith J, Morgan R. COVID-19: the gendered impacts of the outbreak. Lancet. 2020;395(10227):846–8. · DOI · Paper page
  3. Alon TM, Doepke M, Olmstead-Rumsey J, Tertilt M. The impact of COVID-19 on gender equality: National Bureau of Economic Research; 2020. Report no.: 0898–2937. https://www.nber.org/papers/w26947. Accessed 5 Jun 2020. · DOI · Paper page
  4. Shimazu A, Nakata A, Nagata T, Arakawa Y, Kuroda S, Inamizu N, et al. Psychosocial impact of COVID-19 for general workers. J Occup Health. 2020;62(1):e12132. · DOI
  5. Belzunegui-Eraso A, Erro-Garcés A. Teleworking in the context of the Covid-19 crisis. Sustainability. 2020;12(9):3662. · DOI · Paper page
  6. Eurofound and the International Labour Office. Working anytime, anywhere: the effects on the world of work. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2017. https://www.raco.cat/index.php/IUSLabor/article/download/333024/423859. Accessed 5 Jun 2020.
  7. Henke RM, Benevent R, Schulte P, Rinehart C, Crighton K, Corcoran M. The effects of telecommuting intensity on employee health. Am J Health Promot. 2016;30(8):604–12. · DOI
  8. Gajendran RS, Harrison DA. The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. J Appl Psychol. 2007;92(6):1524–41. · DOI · Paper page
  9. Covidence systematic review software, Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia. Available at www.covidence.org.
  10. Oakman J, Stuckey R, Kinsman N. Using evidence to support the design of submarine control console workstations. Appl Ergon. 2019;79:54–65. · DOI
  11. Anderson AJ, Kaplan SA, Vega RP. The impact of telework on emotional experience: when, and for whom, does telework improve daily affective well-being? Eur J Work Organ Psychol. 2015;24(6):882–97. · DOI · Paper page
  12. Bosua R, Gloet M, Kurnia S, Mendoza A, Yong J. Telework, productivity and wellbeing: an Australian perspective. Telecommunications J Aust. 2013;63(1):11.1–11.12.
  13. Eddleston KA, Mulki J. Toward understanding remote workers’ management of work-family boundaries: the complexity of workplace embeddedness. Group Org Manag. 2017;42(3):346–87. · DOI · Paper page
  14. Fílardí F, de Castro R, Zaníní MTF. Advantages and disadvantages of teleworking in Brazilian public administration: analysis of SERPRO and Federal Revenue experiences. Cadernos EBAPEBR. 2020;18(1):28–46.
  15. Gimenez-Nadal JI, Molina JA, Velilla J. Work time and well-being for workers at home: evidence from the American time use survey. Int J Manpow. 2020;41(2):184–206. · DOI
  16. Golden TD. Altering the effects of work and family conflict on exhaustion: telework during traditional and nontraditional work hours. J Bus Psychol. 2012;27(3):255–69. · DOI
  17. Grant CA, Wallace LM, Spurgeon PC. An exploration of the psychological factors affecting remote e-worker’s job effectiveness, well-being and work-life balance. Empl Relat. 2013;35(5):527–46. · DOI · Paper page
  18. Hayman J. Flexible work schedules and employee well-being. N Z J Employ Relat. 2010;35(2):76–87.
  19. Kaduk A, Genadek K, Kelly EL, Moen P. Involuntary vs. voluntary flexible work: insights for scholars and stakeholders. Community Work Fam. 2019;22(4):412–42. · DOI
  20. Kim J, Henly JR, Golden LM, Lambert SJ. Workplace flexibility and worker well-being by gender. J Marriage Fam. 2020;82(3):892–910. · DOI
  21. Major DA, Verive JM, Joice W. Telework as a dependent care solution: examining current practice to improve telework management strategies. Psychol Manag J. 2008;11(1):65–91.
  22. Sardeshmukh SR, Sharma D, Golden TD. Impact of telework on exhaustion and job engagement: a job demands and job resources model. N Technol Work Employ. 2012;27(3):193–207. · DOI · Paper page
  23. Song Y, Gao J. Does telework stress employees out? A study on working at home and subjective well-being for wage/salary workers. J Happiness Stud. 2019;21(7):2649–68. · DOI · Paper page
  24. Suh A, Lee J. Understanding teleworkers’ technostress and its influence on job satisfaction. Internet Res. 2017;27(1):140–59. · DOI · Paper page
  25. Tustin DH. Telecommuting academics within an open distance education environment of South Africa: more content, productive, and healthy? Int Rev Res Open Dist Learn. 2014;15(3):185–214.
  26. Vander Elst T, Verhoogen R, Sercu M, Van den Broeck A, Baillien E, Godderis L. Not extent of telecommuting, but job characteristics as proximal predictors of work-related well-being. J Occup Environ Med. 2017;59(10):E180–E6. · DOI
  27. Windeler JB, Chudoba KM, Sundrup RZ. Getting away from them all: managing exhaustion from social interaction with telework. J Organ Behav. 2017;38(7):977–95. · DOI · Paper page
  28. Leka S, Jain A, Iavicoli S, Di Tecco C. An evaluation of the policy context on psychosocial risks and mental health in the workplace in the European Union: achievements, challenges, and the future. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:213089. · DOI
  29. Schütte S, Chastang J-F, Malard L, Parent-Thirion A, Vermeylen G, Niedhammer I. Psychosocial working conditions and psychological well-being among employees in 34 European countries. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2014;87(8):897–907. · DOI
  30. Turnbull B, Graham M, Taket A. Hierarchical femininities and masculinities in Australia based on parenting and employment: a multidimensional, multilevel, relational and intersectional perspective. J Res Gend Stud. 2020;10(2):9–62. · DOI
  31. Allen TD, Martin A. The work-family interface: a retrospective look at 20 years of research in JOHP. J Occup Health Psychol. 2017;22(3):259. · DOI
  32. Fein EC, Skinner N. Clarifying the effect of work hours on health through work–life conflict. Asia Pac J Hum Resour. 2015;53(4):448–70. · DOI
  33. Daverth G, Hyde P, Cassell C. Uptake of organisational work–life balance opportunities: the context of support. Int J Hum Resour Manag. 2016;27(15):1710–29. · DOI
  34. Kossek EE, Lautsch BA. Work–life flexibility for whom? Occupational status and work–life inequality in upper, middle, and lower level jobs. Acad Manag Ann. 2018;12(1):5–36. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 590

Metadata

Authors
Oakman, J., Kinsman, N., Stuckey, R., Graham, M., & Weale, V.
Venue
BMC Public Health
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2020-11-30
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
1825-1825
ISSN
1471-2458 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12889-020-09875-z
OpenAlex
W3109592608
Cited by
590
References
12
FWCI
111.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold
Licence
Funders
La Trobe University

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.