Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36603012›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Workplace impact on employees: A Lifelines Corona Research Initiative on the return to work.

Mark P Mobach, Lifelines Corona Research Initiative

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mark P MobachHanze University of Applied Sciences Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1490-4540
Lifelines Corona Research Initiative
Hanze University of Applied Sciences · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A large proportion of the global workforce migrated home during the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdowns. It remains unclear what the exact differences between home workers and non-home workers were, especially during the pandemic when a return to work was imminent. How were building, workplace, and related facilities associated with workers' perceptions and health? What are the lessons to be learned? Lifelines Corona Research Initiative was used to compare employees' workplaces and related concerns, facilities, work quality, and health in a complete case analysis (N = 12,776) when return to work was imminent. Mann-Whitney U, logistic regression, and Wilcoxon matched-pairs were used for analyses. Notwithstanding small differences, the results show that home workers had less favourable scores for concerns about and facilities of on-site buildings and workplaces upon return to work, but better scores for work quality and health than non-home workers. However, additional analyses also suggest that building, workplace, and related facilities may have had the capacity to positively influence employees' affective responses and work quality, but not always their health.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsCommunicable Disease ControlHumansReturn to WorkWorkplace

Identifiers

PMID36603012
PMCPMC9815632
OpenAlexW4313535020

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.