ArticlePLoS medicine2023
Home working and social and mental wellbeing at different stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: Evidence from 7 longitudinal population surveys.
Article in PLoS medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Partnership Quality and Mental Health Among Older Adults in England Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic.Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society · 2026Article
- All the Lonely People: An Integrated Review and Research Agenda on Work and Loneliness.Journal of management · 2026Review
- Psychosocial working conditions and mental well-being of remote and stationary employees: a longitudinal study.International journal of occupational medicine and environmental health · 2025Article
- Recovery of psychological wellbeing following the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal analysis of the English longitudinal study of ageing.Aging & mental health · 2025Article
- Working from home and well-being during the pandemic and beyond: a longitudinal analysis in five countries.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Occupational and non-occupational factors of post-COVID-19 condition: a cross-sectional survey in the French general working population.BMJ public health · 2025Article
- Article
- Did trade unions protect employees' mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic? A mixed effects model using UK data from Understanding Society.BMJ public health · 2025Article
- How digital leadership impacts community resilience: a moderated mediation model.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Article
- Working from home and mental well-being at different stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.PloS one · 2024Article
- Examining the Interrelationships Between Social Isolation and Loneliness and Their Correlates Among Older British Adults Before and During the COVID-19 Lockdown: Evidence From Four British Longitudinal Studies.Innovation in aging · 2024Article
- Reimagining the journey to recovery: The COVID-19 pandemic and global mental health.PLoS medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHome working has increased since the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic's onset with concerns that it may have adverse health implications. We assessed the association between home working and social and mental wellbeing among the employed population aged 16 to 66 through harmonised analyses of 7 UK longitudinal studies. METHODS AND
findingsWe estimated associations between home working and measures of psychological distress, low life satisfaction, poor self-rated health, low social contact, and loneliness across 3 different stages of the pandemic (T1 = April to June 2020 -first lockdown, T2 = July to October 2020 -eased restrictions, T3 = November 2020 to March 2021 -second lockdown) using modified Poisson regression and meta-analyses to pool results across studies. We successively adjusted the model for sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., age, sex), job characteristics (e.g., sector of activity, pre-pandemic home working propensities), and pre-pandemic health. Among respectively 10,367, 11,585, and 12,179 participants at T1, T2, and T3, we found higher rates of home working at T1 and T3 compared with T2, reflecting lockdown periods. Home working was not associated with psychological distress at T1 (RR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.79 to 1.08) or T2 (RR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.88 to 1.11), but a detrimental association was found with psychological distress at T3 (RR = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.30). Study limitations include the fact that pre-pandemic home working propensities were derived from external sources, no information was collected on home working dosage and possible reverse association between change in wellbeing and home working likelihood.
conclusionsNo clear evidence of an association between home working and mental wellbeing was found, apart from greater risk of psychological distress during the second lockdown, but differences across subgroups (e.g., by sex or level of education) may exist. Longer term shifts to home working might not have adverse impacts on population wellbeing in the absence of pandemic restrictions but further monitoring of health inequalities is required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.