Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38258944›Full record

SynthesisJournal of occupational health2024

Experiences of working from home: umbrella review.

Charlotte E Hall, Samantha K Brooks, Freya Mills, Neil Greenberg, Dale Weston

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of occupational health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Charlotte E HallDepartment of Psychological Medicine, King's College London, Weston Education Centre, London, SE5 9RJ, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3410-2569
Samantha K BrooksDepartment of Psychological Medicine, King's College London, Weston Education Centre, London, SE5 9RJ, United Kingdom.
Freya MillsBehavioural Science and Insights Unit, Evaluation & Translation Directorate, Science Group, UKHSA, Porton Down, Salisbury, SP4 0JG, United Kingdom.
Neil GreenbergDepartment of Psychological Medicine, King's College London, Weston Education Centre, London, SE5 9RJ, United Kingdom.
Dale WestonBehavioural Science and Insights Unit, Evaluation & Translation Directorate, Science Group, UKHSA, Porton Down, Salisbury, SP4 0JG, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe concept of "working from home" is extremely topical following the COVID-19 pandemic; therefore, it is unsurprising that there has been an increased interest in collating research related to homeworking. This has been carried out by multiple reviews, all with slightly different research aims and methodologies. Collating the findings from the available reviews is therefore highly beneficial to establish the experience of homeworking to create recommendations for the future of home-based work.

methodsAn umbrella review was carried out. In June 2022, literature searches were conducted across 4 electronic databases. Published reviews of literature that used a systematic process, were focused on working from home populations, and detailed factors that could be related to the personal experience of homeworking (eg, barriers, facilitators, advantages, disadvantages) were included.

resultsA total of 1930 records were screened and 6 review articles were included. Results report on the following sections: working environment (eg, workplace design, space conditions), personal impact (eg, satisfaction, career impact), and health (eg, physical health, well-being) including a total of 19 themes. Mixed findings were apparent for nearly all included themes, highlighting the need to consider individual and contextual circumstances when researching working from home.

conclusionsThis review establishes the importance of retaining flexibility while homeworking for employees, managers, and organizations. Essentially, a one-size-fits-all approach to working from home is impractical as individual circumstances limit application. Eight recommendations for the future of working from home are suggested.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsDatabases, FactualHumansWorkplaceexperience of homeworkingumbrella reviewWFHworking from home

Identifiers

PMID38258944
PMCPMC11020277

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.