ArticleInternational archives of occupational and environmental health2025
Hybrid work and mental distress: a cross-sectional study of 24,763 office workers in the Norwegian public sector.
Article in International archives of occupational and environmental health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveFew studies have investigated the relationship between post-pandemic hybrid work-from-home (WFH), mental health, and work-life balance. We examined the association between hybrid WFH, mental distress, availability demands, work-life conflict, and life-work conflict.
methodsData from 24,763 office workers in the public sector in Norway were analyzed by linear and logistic regressions.
resultsEmployees practicing flexible hybrid WFH (i.e., when needed/desired) were less likely to report mental distress (measured by the Hopkins Symptom-Checklist; HSCL-5) than those not practicing WFH. WFH being self-chosen was associated with less distress. Flexible WFH was also associated with availability demands, work-life conflict, and life-work conflict, which were, in turn, linked to distress. The risk of distress increased with the number of weekly days of flexible WFH. Workers with fixed agreements to regularly WFH did not report significantly less distress than those with no WFH. However, fixed WFH was associated with lower availability demands, not with work-life conflict, and was more often self-chosen than flexible WFH.
conclusionFlexible WFH may alleviate distress but may also indicate attempts to cope with taxing availability demands, and may even introduce stressors that could reverse beneficial effects. Our results should motivate nuanced, multifactorial assessments of WFH in organizational practice and research.
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.