ReviewPublic health in practice (Oxford, England)2025
Creating a healthier economy: A rapid evidence review of inequalities in flexible working arrangements in the UK.
Review in Public health in practice (Oxford, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Flexible working - the control people have over work scheduling to meet wellbeing needs - is one way to help create a healthier economy. We sought to identify and summarise evidence about inequalities in access to flexible working arrangements in the UK and implications for health and wellbeing to inform policy development. Study design: Rapid evidence review. Methods: A rapid review of peer-reviewed articles and reports from trusted sources was completed on inequalities in access to UK flexible working arrangements to inform regional and local policy development. Published articles were identified through database searches (OVID-Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, Assia-Proquest) in September-October 2024. Data was extracted directly into a table and findings synthesised narratively by theme. Results: Evidence identified was limited in detail, but consistent in reporting inequalities in access to flexible working by occupational status, with some evidence of inequalities by gender, disability, geography and ethnicity; with implications for health promotion. There was limited detail on specific health outcomes or pathways to impacts, though the significance of flexible working for women's well-being and Disabled people was highlighted. Included evidence noted systemic issues in the UK economy (e.g. occupational hierarchies, gendered norms about caring, racism, disability discrimination, 'ideal worker' culture that values overwork, flexibility stigma) that contribute to flexible working inequalities. Conclusions: Further research and multi-level policy action is needed to address flexible working inequalities to promote health. Research could usefully focus on intersectional inequality, including systemic societal processes (i.e. stigma, racism, discrimination) shaping flexible working in practice. Policy action could include: evaluating the implementation of existing flexible working legislation in relation to inequality; national-regional-local action to support inclusive business models in which the bargaining positions of employees around flexibility are more equalised (e.g. cooperatives); evaluation and strengthening of Fair Work Charters; and funding and showcasing of flexible working pilots focused on addressing unequal flexible working access.
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.