SynthesisScandinavian journal of work, environment & health2026
What do we know about limiting after-hours availability expectations and work-related connectivity? A systematic review of interventions and policies.
Synthesis in Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesConcerns about the health and well-being effects of high after-hours availability expectations and work-related connectivity have prompted calls for organizational and national disconnection measures, such as the right-to-disconnect legislation. However, the effectiveness of such measures remains unclear. This is the first systematic review that aims to evaluate interventions and policies designed to limit availability expectations and after-hours work connectivity.
methodsWe searched Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, and Web of Science for studies published (2004-2024) for peer-reviewed empirical studies. Two reviewers independently screened records extracted data and assessed study quality using the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool. The review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024599491). Effectiveness was assessed using a structured qualitative approach that accounted for various study design and methodological rigor across intervention types.
resultsTwelve studies (N=2306) were included: one national policy, three organizational disconnection guidelines, one supervisor-targeted program, and seven employee-focused programs. Half of the quantitative studies were randomized controlled trials; overall methodological quality was rated as weak. Most organizational and national-level policies showed limited or no effects, with benefits contingent on the person-environment fit and implementation quality. Supervisor-targeted and multi-component programs, particularly those allowing for flexibility and combining boundary management with other elements, showed significant modest effects on detachment, boundary control, and work-life balance, though effect sizes were generally small.
conclusionsThe evidence base is small, heterogenous, and methodologically limited. Policies alone are unlikely to reduce harmful connectivity without active organizational implementation and cultural change. Developing and testing rigorous, multi-level interventions that address norms and supervisory practices, as well as individual boundary preferences, are urgently needed.
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.