ArticleJournal of occupational health2026
Health of teleworkers: a scoping review on the assessment of the work-from-home environment.
Article in Journal of occupational 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
objectivesInappropriate telework environments, including work-from-home (WFH) settings, have been linked to physical and mental health problems. However, no systematic assessment has been conducted regarding the WFH environment (WFH-E). The aim of this study was to clarify the current methods used to assess the WFH-E and its association with health- and work-related outcomes through a scoping review.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Ichushi for literature published since 2010 on WFH-E assessment. Based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines, assessment methods were summarized using 18 items categorized into 9 domains. Additionally, associations between the WFH-E and health- and work-related outcomes were reviewed.
resultsOf 1669 articles collected, 37 studies published from 2020 were ultimately included in this review. Thirty-four articles involved subjective assessments, and 9 involved objective assessments. The most frequently assessed item was artificial lighting, followed by thermal conditions and noise. Items such as color, greenery, building materials, and odor were rarely assessed. Most studies showed significant associations between the WFH-E and health- and work-related outcomes.
conclusionsStudies on the WFH-E increased following the COVID-19 pandemic, showing significant associations between the WFH-E and health- and work-related outcomes. However, most assessments were subjective, with objective assessments remaining rare. Additionally, the assessment items were limited and biased, indicating that interior design elements were insufficiently assessed. Developing additional objective and comprehensive methods for assessing the WFH-E is 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.