Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42626158›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

Developing a wellbeing framework for employees working from home within a South African government entity.

Refilwe Selesho, Mokgata Alleen Matjie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Refilwe SeleshoDepartment of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa.
Mokgata Alleen MatjieDepartment of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic fundamentally transformed work arrangements, accelerating the shift to remote work and reshaping employee wellbeing. While working from home (WFH) offered flexibility and autonomy, it also introduced challenges such as social isolation, anxiety, and reduced engagement. Guided by contextual psychology, which emphasizes the dynamic interaction between individuals and their environments, this study examines employee wellbeing in a public sector context and aims to develop a context-sensitive wellbeing framework. A qualitative, hermeneutic phenomenological design was employed within a constructivist-interpretivist paradigm. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine employees from a South African government entity who transitioned to WFH. Data were analyzed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). Contextual psychology informed the interpretation by emphasizing how organizational, social, and personal conditions shape wellbeing. Trustworthiness was ensured through established qualitative rigor strategies. A central theme of "recommended approaches" emerged, comprising five subthemes: happiness, flexibility, clear employee engagement, training and development, and constant support. Findings indicate that wellbeing is context-dependent and influenced by organizational practices, technological readiness, and social connection. Hybrid work enhanced happiness through social interaction and positive emotions; flexibility promoted autonomy; engagement reduced role ambiguity; training improved competence; and support strengthened resilience. These dimensions informed the development of an integrated working from home wellbeing framework (WFHWB).

Indexed as

contextual psychologyemployee wellbeingflexibilityremote workworking from homeworking from home wellbeing (WFHWB) framework

Identifiers

PMID42626158
PMCPMC13491027

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.