The relationship between telework from home and the psychosocial work environment: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Telework from home (TWFH) has become routine for many, yet research on how this may affect the psychosocial work environment is sparse. To understand the effects that TWFH may have on the psychosocial work environment, this systematic literature review identified, evaluated, and summarized findings on the association of TWFH with factors of the psychosocial work environment. METHODS: Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Amed, PsycINFO, and PubMed. The topic of the study reflected TWFH, and subjects should be office workers employed at a company. Outcomes should reflect psychosocial work environment factors. Inclusion criteria stated that studies should be primary, quantitative, and published in a peer-reviewed journal. English language publications dating from January 2010 to February 2021 were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) and quality of overall evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). RESULTS: Searches resulted in 3354 publications, and after screening rounds 43 peer-reviewed original studies satisfying predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria were included. Fourteen individual psychosocial work environment outcome categories were studied. Limited overall evidence to support effects of TWFH on the included work environment outcomes, with evidence being rated either of low or very low quality. Flexibility and autonomy are discussed as potential mediating variables in the relationship between TWFH and the psychosocial work environment. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of high-quality research investigating effects of TWFH on the psychosocial work environment. To suggest TWFH guidelines or recommendations, there is a need for research with high-quality longitudinal designs, precise measures of time use and location of work, and validated measures of factors known to be of importance. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021233796.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".