MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4304701065 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0274728

Working in the digital economy: A systematic review of the impact of work from home arrangements on personal and organizational performance and productivity

2022· review· en· W4304701065 on OpenAlexafffund
Amy Hackney, Marcus Yung, Kumara G. Somasundram, Behdin Nowrouzi‐Kia, Jodi Oakman, Amin Yazdani

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of TorontoConestoga College
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsProductivityWork (physics)PandemicScopusBusinessPublic relationsPsychologyMarketingMEDLINECoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)MedicinePolitical scienceEconomicsEconomic growthEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Work-from-home has become an increasingly adopted practice globally. Given the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, such arrangements have risen substantially in a short timeframe. Work-from-home has been associated with several physical and mental health outcomes. This relationship has been supported by previous research; however, these health and safety issues often receive little resources and attention from business perspectives compared to organizational and worker performance and productivity. Therefore, aligning work-from-home practices with business goals may help catalyze awareness from decision makers and serve to effectively implement work-from-home policies. We conducted a review to synthesize current knowledge on the impact of work-from-home arrangements on personal and organizational performance and productivity. Four large databases including Scopus, PubMed, PsychInfo, and Business Source Complete were systematically searched. Through a two-step screening process, we selected and extracted data from 37 relevant articles. Key search terms surrounded two core concepts: work-from-home and productivity/performance. Of the articles published prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 79% (n = 19) demonstrated that work-from-home increased productivity and performance whereas 21% (n = 5) showed mixed or no effects. Of the articles published during the pandemic, 23% (n = 3) showed positive effects, 38% (n = 5) revealed mixed results, and 38% (n = 5) showed negative effects. Findings suggest that non-mandatory work-from-home arrangements can have positive impacts on productivity and performance. When work-from-home becomes mandatory and full-time, or external factors (i.e., COVID-19 pandemic) are at play, the overall impacts are less positive and can be detrimental to productivity and performance. Results will help foster an understanding of the impact of work-from-home on productivity and performance and inform the development of organizational strategies to create an effective, resilient, and inclusive work-from-home workplace by helping to effectively implement work-from-home policies that are aligned with business goals.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0200.022
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations81
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicWork-Family Balance ChallengesFrench-language works237,207