Stressors and Destressors in Working From Home Based on Context and Physiology From Self-Reports and Smartwatch Measurements: International Observational Study Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly boosted working from home as a way of working, which is likely to continue for most companies in the future, either in fully remote or in hybrid form. To manage stress levels in employees working from home, insights into the stressors and destressors in a home office first need to be studied. Objective We present an international remote study with employees working from home by making use of state-of-the-art technology (ie, smartwatches and questionnaires through smartphones) first to determine stressors and destressors in people working from home and second to identify smartwatch measurements that could represent these stressors and destressors. Methods Employees working from home from 3 regions of the world (the United States, the United Kingdom, and Hong Kong) were asked to wear a smartwatch continuously for 7 days and fill in 5 questionnaires each day and 2 additional questionnaires before and after the measurement week. The entire study was conducted remotely. Univariate statistical analyses comparing variable distributions between low and high stress levels were followed by multivariate analysis using logistic regression, considering multicollinearity by using variance inflation factor (VIF) filtering. Results A total of 202 people participated, with 198 (98%) participants finishing the experiment. Stressors found were other people and daily life getting in the way of work (P=.05), job intensity (P=.01), a history of burnout (P=.03), anxiety toward the pandemic (P=.04), and environmental noise (P=.01). Destressors found were access to sunlight (P=.02) and fresh air (P<.001) during the workday and going outdoors (P<.001), taking breaks (P<.001), exercising (P<.001), and having social interactions (P<.001). The smartwatch measurements positively related to stress were the number of active intensity periods (P<.001), the number of highly active intensity periods (P=.04), steps (P<.001), and the SD in the heart rate (HR; P<.001). In a multivariate setting, only a history of burnout (P<.001) and family and daily life getting in the way of work (P<.001) were positively associated with stress, while self-reports of social activities (P<.001) and going outdoors (P=.03) were negatively associated with stress. Stress prediction models based on questionnaire data had a similar performance (F1=0.51) compared to models based on automatic measurable data alone (F1=0.47). Conclusions The results show that there are stressors and destressors when working from home that should be considered when managing stress in employees. Some of these stressors and destressors are (in)directly measurable with unobtrusive sensors, and prediction models based on these data show promising results for the future of automatic stress detection and management. Trial Registration Netherlands Trial Register NL9378; https://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=NL9378
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".