Organizational and occupational health issues with working remotely during the pandemic: a scoping review of remote work and health
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stay-at-home orders during the COVID-19 global pandemic created unprecedented challenges for workers whose work was transferred to the home setting. Little is presently known about the benefits and the challenges associated with global remote work on well-being and mental health, work-life balance, job satisfaction, productivity, home office adaptability, and gender equality. METHODS: A scoping review of PubMed/Medline was undertaken in October 2021 to better understand these broad dimensions associated with remote worker health, well-being, and the home office workspace. The review focused on white-collar workers who undertook remote work during each of the lockdown waves from March 2020 to 2021. RESULTS: A total of 62 studies were included in the review, which spanned Asia, North America, South America, and Europe. Overall, workers seemed to enjoy remote work, but productivity varied. The main setbacks associated with remote work included feelings of isolation and loneliness, which negatively influenced well-being. Social support from management and contact with colleagues mitigated this. Leadership style also influenced remote worker well-being. Overall, women suffered from lower levels of remote work well-being and productivity, especially if they had children. The home office and its adaptability were integral for successful remote work. Work-life balance was affected in some workers who struggled with heavier workloads or family duties. CONCLUSIONS: To promote well-being and successful remote work, isolation and loneliness should be reduced through greater contact with colleagues and managers. Managers should promote family friendly policies that may support work-life balance and reduce gender inequities in remote work.
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.
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 | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it