Working from home,work/life conflict and mental wellbeing in Europe during the COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The COVID-19 pandemic has pushed many employees away from their offices into their homes. During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, in early spring 2020, most countries recommended or required that employees work remotely from home to reduce the spread of infection at workplaces and during travel to and from these workplaces.

OBJECTIVE:

The main aim of this study was to investigate the relationships between working from home, work/life conflict and mental wellbeing in Europe during the pandemic.

METHODS:

The study was based on a large-scale, online survey that was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic three times, in 2020, 2021 and 2022, in 27 EU countries, and included 53 214 respondents that were employed at the time of the study.

RESULTS:

The results showed that working from home, work-to-life conflict and life-to-work conflict has increased and that mental wellbeing has decreased during the pandemic. Our regression analyses showed that the number of hours worked from home was negatively associated with work-to-life conflict and positively associated with life-to-work conflict. These results indicate that working from home can have both positive and negative consequences for employees’ work/life conflict. The regression results showed that hours worked from home, work-to-life conflict and life-to-work conflict were negatively associated with mental wellbeing.

CONCLUSION:

It is important to consider different work situations for different working life groupings when implementing work-from-home measures. Organizations must consider how work is supervised and help managers understand how to support employees to achieve work-life balance when working remotely.

Keywords

Health quantitative study remote working work environment work-to-life conflict life-to-work conflict

1 Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic pushed many employees in Europe away from their offices into their homes. During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, in early spring 2020, most countries recommended or required that employees work remotely from home to reduce the spread of infection at workplaces and during travel to and from these workplaces [1]. Remote working has been quite spread in Europe also before the pandemic but this practice of remote working or hybrid work become an even more preferred approach for many employees after they experienced the benefits of working at home and at alternative times during the pandemic [2]. Furthermore, reduced office areas and the implementation of activity-based offices also have cost-benefit advantages for organizations [3]. According to a recent review [4], there are large gaps in knowledge and an extensive need for continued research into how employees’ work environment, work/life conflict and mental wellbeing are affected during epidemics andpandemics.

Remote working began to be used as early as in the 1970s and there are several terms for this type of work. According to Eurofound [5], telework and ICT (Information and Communication Technology)-based mobile work is “any type of work arrangement where workers work remotely, away from an employer’s premises or fixed location, using digital technologies such as networks, laptops, mobile phones and the internet”. Working from home (WFH), which is the focus of this study, can be seen as a sub-category of telework.

Research and experiences around these types of work do exist [5, 6], but the scale during the COVID-19 pandemic was completely unique. According to a review by Oakman [7], the impact of WFH on health is very complex and the overall effect is a consequence of several interacting factors. WFH can have negative as well as positive effects depending on the presence of other moderating factors, such as demands in the home environment, the level of organizational support and social contacts outside of work. These authors conclude that cost reductions and flexibility that facilitates work-life balance were the most positive effects of WFH, while a lack of communication and technical problems were the most negative. Some studies show that WFH can bring about lower levels of exhaustion and more positive feelings due to less travel to work, increased flexibility related to family demands and reduced demands of daily activities. In contrast to these results, Ferreira et al. [8] point out that WFH increases the risks of stress, exhaustion and burnout when working from home. Other studies show that people report reduced self-rated health and work engagement when working from home [9 –11].

Several studies show that autonomy in relation to WFH can be seen as a resource that helps to reduce feelings of exhaustion and increase job satisfaction [12]. However, a high level of autonomy can also lead to the boundaries between work and private life becoming more blurred and more pressure to work outside regular working hours –the greater the freedom, the more difficult it is to free oneself from work, also called the autonomy paradox [12].

In addition, studies show positive effects on employees’ self-rated productivity [13]. The main reason for this result is related to employees working more hours when working from home compared to working at the primary workplace. Some studies indicate other reasons for increased productivity when employees work from home, for example decreased stress and a higher level of wellbeing [14], having one’s own work space at home [15], and well-developed relation-oriented and structure-oriented leadership [16].

When it comes to research studying the relationship between WFH and work/life conflict there are mixed results. Conflicts or imbalance between work and private life can occur when demands and expectations from one domain penetrate the boundary to the other domain and create disturbances and role conflicts [17]. Some studies related to work/life conflict during the COVID-19 pandemic point out that the mix between WFH and the ordinary workplace, and for families with children the mix between home and school, leads to greater demands and problems related to borders between work and private life [6]. In addition, some results indicate increased work/life conflict when employees work from home [18 –20]. Reasons for these results are that WFH creates experiences of social isolation, exhaustion and stress.

Results from several other studies during the pandemic indicate reduced work/life conflict among employees when working from home. The main reasons for this are cost reductions, less travel to work and increased flexibility related to family demands [21, 22]. However, studies show that there are differences depending on the age of the children. In families with children that are younger than 12 years, employees experienced no reduced work/life conflict when working from home. Studies also show gender differences, with women experiencing more problems in balancing work and family activities compared to men when working from home [21 , 24].

Other factors, besides WFH, that have shown to be significant to the work/life conflict experienced are high demands on time, a high level of work demands, job stress, low social support, parental demands and caring for children [17 , 25–27]. In terms of gender in general, the majority of studies have found that women experience more work/life conflict than men [28, 29] but some studies indicate more work/life conflict for men [25].

The majority of earlier research on conflicts between work and private life tend to be unidirectional, that is, they investigate how work affects private life, while more recent research has illustrated that these conflicts tend to be bi-directional. Work-to-family conflict can exist when commitments at work interfere with family life, such as extensive, irregular, or inflexible work hours, work overload and other forms of job stress. Family-to-work conflict can occur when experiences and commitments in the family interfere with work life, such as the presence of young children, primary responsibility for children or unsupportive family members [30]. This means that not only does work spill over to affect private life, but private life can also spill over into the work domain. The two concepts are sufficiently different in nature and scope to warrant independent examination [31]. For that reason, this study examines work-to-life conflict and life-to-work conflict as two separate phenomena.

Finally, research has shown that work/life conflict is related to different mental wellbeing outcomes. Studies show that a lower level of work/family conflict fosters not only job satisfaction and job performance but also life and family satisfaction. Work/life balance also reduces stress-related outcomes such as psychological distress and emotional exhaustion [32]. If a person experiences a high level of work/life conflict, there is a greater risk of low mental wellbeing than if the person has a more balanced situation [27 , 33–35]. The present study will add to this knowledge by analysing how both work-to-life conflict and life-to-work-conflict relates to mental wellbeing.

In summary, research that has investigated the relationships between WFH, work/life conflict and mental wellbeing has found mixed results and only a few studies have analysed what WFH means for work-to-life conflict and life-to-work conflict simultaneously, and how these two phenomena are related to mental wellbeing. Based on this, the main aim of this study is to investigate the relationships between WFH, work/life conflict, and mental wellbeing in Europe during the pandemic by posing the following research questions.

How have WFH, work-to-life conflict, life-to-work conflict and mental wellbeing changed during different phases of the pandemic?

How is WFH related to work-to-life conflict and life-to-work conflict respectively?

How are WFH, work-to-life conflict and life-to-work conflict related to mental wellbeing?

2 Methods

2.1 Data

This study is based on a large-scale online survey that was conducted by Eurofound during the COVID-19 pandemic three times, in 2020, 2021 and 2022, in 27 EU countries. Entitled, “Living, working and COVID-19”, the aim was to investigate the impact of the pandemic on wellbeing, work and the financial situation of individuals across the EU. The total amount of respondents included in the survey was 107 585 respondents, but this study includes the 53 214 respondents that were employed at the time of the study. Inclusion criteria for participants in the study were that the respondents should be 18 years or older and living in the EU. The survey applied a non-probability sampling method, and the respondents were recruited based on snowball sampling via Eurofound’s stakeholders and through social media advertising (Facebook), but the data was weighted according to different background characteristics to ensure that it was fairly representative for all countries included. Most of the questions in the study are based on Eurofound’s European Quality of Life Survey (EQLS) and European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS), while some questions are new.

2.2 Variables

The dependent variables consist of three indexes. The index Work-to-life conflict (Cronbach’s alpha 0.69) consists of the following two statements: “Felt too tired after work to do some of the household chores which needed to be done” and “Found that your job prevented you from giving the time you wanted to your family”. The index Life-to-work conflict (Cronbach’s alpha 0.83) consists of the following two statements: “Found it difficult to concentrate on your job because of your family responsibilities” and “Found that your family responsibilities prevented you from giving the time you should to your job”. The indexes range from 0 to 8 –the higher the value, the more the conflicts.

Mental wellbeing was measured by the WHO-5 index which consists of five statements about the respondent’s perceptions over the last two weeks regarding whether they felt cheerful and in good spirits, calm and relaxed, active and vigorous, fresh and rested, and interested in things generally. The responses were summarised into an index ranging from 0 to 100 (the higher the value, the better the mental health), and the calculated Cronbach’s alpha was 0.90.

The main independent variable “Hours worked from home” was measured by a question asking how many hours the respondent worked from home in the past month (0–168). The multivariateanalyses control for a number of background characteristics mainly related to working life and private life. Variables related working life are Self-employed (1 = Self-employed, 0 = Employed), Working hours (0–168), Worked in free time (1 = Every day, 5 = Never), Job security (1 = Low security, 5 = High security), Education level (1 = Primary, 2 = Secondary, 3 = Tertiary). Variables related to private life were Ability to make ends meet (1 = With great difficulty, 6 = Very easily), Spouse/partner (1 = Spouse/partner, 0 = Single), Children (1 = Children living at home, 0 = No children living at home), Parents/grandparents (1 = Parents or grandparents in household, 0 = No Parents or grandparents in household). Other background characteristics are Gender (1 = Man, 0 = Woman) and Age (18–90 years).

2.3 Analysis strategy

The first step of the analysis was to present how the number of hours worked from home, work-to-life conflict, life-to-work conflict, and mental wellbeing changed during different phases of the pandemic. The next step was to analyse the correlations between the main independent variable and the dependent variables for all years together. The final step of the analysis was to look at all years together, which consisted of three separate OLS regressions investigating how the independent variables related to work-to-life conflict, life-to-work conflict and mental wellbeing, respectively. Unstandardized B-coefficients are presented as indications of effect sizes, standard errors indicate the standard deviation of the sampling distribution and levels of significance illustrates if the effects are statistically significantor not.

2.4 Ethical aspects

Respondents are informed that several security controls have been put in place to protect personal data from unauthorised access, use or disclosure. The data is stored on servers located in the European Union, hosted by www.soscisurvey.de with access permitted uniquely for authorised research staff. The answers from respondents are used solely for research purposes and are be kept strictly confidential. All results of the research will be anonymised and there will not be possible to identify individuals in any published results.

3 Results

The first step of the analysis was to look at how hours worked from home, work-to-life conflict, life-to-work conflict and mental wellbeing developed during the different phases of the pandemic. This is illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1
Number of hours worked from home, work-to-life conflict, life-to-work conflict and mental wellbeing 2020, 2021 and 2022

Survey round Hours Work-to-life Life-to-work Mental

worked from conflict conflict wellbeing

home

2020 Mean 14.23 3.48 1.77 53.99

N 10 948 11 490 11 489 11 683

Std Dev 21.87 1.99 1.75 20.33

2021 Mean 14.62 3.57 1.83 46.69

N 20 675 21 723 21 851 22 104

Std Dev 20.89 1.87 1.74 22.51

2022 Mean 8.91 3.97 1.93 48.42

N 17 683 18 697 18 614 18 973

Std Dev 15.26 1.95 1.77 21.70

Total Mean 12.49 3.69 1.85 48.93

N 49 307 51 909 51 954 52 760

Std Dev 19.49 1.94 1.76 21.93

Survey round	Hours	Work-to-life	Life-to-work	Mental
2020	Mean	14.23	3.48	1.77	53.99
	N	10 948	11 490	11 489	11 683
	Std Dev	21.87	1.99	1.75	20.33
2021	Mean	14.62	3.57	1.83	46.69
	N	20 675	21 723	21 851	22 104
	Std Dev	20.89	1.87	1.74	22.51
2022	Mean	8.91	3.97	1.93	48.42
	N	17 683	18 697	18 614	18 973
	Std Dev	15.26	1.95	1.77	21.70
Total	Mean	12.49	3.69	1.85	48.93
	N	49 307	51 909	51 954	52 760
	Std Dev	19.49	1.94	1.76	21.93

Hours worked from home was quite stable between 2020 and 2021 but decreased substantially at the end of the pandemic in 2022. The mean number of hours in 2020 and 2021 was roughly 14 hours but in 2022 the number of hours decreased to just under 9 hours. The experience of work-to-life conflict was relatively stable between 2020 and 2021 (a mean of around 3.5), but the mean increased to about 4 in 2022. The experience of life-to-work conflict was relatively stable at around 1.8 to 1.9 for all years, but increased somewhat during the whole period. There was a substantial decrease in mental wellbeing between 2020 and 2021. The mean value on the WHO-5 index decreased from 54.0 to 46.7. However, the level of mental wellbeing was relatively stable between 2021 and 2022.

Table 2 shows the correlations between the main independent and dependent variables. The results illustrate that hours worked from home is significantly negatively correlated with work-to-life conflict but significantly positively correlated with life-to-work conflict. This means that the more hours worked from home the less work-to-life conflict but the more life-to-work conflict.

Table 2

Correlations between hours worked from home, work-to-life conflict, life-to-work conflict and mental wellbeing (pearson)

	Hours	Work-to-life	Life-to-work	Mental
	worked from	conflict	conflict	wellbeing
	home
Hours worked from home	1	–0.016^***	0.112^***	0.038^***
Work-to-life conflict		1	0.450^***	–0.411^***
Life-to-work conflict			1	–0.271^***

^***. Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level.

There is a significant positive relationship between hours worked from home and mental wellbeing, meaning that the more hours worked from home the higher the level of mental wellbeing. Work-to-life conflict is strongly correlated with life-to-work conflict and there is a significant negative relationship between both these two variables and mental wellbeing –the higher the conflict, the lower the mental wellbeing.

Table 3 shows results from two separate multiple OLS regressions of how work-to-life conflict and life-to-work conflict are related to hours worked from home and variables measuring conditions in working and private life. As Table 3 illustrates, there is also a significant negative relationship between the number of hours worked from home and work-to-life conflict when controlling for other variables connected to working and private life. The number of hours worked from home is also significantly positively related to life-to-work conflict when controlling for other variables connected to working and private life. Both relationships are significant at a 0.001 level.

Table 3

OLS regression. Number of hours worked from home by work-to-life conflict and life-to-work conflict, when controlling for variables related to work and private life (B-coefficients)

	Work-to-life conflict			Life-to-work conflict
	Unstand B	Stand Error	Sign	Unstand B	Stand Error	Sign
Constant	8.061	0.085	< 0.001	3.845	0.079	< 0.001
Main variable
Hours worked from home	–0.008	0.001	< 0.001	0.009	0.000	< 0.001
Control variables
Self-employed	–0.508	0.033	< 0.001	0.018	0.031	0.559
Working hours	0.009	0.000	< 0.001	–0.004	0.000	< 0.001
Worked in free time	–0.515	0.008	< 0.001	–0.333	0.007	< 0.001
Job security	–0.179	0.009	< 0.001	–0.129	.008	< 0.001
Education level	–0.058	0.018	< 0.001	0.080	0.016	< 0.001
Ability to make ends meet	–0.251	0.007	< 0.001	–0.180	0.007	< 0.001
Spouse/partner	0.123	0.024	< 0.001	0.240	0.023	< 0.001
Children	0.023	0.019	0.222	0.649	0.017	< 0.001
Parents or grandparents	–0.218	0.030	< 0.001	0.121	0.027	< 0.001
Gender	–0.369	0.018	< 0.001	–0.195	0.017	< 0.001
Age	–0.024	0.001	< 0.001	–0.005	0.001	< 0.001
Survey round	0.152	0.008	< 0.001	0.069	0.007	< 0.001
R ²	0.221			0.170

The control variables connected to work are related to work-to-life conflict and life-to-work conflict in the following way. Being self-employed decreases the risk of experiencing work-to-life conflict but it is not significantly correlated with life-to work conflict. Many working hours increases the risk of work-to-life conflict but decreases the risk of life-to-work conflict. Working a lot in one’s free time decreases the risk of both work-to-life conflict and life-to-work conflict. The higher the level of education the lower the risk of work-to life conflict, but the higher the risk of life-to-work conflict.

The independent variables related to private life correlate with work-to-life conflict and life-to-work conflict as follows. A greater ability to make ends meet decreases the risk of experiencing both work-to-life and life-to-work conflicts. Living with a spouse or partner increases the risk of both work-to-life conflict and life-to-work conflict. Having children in the household increases the risk of life-to-work conflict but there is no significant relationship between having children and work-to-life conflict. The presence of parents or grandparents in the household decreases the risk of work-to-life conflict but increases the risk of life-to-work conflict.

Men experience less work-to-life conflict and life-to-work conflict than women, and age is negatively correlated with both work-to-life conflict and life-to work conflict –the higher the age the lower the amount of conflicts. Overall, the independent and background variables included explain 22 percent of the variance in work-to-life conflict and 17 percent of the variance in life-to-work conflict.

In Table 4 the relationships between mental wellbeing and the main variables of hours worked from home, work-to-life conflict and life-to-work conflict are analysed in an OLS regression, when controlling for other variables related to working and private life.

Table 4

OLS regression. Hours worked from home, work-to-life conflict and life-to-work conflict by mental wellbeing, when controlling for variables related to work and private life (B-coefficients)

	Unstandardized B	Standard Error	Significance
Constant	42.354	1.052	< 0.001
Main variables
Hours worked from home	–0.039	0.006	< 0.001
Work-to-life conflict	–3.662	0.063	< 0.001
Life-to-work conflict	–1.368	0.068	< 0.001
Control variables
Self-employed	1.027	0.366	0.005
Working hours	0.055	0.005	< 0.001
Worked in free time	–0.935	0.093	< 0.001
Job security	2.425	0.099	< 0.001
Education level	1.025	0.194	< 0.001
Ability to make ends meet	2.221	0.080	< 0.001
Spouse/partner	0.309	0.267	0.248
Children	2.710	0.209	< 0.001
Parents or grandparents	–0.489	0.326	0.133
Gender	2.556	0.203	< 0.001
Age	0.061	0.009	< 0.001
Survey round	–0.271	0.087	0.002
R ²	0.250

As the results show, the relationship between hours worked from home and mental wellbeing becomes negative in a multivariate analysis and the relationship is significant at a 0.001 level. This indicates that the positive correlation that was found in Table 2 is explained by other factors connected to working and family life. In fact, if one considers factors that are often characteristic of people who have the ability to work from home more, like having a secure job, a high level of education and a stable household economy (all of which are good for mental wellbeing), it appears that working many hours from home is negative for wellbeing. Further, the results illustrate that both work-to life-conflict and life-to-work conflict are strongly negatively related to mental wellbeing, which means the more conflicts, the poorer the mental wellbeing, and this is particularly true for work-to-life conflict.

The control variables are related to mental wellbeing in the following way. Being self-employed is positive for mental wellbeing. The result regarding working hours shows that the more working hours, the better the mental health, but working a lot in one’s free time appears to be negative for mental health. As mentioned above, job security, a high level of education and the household’s ability to make ends meet, are all positively correlated with mental wellbeing. There is no significant relationship between having a spouse/partner or not and mental wellbeing. Having children living at home is positively related to mental wellbeing but whether there are parents or grandparents living in the household or not is not significantly related to mental wellbeing.

The relationship between gender and mental wellbeing shows that men have a better level of mental wellbeing than women. Age is positively correlated with mental health; the higher the age, the better the mental wellbeing. The independent and background variables explain 25 percent of the variance in mental wellbeing.

4 Discussion

The objective of this study was to contribute to existing knowledge about whether and how WFH impacted work/life conflict and mental wellbeing in European working life during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is an important area of research given that the pandemic has led to increased WFH and that remote work will probably be more common even after the pandemic. According to the Swedish Agency for Work Environment [4], there is a need for more research into the consequences of the pandemic related to working life issues. Furthermore, as far as we know, research exploring work-to-life conflict and life-to-work conflict among employees as two separate phenomena is limited.

These results showed that more hours were worked from home in the beginning of the pandemic, decreasing at the end of the pandemic. This result is logical because employees could, and in many cases were forced to, return to their regular places of work at the end of the pandemic. However, the fact that many employees still worked from home part of the time in 2022 (mean 8.9 hours; Std Dev, 15.3 hours in the last month) indicates that remote working has increased among many working life groupings. Many employees have experienced positive consequences of working from home [4, 36], however, on the contrary, studies have shown that home-based working can negatively affect work/life balance [37, 38].

Our results show that both work-to-life conflict and life-to-work conflict increased, and mental wellbeing decreased during the pandemic. These results are supported by other research showing that WFH can increase the risk of stress, exhaustion and burnout [8], and bring about reduced health and work engagement [39]. Other negative consequences may include problems maintaining boundaries between work and private life [6], and experiences of social isolation [20].

Regarding the research question about how WFH is related to work-to-life conflict and life-to-work conflict, the correlation analyses show that the numbers of hours worked from home is significantly negatively correlated with work-to-life conflict, but significantly positively correlated with life-to-work conflict. This means that more hours worked from home means less work-to-life conflict experienced (feeling too tired after work to do some of the household chores and that the job prevents spending time with family) and more life-to-work conflict (difficulties in concentrating on the job because of family responsibilities and that family responsibilities prevented time for the job). These results also persisted in the regression analyses when controlling for several other variables related to work and private life.

These results are interesting and indicate the need to consider bidirectional aspects of work-life balance [30]. One interpretation of these results could be that working from home can be effective for performing different work tasks that allow employees to take part in household and family activities. On the other hand, WFH can also make it difficult to concentrate on the job. Thus, as several research studies show, WFH can have both positive and negative consequences for work/life conflicts for individuals. According to a scoping review [2], heterogenous findings were identified regarding work-life balance which may be explained by moderating factors such as biological sex, boundary management strategies, and frequency of working from home. These authors conclude that WFH may not be beneficial for all individuals and that a deeper understanding of how WFH impacts individuals’ work and private domains is needed. In contrast to the theoretical starting point for this study, the work-life balance theory which considers work life and personal life as two separate spheres, it could also be fruitful for further studies to analyse the relationships between WFH and work/life conflicts based on the work-life integration theory, which argue that there is no clear distinction between the work and private life and that both must coexist in harmony [40].

It is important to note that several other independent variables show significant associations with both of the outcome variables in the regression analyses. Being self-employed decreases the risk of work-to-life conflict which may be related to relatively high flexibility and job control for this group [41]. Other research supports the fact that working a lot in one’s free time and being less able to make ends meet are negatively associated with both dependent variables [42, 43]. The results showing that having children at home contributes strongly to life-to-work conflict and being a woman is associated to more work/life conflict are also consistent with most other research [21].

Regarding the research question about how WFH, work-to-life and life-to-work conflict are related to mental wellbeing, the correlation analyses show negative associations between WFH and work/life conflicts, and WFH and mental wellbeing. These results are supported by the regression analyses, where both work-to-life and life-to-work conflict presents relatively high B-coefficients in the model. The fact that the result in the regression analysis concerning the number of hours worked from home is opposite to the bivariate correlation (the relationship becomes negative), can be explained by the influence of other independent variables. For example, having a secure job, a high level of education and a stable household economy are all factors that are both characteristic of many people that are able to work from home, and engender a higher level of mental wellbeing [44]. Similar to many other studies, being self-employed and having the ability to make ends meet [42, 43] are also related to a higher level of mental wellbeing. In addition, being a woman is significantly associated with a lower level of mental wellbeing, which is supported by otherresearch [45].

4.1 Strengths and limitations

This study uses data collected in different countries and there may be national differences that are not visible in this study. Another limitation is that survey questions may be valued differently in different national contexts. As the data was cross-sectional, we cannot draw conclusions on causal relationships. Further, the respondents were recruited based on snowball sampling methods and through social media; therefore, the sample is not representative of the distribution of employees in European working life. However, the sample was weighted based on gender, age, education and self-defined urbanization levels. This means that the data is representative of the population and fairly nationally representative [46]. Another strength of the study is the relatively extensive data set and the use of validated indexes with satisfactory Cronbach’s alpha values.

5 Conclusion

In conclusion, the results show that WFH, work-to-life conflict and life-to-work conflict have increased and that mental wellbeing has decreased during the pandemic. Our regression analyses show that the number of hours worked from home was negatively associated with work-life conflict and positively associated with life-to-work conflict when controlling for other variables related to working and private life. These results indicate that WFH can have both positive and negative consequences for employees’ work/life conflict. When the regression results also show negative associations between hours worked from home, work-to-life conflict, life-to-work conflict and mental wellbeing, different implications need to be considered.

It is important to consider different work situations for different working life groupings when implementing WFH measures. For example, some employees are motivated and willing to work from home, while others prefer to be at their regular workplaces. Organizations must consider how work is supervised and help managers understand how to support employees to achieve work-life balance when working remotely. Support from managers and proactive behaviour have been found to be important for employees in gaining balance in managing work and family responsibilities [47]. For some employees, WFH can contribute to feelings of isolation, and according to Chirico et al. [48] it is therefore important for managers to design e.g., regular team meetings for communication among employees to avoid these feelings. Employers can also provide financial compensation for employees to cover some unintended costs associated with WFH environments and trainings should be conducted to enable easy adaptation of employees with WFH [48]. In addition, occupational health services can be a resource for supporting employees WFH regarding both ergonomic issues and psychosocial conditions. These services can also be a resource for employers to perform risk assessments and helping employees negatively affected by the COVID-19 virus to reintegrate to work [49]. At a societal level, it is important for governmental actors, businesses and labour organizations to work together to find sustainable models for increased remoteworking.

Given the mixed results of the consequences of remote work on work/life conflict and mental wellbeing, there is a need for more research about how this type of work impacts both work-to-life conflict and life-to-work conflict among different groups of employees. There is a need to study these factors with longitudinally quantitative studies and qualitative interview studies to get a deeper understanding about the mechanisms beyond the studyresults.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Informed consent

Not applicable.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Eurofound for kindly sharing their data with them.

Conflict of interest

None to report.

Funding

Non to report.

References

Swedish Agency for Work Environment Expertise. Arbetsmiljö och hälsa organisationer vid epidemier och pandemier orsakade av coronavirus [Work environment and health in organizations during epidemics and pandemics caused by the coronavirus]. Report 2022:5. Gävle: Swedish Agency for Work Environment Expertise.

Elbaz

, Richards

, Provost Savard

Teleworking and work–life balance during the COVID-19 pandemic:Ascoping review. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne. 2022.

Marzban

, Candido

, Mackey

, Engelen

, Zhang

, Tjondronegoro

A review of research in activity-based working over the last ten years: Lessons for the post-COVID workplace. Journal of Facilities Management. 2022 Jan 4.

Swedish Agency for Work Environment Expertise. Distansarbete –översikt av internationella forskningen om arbetsmiljö och hälsa, balans i livet och produktivitet före och under covid-19 pandemin med särskilt beaktande av kvinnors och mäns villkor. Kunskapssammanstallning 2022:2. Gävle: Swedish Agency for Work Environment Expertise.

Eurofound. Telework and ICT-based mobile work: Flexible working in the digital age, Newforms of employment series, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxemburg. 2020a.

Allen

, French

, Dumani

, Shockley

A cross-national meta-analytic examination of predictors and outcomes associated with work–family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology2020;105(6):539.

Oakman

, Kinsman

, Stuckey

, Graham

, Weale

A rapid review of mental and physical health effects of working at home: how do we optimise health? BMC Public Health2020;20:1–3.

Ferreira

, Pereira

, Bianchi

, da Silva

Decision factors for remote work adoption: advantages, disadvantages, driving forces and challenges. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity2021;7(1):70.

Jimenez-Gomez

, Sawhney

, Albert

Impact of COVID-19 on the applied behavior analysis workforce: Comparison across remote and nonremote workers. Behavior Analysis in Practice2021;14(4):873–82.

10.

Galanti

, Guidetti

, Mazzei

, Zappalà

, Toscano

Work fromhome during the COVID-19 outbreak: The impact on employees’ remotework productivity, engagement, and stress. Journal of Occupationaland Environmental Medicine2021;63(7):e426.

11.

Shimura

, Yokoi

, Ishibashi

, Akatsuka

, Inoue

. Remote work decreases psychological and physical stress responses, but full-remote work increases presenteeism. Frontiers in Psychology2021;12:730969.

12.

Charalampous

, Grant

, Tramontano

, Michailidis

. Systematically reviewing remote e-workers’ well-being at work: A multidimensional approach. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology2019;28(1):51–73.

13.

Felstead

, Reuschke

A flash in the pan or a permanent change? The growth of homeworking during the pandemic and its effect on employee productivity in the UK. Information Technology & People. 2021 Jul 6(ahead-of-print).

14.

Sutarto

, Wardaningsih

, Putri

Work from home: Indonesian employees’ mental well-being and productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Workplace Health Management2021;14(4):386–408.

15.

Awada

, Lucas

, Becerik-Gerber

, Roll

Working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic: Impact on office worker productivity and work experience. Work2021;69(4):1171–89.

16.

Bartsch

, Weber

, Büttgen

, Huber

Leadership matters in crisis-induced digital transformation: how to lead service employees effectively during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Service Management2020;32(1):71–85.

17.

Byron

A meta-analytic review of work–family conflict and its antecedents. Journal of Vocational Behavior2005;67(2):169–98.

18.

BhumikaChallenges for work-life balance during COVID-19 induced nationwide lockdown: exploring gender difference in emotional exhaustion in the Indian setting. Gender in Management2020;35(7-8):705–18.

19.

Irawanto

, Novianti

, Roz

Work from home: Measuring satisfaction between work–life balance and work stress during the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia. Economies2021;9(3):96.

20.

Sandoval-Reyes

, Idrovo-Carlier

, Duque-Oliva

Remote work, work stress, and work–life during pandemic times: A Latin America situation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health2021;18(13):7069.

21.

Ipsen

, van Veldhoven

, Kirchner

, Hansen

Six key advantages and disadvantages of working from home in Europe during COVID-19. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health2021;18(4):1826.

22.

Schieman

, Badawy

, Milkie

, Bierman

Work-life conflict during the COVID-19 pandemic. Socius2021;7:2378023120982856.

23.

Frize

, Lhotska

, Marcu

, Stoeva

, Barabino

, Ibrahim

, Lim

, Kaldoudi

, Marques da Silva

, Tan

, Tsapaki

The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on gender-related work from home in STEM fields— Report of the WiMPBME Task GrouGender, Work & Organization

2021;28:378–96.

24.

Lonska

, Mietule

, Litavniece

, Arbidane

, Vanadzins

, Matisane

, Paegle

Work–life balance of the employed population during the emergency situation of COVID-19 in Latvia. Frontiers in Psychology2021;12:682459.

25.

Fahlén

Does gender matter? Policies, norms and the gender gapin work-to-home and home-to-work conflict across Europe. Community,Work & Family2014;17(4):371–91.

26.

Michel

, Kotrba

, Mitchelson

, Clark

, Baltes

Antecedents of work–family conflict: A meta-analytic review. Journal of organizational behavior2011;32(5):689–725.

27.

Strandh

, Nordenmark

The interference of paid work with household demands in different social policy contexts: Perceived work–household conflict in Sweden, the UK, the Netherlands, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. The British Journal of Sociology2006;57(4):597–617.

28.

Gutek

, Searle

, Klepa

Rational versus gender role explanations for work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology1991;76(4):560.

29.

Lunau

, Bambra

, Eikemo

, van Der Wel

, Dragano

A balancing act? Work–life balance, health and well-being in European welfare states. The European Journal of Public Health2014;24(3):422–7.

30.

Mäkelä

, Suutari

Coping with work-family conflicts in the global career context. Thunderbird International Business Review2011;53(3):365–75.

31.

Mesmer-Magnus

, Viswesvaran

Convergence between measures of work-to-family and family-to-work conflict: A meta-analytic examination. Journal of Vocational Behavior2005;67(2):215–32.

32.

Sirgy

, Lee

Work-life balance: An integrative review. Applied Research in Quality of Life2018;13:229–54.

33.

Artazcoz

, Cortès

, Puig-Barrachina

, Benavides

, Escribà-Agüir

, Borrell

Combining employment and familyin Europe: the role of family policies in health. The EuropeanJournal of Public Health2014;24(4):649–55.

34.

Boye

Work and well-being in a comparative perspective— The role of family policy. European Sociological Review2011;27(1):16–30.

35.

Hagqvist

, Gådin

, Nordenmark

. Division of labor, perceived labor-related stress and well-being among European couples. Open Journal of Preventive Medicine2012;2(04):452–60.

36.

Pelta

FlexJobs Survey: Productivity, work-life balance improves during pandemic. Flexjobs. 2020, September 21. https://www.flexjobs.com/blog/post/survey-productivitybalance-improve-during-pandemicremote-work/

37.

Grant

, Wallace

, Spurgeon

, Tramontano

, Charalampous

. Construction and initial validation of the E-Work Life Scale to measure remote e-working. Employee Relations2019;41(1):16–33.

38.

Palumbo

, Manna

, Cavallone

. Beware of side effects on quality!Investigating the implications of home working on work-life balancein educational services. The TQM Journal2021;33(4):915–29.

39.

Jimenez-Gomez

, Sawhney

, Albert

. Impact of COVID-19 on the applied behavior analysis workforce: Comparison across remote and nonremote workers. Behavior Analysis in Practice2021;14(4):873–82.

40.

Wepfer , Ariane

et al. Work-life boundaries and well-being: Does work-to-life integration impair well-being through lack of recovery. Journal of Business and Psychology2018;33:727–40.

41.

Stephan

. Entrepreneurs’ mental health and well-being: A review and research agenda. Academy of Management Perspectives2018;32(3):290–322.

42.

Nordenmark

, Hagqvist

, Vinberg

. Sickness presenteeism among the self-employed and employed in Northwestern Europe— the importance of time demands. Safety and Health at Work2019;10(2):224–8.

43.

Vinberg

, Danielsson

Managers of micro-sized enterprises and Covid- impact on business operations, work-life balance and well-being. International Journal of Circumpolar Health2021;80(1):1959700.

44.

Stansfeld

, Candy

. Psychosocial work environment and mental health— a meta-analytic review. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health2006)443–62.

45.

Hjalmsdóttir

, Bjarnadóttir

“I have turned into a foreman here at home”: Families and work–life balance in times of COVID-19 in a gender equality paradise. Gender, Work & Organization2021;28(1):268–83.

46.

Eurofound. Living, working and COVID-19: Codebook for Round 1 and 2 datasets. 2020. https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/report/2020/living-working-and-covid-19#tab-03

47.

Kumar

, Mokashi

COVID-19 and work-life balance: What about supervisor support and employee proactiveness? Annals of Contemporary Developments in Management & HR (ACDMHR)2020;2(4):1–9.

48.

Chirico , Francesco et al. Working from home in the context of COVID- A systematic review of physical and mental health effects on teleworkers. Journal of Health and Social Sciences2021;3:319–32.

49.

Chirico , Francesco , Angelo Sacco , Giuseppe Ferrari “Total Worker Health” strategy to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic and future challenges in the workplace. Journal of Health and Social Sciences2021;4:452–7.