Psychological Impacts of the New Ways of Working (NWW): A Systematic Review
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Literature Search
2.2. Selection of Studies and Outcomes
2.3. Data Extraction and Synthesis
2.4. Quality Scoring: Assessing the Risk of Bias
3.1. Search Results
3.2. Characteristics of Included Studies
3.3. Risk of Bias
Conflicts of Interest
- Vuori, V.; Helander, N.; Okkonen, J. Digitalization in knowledge work: The dream of enhanced performance. Cogn. Technol. Work. 2018, 21, 237–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UN News. UN Makes ‘Declaration of Digital Interdependence’, with Release of Tech Report. Available online: https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/06/1040131 (accessed on 15 April 2020).
- United Nations. Sustainable Development Goals. United Nations, 2015. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300 (accessed on 16 March 2020).
- Allvin, M.; Aronsson, G.; Hagstrom, T.; Johansson, G.; Lundberg, U. Work Without Boundaries; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Clarke, S.; Holdsworth, L. Flexibility in the Workplace: Implications of Flexible Work Arrangements for Individuals, Teams and Organisations; Acas: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Baane, R.; Houtkamp, P.; Knotter, M. Het nieuwe werken ontrafeld: Over bricks, bytes & behavior (New ways of working unraveled: About bricks, bytes and behavior). Tijdschr. Voor HRM 2011, 1, 7–23. [Google Scholar]
- Arrowsmith, J.; Sisson, K. Managing Working Time. In Personnel Management: A Comprehensive Guide to Theory and Practice, 3rd ed.; Bach, S., Sisson, K., Eds.; Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2000; pp. 354–380. [Google Scholar]
- Wessels, C.; Schippers, M.C.; Stegmann, S.; Bakker, A.B.; Van Baalen, P.J.; Proper, K.I. Fostering fexibility in the new world of work: A model of time-spatial job crafting. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nijp, H.H.; Beckers, D.G.J.; Van De Voorde, K.; Geurts, S.A.E.; Kompier, M.A.J. Effects of new ways of working on work hours and work location, health and job-related outcomes. Chronobiol. Int. 2016, 33, 604–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Van Steenbergen, E.; Van der Ven, C.; Peeters, M.C.W.; Taris, T.W. Transitioning towards new ways of working: Do job demands, job resources, burnout, and engagement change? Psychol. Rep. 2018, 121, 736–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Pritchard, R.D.; Payne, S.C. Performance management practices and motivation. In The New Workplace: A Guide to the Human Impact of Modern Working Practices; Holman, D., Wall, T.D., Clegg, C.W., Sparrow, P., Howard, A., Eds.; Wiley & Sons: West Sussex, UK, 2003; pp. 219–244. [Google Scholar]
- Beckers, D.G.; Kompier, M.A.; Kecklund, G.; Härmä, M. Worktime control: Theoretical conceptualization, current empirical knowledge, and research agenda. Scand. J. Work. Environ. Health 2012, 38, 291–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Kotera, Y.; Green, P.; Sheffield, D. Work-life balance of UK construction workers: Relationship with mental health. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2019, 38, 291–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demerouti, E.; Derks, D.; Brummelhuis, L.L.T.; Bakker, A.B. New ways of working: Impact on working conditions, work–family balance, and well-being. In The Impact of ICT on Quality of Working Life; Springer Science and Business Media LLC: Berlin, Germany, 2014; pp. 123–141. [Google Scholar]
- Manoochehri, G.; Pinkerton, T. Managing telecommuters: Opportunities and challenges. Am. Bus. J. 2003, 21, 9–16. [Google Scholar]
- Gajendran, R.S.; Harrison, D.A. The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007, 92, 1524–1541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Halford, S. Hybrid workspace: Re-spatialisations of work, organisation and management. New Technol. Work. Employ. 2005, 20, 19–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mazmanian, M.; Orlikowski, W.J.; Yates, J. The autonomy paradox: The implications of mobile email devices for knowledge professionals. Organ. Sci. 2013, 24, 1337–1357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Danielsson, C.B.; Chungkham, H.S.; Wulff, C.; Westerlund, H. Office design’s impact on sick leave rates. Ergonomics 2014, 57, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nijp, H.H.; Beckers, D.G.; Geurts, S.; Tucker, P.; Kompier, M.A. Systematic review on the association between employee worktime control and work–non-work balance, health and well-being, and job-related outcomes. Scand. J. Work. Environ. Health 2012, 38, 299–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- De Menezes, L.M.; Kelliher, C. Flexible working and performance: A systematic review of the evidence for a business case. Int. J. Manage. Rev. 2011, 13, 452–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peters, P.; Poutsma, E.; Van der Heijden, B.I.J.M.; Bakker, A.B.; De Bruijn, T. Enjoying new ways to work: An HRM-process approach to study flow. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2014, 53, 271–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kestrel, D. Mental Health in the Workplace. World Health Organization, 2019. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/mental-health-in-the-workplace (accessed on 19 August 2019).
- Total of 137 Million Working Days Lost to Sickness and Injury in 2016, 2017. Office for National Statistics Web Site. Available online: https://www.ons.gov.uk/news/news/totalof137millionworkingdayslosttosicknessandinjuryin2016 (accessed on 16 March 2020).
- Stevenson, D.; Farmer, P. Thriving at Work; UK Department of Health and Social Care: London, UK, 2017.
- Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Mental Health and Work: Netherlands; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development: Paris, France, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Matrix Insight Economic. Analysis of Workplace Mental Health Promotion and Mental Disorder Prevention Programmes; Executive Agency for Health and Consumers: Luxembourg, 2013.
- Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Work Mental Health Strategy Committee [Shokuba ni okeru mentaruherusu taisaku kentoukai]; Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare: Tokyo, Japan, 2010.
- Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. White Paper for Prevention for Karoushi etc. [Karoushi nado boushi taisaku hakusho]; Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare: Tokyo, Japan, 2019.
- Gubbins, C.; Rousseau, D.M. Embracing translational HRD research for evidence-based management: Let’s talk about how to bridge the research-practice gap. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 2015, 26, 109–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Kepes, S.; Bennett, A.A.; McDaniel, M.A. Evidence-based management and the trustworthiness of our cumulative scientific knowledge: Implications for teaching, research, and practice. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 2014, 13, 446–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Denyer, D.; Tranfield, D. Producing a systematic review. In The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods; Buchanan, D., Bryman, A., Eds.; Sage: London, UK, 2009; pp. 671–689. [Google Scholar]
- Tranfield, D.; Denyer, D.; Smart, P. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J. Manag. 2003, 14, 207–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Boland, A.; Dickson, R.; Cherry, G. Doing a Systematic Review: A Student’s Guide; Sage Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Rojon, C.; McDowall, A.; Saunders, M.N.K. On the experience of conducting a systematic review in industrial, work, and organizational psychology. J. Pers. Psychol. 2011, 10, 133–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Callahan, J.L. Constructing a manuscript: Distinguishing integrative literature reviews and conceptual and theory articles. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 2010, 9, 300–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Charalampous, M.; Grant, C.A.; Tramontano, C.; Michailidis, E. Systematically reviewing remote e-workers’ well-being at work: A multidimensional approach. Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 2018, 28, 51–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meijer, E.M.; Frings-Dresen, M.H.W.; Sluiter, J.K. Effects of office innovation on office workers’ health and performance. Ergonomics 2009, 52, 1027–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sturt, J.; Ali, S.; Robertson, W.; Metcalfe, D.; Grove, A.; Bourne, C.; Bridle, C. Neurolinguistic programming: A systematic review of the effects on health outcomes. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 2012, 62, e757–e764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Wells, G.; Shea, B.; O’Connell, D.; Peterson, J.; Welch, V.; Losos, M.; Tugwell, P. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses, 2000. The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. Available online: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp (accessed on 17 March 2020).
- Kotera, Y.; Sheffield, D.; Van Gordon, W. The applications of neuro-linguistic programming in organizational settings: A systematic review of psychological outcomes. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 2018, 30, 101–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herzog, R.; Álvarez-Pasquin, M.J.; Díaz, C.; Del Barrio, J.L.; Estrada, J.M.; Gil, A. Are healthcare workers’ intentions to vaccinate related to their knowledge, beliefs and attitudes? A systematic review. BMC Public Health 2013, 13, 154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Public Health Resource Unit. CASP Qualitative Research Checklist. Intersex-New Intersiciplinary Approaches (INDIA), 2013. Available online: https://hhs.hud.ac.uk/lqsu/Useful/critap/QualitativeResearchChecklist/CASP-Qualitative-Research-Checklist-31.05.13.pdf (accessed on 9 April 2020).
- Fedakova, D.; Istonova, L. Slovak IT-employees and new ways of working: Impact on work-family borders and work-family balance. Cesk. Psychol. 2017, 68–83. [Google Scholar]
- Gerards, R.; De Grip, A.; Baudewijns, C. Do new ways of working increase work engagement? Pers. Rev. 2018, 47, 517–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blok, M.M.; Groenesteijn, L.; Schelvis, R.; Vink, P. New ways of working: Does flexibility in time and location of work change work behavior and affect business outcomes? Work 2012, 41, 2605–2610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Brummelhuis, L.L.T.; Bakker, A.B.; Hetland, J.; Keulemans, L. Do new ways of working foster work engagement? Psicothema 2012, 24, 113–120. [Google Scholar]
- Jemine, G.; Dubois, C.; Pichault, F. When the gallic village strikes back: The politics behind ‘New ways of working’ projects. J. Chang. Manag. 2020, 20, 146–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mache, S.; Servaty, R.; Harth, V. Flexible work arrangements in open workspaces and relations to occupational stress, need for recovery and psychological detachment from work. J. Occup. Med. Toxicol. 2020, 15, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Jemine, G.; Dubois, C.; Pichault, F. From a new workplace to a new way of working: Legitimizing organizational change. Qual Res. Organ. Manag. Int. J. 2019. pre-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kingma, S. New ways of working (NWW): Work space and cultural change in virtualizing organizations. Cult. Org. 2019, 25, 383–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Procter, S.; Harrison, D.; Pearson, P.; Dickinson, C.; Lombardo, C. New ways of working in UK mental health services: Developing distributed responsibility in community mental health teams? J. Mental Health 2016, 25, 126–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coun, M.J.; Gelderman, C.J.; Pérez-Arendsen, J. Gedeeld leiderschap en proactiviteit in Het Nieuwe Werken. Gedragen Organ. 2015, 28, 356–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hollingsworth, N. The Creating Capable Teams Approach (CCTA)—A toolkit to support teams to introduce new ways of working and new roles. J. Ment. Health Train. Educ. Pract. 2009, 4, 15–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morris, T.; Anderson, Y.; Nixon, B. New ways of working in child and adolescent mental health services—“Keep the baby but throw out the bathwater. ” J. Ment. Health Train. Educ. Pract. 2009, 4, 10–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osborn, W.; Smyth, G. Enhance, include, evolve: New ways of working for allied health professionals. J. Ment. Health Train. Educ. Pract. 2009, 4, 18–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vize, C. New ways of working and the issue of responsibility and accountability. J. Ment. Health Train. Educ. Pract. 2009, 4, 8–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morris, T.; Nixon, B. New ways of working in CAMHS. J. Ment. Health Train. Educ. Pract. 2008, 3, 22–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baguley, I.; Alexander, J.; Middleton, H.; Hope, R. New ways of working in acute inpatient care: A case for change. J. Ment. Health Train. Educ. Pract. 2007, 2, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Keyes, C.L.M. The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. J. Health Soc. Behav. 2002, 43, 207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- The Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet. Work-Style Reform Follow-Up Meetings. 2016. Available online: http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/hatarakikata/ (accessed on 14 April 2020).
- Jackman, S. Microsoft Japan Says Four-Day Work Week Boosted Productivity 40%. Bloomberg. 4 November 2019. Available online: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-04/microsoft-japan-says-four-day-work-week-boosted-productivity-40 (accessed on 14 April 2020).
- Young, S. Coronavirus: How to Work from Home when You Have Children. Independent. 14 April 2020. Available online: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/coronavirus-working-from-home-parents-children-tips-routine-a9414261.html (accessed on 14 April 2020).
- Dolan, V.L.B. The isolation of online adjunct faculty and its impact on their performance. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 2011, 12, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Bloom, J.; Sianoja, M.; Korpela, K.; Tuomisto, M.; Lilja, A.; Geurts, S.; Kinnunen, U. Effects of park walks and relaxation exercises during lunch breaks on recovery from job stress: Two randomized controlled trials. J. Environ. Psychol. 2017, 51, 14–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Feuerhahn, N.; Sonnentag, S.; Woll, A. Exercise after work, psychological mediators, and affect: A day-level study. Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 2012, 23, 62–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kotera, Y.; Van Laethem, M.; Ohshima, R. Cross-cultural comparison of mental health between Japanese and Dutch workers: Relationships with mental health shame, self-compassion, work engagement and motivation. Cross Cult. Strateg. Manag. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
|Research Question||What Are the Advantages and Disadvantages of NWW? What Quantity and Quality of Evidence Has Been Reported?|
|Inclusion Criteria||Exclusion Criteria|
|Population||Workers in an organization (i.e., employees aged 18 years or older)||Workers who are less than 18 years old and non-work samples|
|Intervention||New Ways of Working (NWW) *||Other work arrangements than NWW|
|Comparator||Any comparator including no intervention|
|Outcomes||Psychological outcomes||Other outcomes|
|Study Design||Empirical, quantitative and/or qualitative study||N-of-1 studies, reviews, discussion articles, articles introducing theories/concepts/models/applications|
|Others||Published in a peer-reviewed academic journal in English, published before 31 March 2020.|
|No.||Author(s), Year. Country.||Sample and Setting||Study Design||Measures or Outcomes||Findings|
|1||Van Steenbergen et al., 2018. Netherlands .||126 employees (82 women & 44 men; Age 39.5 ± 8.7) of a large financial services provider.||Intervention pre-post study with 3 assessment points (1 assessment before NWW, and 2 assessments after NWW 3 and 12 months later). Impacts on job demands, job resources, burnout and work engagement, and how Psychological Capital (PsyCap) affects these changes.||New ways of working, Job demands, Job resources, Maslach Burnout Inventory, Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES), Psychological Capital questionnaire||NWW decreased mental demands, workload, autonomy, and possibilities for professional development, while did not harm relationships with supervisors. Burnout and work engagement remained stable. The effects did not depend on PsyCap.|
|2||Fedakova & Istonova, 2017. Slovakia .||23 IT workers (14 men & 9 women; Age 33.64 ± 3.03 for men; 33.44 ± 3.57 for women).||9 focus group-structured interviews with semantic content analysis||Work-family boundary, organizational support, family support||NWW blurred psychological borders between work and family and intensified boundary-spanning thoughts. Tele-homework had more advantages than disadvantages. Organizational and family support is critical for success of NWW.|
|3||Gerards et al., 2017. Netherlands .||656 employees a wide range of sectors, excluding managers. Gender and age were not reported.||Cross-sectional study explored relationships among NWW, work engagement, social interaction and transformational leadership||NWW, Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES), social interaction and transformational leadership||Three facets of NWW—management of output, access to organizational knowledge, and a freely accessible open workplace—positively affected work engagement. The latter two facets were mediated by social interaction and transformational leadership.|
|4||Nijp et al., 2016. Netherlands .||441 workers (269 men & 172 women; Age 43.85 ± 9.42) at a financial company divided into NWW group (n = 361) and non-NWW group (n = 80)||Quasi-experimental design with 3 assessment points (one month before, 4 months and 10 months after implementation of NWW).||Worktime control, work hours, job autonomy, job demands, social contact with colleagues, social contact with supervisors, Survey Work-Home Interaction Nijmegen, Fatigue Assessment Scale, and job-related outcomes (performance, organizational commitment and job satisfaction)||While the levels of fatigue and health reduced in NWW group, these increased in non-NWW group. Significant interaction effects in health.|
|5||Peters et al., 2014. Netherlands .||1017 employees and their line managers (n = 89), across 89 job categories in 30 organizations.||Cross-sectional study explored relationships among work-related flow, telework, empowerment, collegial support and leadership||Work-Related Flow Inventory, implemented employee empowerment, perceived employee empowerment, telework frequency, supporting leadership, collegial support, collegial commitment||Anticipated effects on work-related flow (particularly work enjoyment) are not achieved when employees themselves do not experience being empowered, and when they do not use and experience their working conditions as job resources (home-based teleworking and trust relationships characterized by supporting leadership, collegial support, and collegial commitment).|
|6||Blok et al., 2012. Netherlands .||58 employees (34 men and 24 women; Age M = 45 years) responded to the first questionnaire (baseline), and 52 employees (28 men and 24 women; Age M = 44 years) responded to the second questionnaire (6 months after NWW). A total of 39 participants filled out both questionnaires.||Intervention pre-post study (baseline and 6 months after implementing NWW).||Work behavior (i.e., work location, work times and a change towards NWW management style) and the effect on business objectives such as knowledge sharing, employees satisfaction, and collaboration.||NWW role model and focus on results improved (mean comparison).|
|7||ten Brummelhuis et al., 2012. Netherlands .||110 telecom workers (62 men & 48 women; Age 42.5 ± 8.9 years)||5-day diary study exploring the effects of NWW on work engagement and exhaustion, and whether communication quality mediated these relationships.||NWW, UWES, Utrecht Burnout Scale (exhaustion), communication quality, connectivity among coworkers.||NWW was positively related to work engagement due to increased effective and efficient communication. NWW was also positively associated with communication quality, and connectivity among coworkers, but not associated with work exhaustion.|
|Jemine et al., 2020 ||Not psychological outcomes|
|Mache et al., 2020 ||Not focusing on NWW|
|Jemine et al., 2019 ||Not psychological outcomes|
|Kingma, 2019 ||Not empirical|
|Procter et al., 2016 ||Not psychological outcomes|
|Coun & Gelderman, 2015 ||Non-English (only title and abstract were in English)|
|Hollingsworth, 2009 ||Not empirical|
|Morris et al., 2009 ||Not empirical|
|Osborn & Smyth, 2009 ||Not empirical|
|Vize, 2009 ||Not empirical|
|Morris & Nixon, 2008 ||Not empirical|
|Baguley et al., 2007 ||Not empirical|
|1||Van Steenbergen et al., 2018 ||Mental demands (+); Autonomy (+)||Burnout; Work engagement; Psychological capital|
|2||Fedakova & Istonova, 2017 ||Work-family boundary (−)||Organizational support (+); Family support (+)|
|3||Gerards et al., 2017 ||Work engagement (+)||Social interaction (+); Transformational leadership (+)|
|4||Nijp et al., 2016 ||Worktime control; Job demands (+); Work-home interaction; Fatigue (+)||Organizational commitment (+); Job satisfaction||Social contact with colleagues and supervisors|
|5||Peters et al., 2014 ||Flow (+); Work empowerment (+)||Supporting leadership (−); Collegial support (−); Collegial commitment (−)|
|6||Blok et al., 2012 ||Knowledge sharing (−)||Employee satisfaction||Collaboration|
|7||ten Brummelhuis et al., 2012 ||Work engagement (+); Exhaustion||Communication quality (+); Connectivity among coworkers (+)|
|New Ways of Working (α = 0.56–0.84; Van Steenbergen et al., 2018 ). Response: 1 = Totally disagree to 7 = Totally agree|
|1. I decide for myself where (office, home, elsewhere) and when I work.|
2. I use information technology (e.g., smartphone, laptop), so I can work at any chosen location or time.
3. I regularly work remotely with my colleagues and partners.
4. In our office, I work in an ‘activity-related’ manner (e.g., using spaces for concentration, communication, meetings).
5. I do not have my own personal desk (flex-desk concept).
|New ways of working (α = 0.86; Gerards et al., 2017 ). Response: 1 = Never to 7 = Always|
|Items||Corresponding NWW facet|
|1. I am able to set my own working hours.|
2. I am able to determine where I work.
|Facet 1: Time- and location-independent work|
|3. I am able to determine the way I work.||Facet 2: Management of output|
|4. I can access all necessary information on my computer, smartphone, and/or tablet.|
5. I am able to reach colleagues within the team quickly.
6. I am able to reach managers quickly.
7. I am able to reach colleagues outside the team quickly.
|Facet 3: Access to organizational knowledge|
|8. I have the ability to adapt my working scheme to my phase of life and ambitions.||Facet 4: Flexibility in working relations|
|9. The building is arranged so that colleagues are easily accessible.|
10. The building is arranged so that managers are easily accessible.
|Facet 5: Freely accessible open workplace|
|New ways of working (α = 0.70; ten Brummelhuis et al., 2012 ).|
|NWW was assessed as the hours using: (i) remote access, (ii) working at home, (iii) email, and (iv) phone, based on the HR-manager interview and the company’s NWW policy. Specific items were not reported.|
|Author, Year||Representativeness of Exposed Cohort||Selection of Non-Exposed Cohort||Ascertainment of Intervention||Demonstrate Outcome Assessed Before Intervention||Comparability of Cohorts on Basis of Design (*) or Analysis (*)||Assessment of Outcome||Follow-Up Long Enough||Adequacy of Follow-Up||Number of Stars (0–9)|
|Nijp et al., 2016 .||*||*||*||**||*||*||*||8|
|Within-subject pre-post study|
|Van Steenbergen et al., 2018 .||NA||*||*||NA||*||*||*||5|
|Blok et al., 2012 .||NA||NA||0|
|Author, Year||Representativeness of Sample||Sample Size||Non-Respondents||Ascertainment of the Exposure (Risk Factor) **||The Subjects in Different Outcome Groups are Comparable, Based on the Study Design or Analysis (*). Confounding Factors Are Controlled (*).||Assessment of Outcome **||Statistical Test||Number of Stars (0–10)|
|Gerards et al., 2017 .||*||*||*||*||*||5|
|Peters et al., 2014 .||*||*||2|
|ten Brummelhuis et al., 2012 .||*||*||*||*||*||5|
|Quantitative Studies||Clear Statement of Aims||Appropriate Methodology||Appropriate Research Design||Appropriate Recruitment||Data Collection Addressed Research Issues||Researcher-Participant Relationship Considered||Ethical Issues Considered||Rigorous Data Analysis||Clear Statement of Findings||How Valuable Is the Research? (0–3)||Score (0–12)|
|Fedakova & Istonova, 2017 .||Y||Y||Y||Y||Y||N||N||N||Y||1||7|
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Kotera, Y.; Correa Vione, K. Psychological Impacts of the New Ways of Working (NWW): A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5080. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17145080
Kotera Y, Correa Vione K. Psychological Impacts of the New Ways of Working (NWW): A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(14):5080. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17145080Chicago/Turabian Style
Kotera, Yasuhiro, and Katia Correa Vione. 2020. "Psychological Impacts of the New Ways of Working (NWW): A Systematic Review" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 14: 5080. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17145080