Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer Comment
While the study addresses a current and important topic, in its current form it needs several improvements in terms of both methodological reporting and academic writing standards. In particular, the methods section lacks sufficient description of the measurement tools, transparent presentation of the sampling process, and detailed explanation of the data analysis steps. Information on the validity and reliability of the scales used, assumption checks in data analysis, and statistical reporting standards are not presented clearly and systematically. Furthermore, the lengthy and disorganized structure of the introduction makes it difficult to clearly understand the original value of the study. The introduction needs better justification. There are also deficiencies in standardization in the presentation of tables and statistical expression. While the study has scientific potential in these aspects, it should be restructured with a more systematic, clear structure that conforms to reporting guidelines. Specifically, the following are the recommendations:

Revisions
1. The statistical results of the study should be added to the conclusion section of the abstract.
2. The age range and average of the participants should be added to the abstract.
3. The introduction is quite long and should be simplified. General descriptive information about the topic should be provided, then the existing studies in the literature and the differences between this study and them should be explained to highlight the originality of the study, and the introduction should conclude with the aim of the study.
4. The months in which the study was conducted should be clearly stated.
5. The proportion of participants and the average age should be given in the results section. In addition, the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the detailed rationale for the sample size calculation, and the fact that written consent was obtained from the participants should be stated in the methods section. A flow diagram showing the flow of participants should also be included.
6. The description of the measurement instruments is insufficient. It is not stated who developed the scales used, whether validity and reliability studies were conducted, and in which population they were validated. Providing only Cronbach's alpha values ​​is not sufficient. In addition, it is not clear whether the scales were adapted for this study and whether validity analyses (e.g., factor analysis) were performed. The rationale for using a single-item measure for general health is not provided. In these respects, the methods section is incomplete and superficial. The measurement tools, including the sociodemographic information form, should be explained in more detail.
7. While the data analysis section is generally understandable, it contains significant shortcomings. How the normality of the data was assessed (e.g., Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Shapiro-Wilk tests, or skewness-kurtosis values) is not specified. It is not explained whether the assumptions (normality, homogeneity of variance, multicollinearity, etc.) for the tests used were checked. The statistical significance level (e.g., p<0.05) is not clearly stated. The statistical analysis section should be revised.
8. Table 2 appears confusing; both categorical and numerical variables are presented together. These variables should be separated, and the statistical methods used should be clearly stated.
9. All abbreviations in Table 3 should be explained in footnotes below the table.
10. The conclusion section should include recommendations for clinicians and future studies.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The writing style is generally understandable, but it is not strong enough from an academic standpoint. The text contains spelling errors and grammatical inconsistencies. Some sentences are long and difficult to understand. Furthermore, the language needs to be clearer, simpler, and more consistent. Therefore, it is recommended that the text be revised from a linguistic perspective.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript examines how different degrees of working from home (WFH) – specifically hybrid and predominantly home-based arrangements – are associated with work environment perceptions, job satisfaction, and health outcomes using a national probability sample of Swedish employees. The topic is timely, and the use of post-pandemic, population-level data represents a meaningful contribution to the literature. The manuscript is generally well-structured, clearly written, and methodologically competent. The distinction between hybrid and predominantly home-based work is a valuable contribution, and the inclusion of multiple outcome domains within a single analytical framework is a strength.

The manuscript requires some substantive revisions related to the following: causal interpretation language in a cross-sectional design, underdeveloped treatment of selection processes, over interpretation of differences between WFH categories, and clarity and positioning issues, including the title.

The manuscript frequently uses language that implies directional or quasi-causal effects (e.g., WFH “is associated with” poorer health in ways that suggest influence), despite relying on cross-sectional data. Given that assignment to WFH is not random, and that strong selection effects into remote work (e.g., due to job control, autonomy, socioeconomic status, and health profiles) and unobserved confounding are likely, the authors should avoid language implying causal effects and instead consistently refer to associations. Causal caution should be strengthened throughout, particularly in the Discussion.

The manuscript notes that WFH is socially patterned (e.g., by education, income, and job control), but treats this primarily as a covariate issue rather than a central methodological challenge. Working from home is not randomly distributed across the workforce but is shaped by occupational, organizational, and socioeconomic factors. As such, controlling for observed variables does not eliminate the possibility of residual confounding, structural selection, and potential over-control (e.g., job control included as a control variable in the model). Selection into WFH should therefore be more explicitly incorporated into the interpretive framework, acknowledging that observed differences between groups may reflect underlying structural and job-related characteristics rather than the effects of working from home per se.

The manuscript frames differences between hybrid and predominantly home-based work as reflecting the intensity of WFH, implying a dose–response relationship. This interpretation is potentially problematic, as the groups may differ systematically in job type, level of control and autonomy, organizational context (including whether remote work is consistently performed from home), and worker preferences. As such, observed differences may reflect compositional differences between groups rather than intensity effects. The interpretation should therefore be reframed more cautiously. For example, language such as “the consequences depend on the extent of WFH” could be replaced with “different working-from-home arrangements are associated with distinct patterns of employee characteristics and outcomes.”

The authors should also acknowledge that variables such as job control and psychological distress may lie on the causal pathway rather than functioning solely as confounders. Because these variables may represent underlying mechanisms, adjusting for them may attenuate true associations and lead to more conservative estimates. This should be explicitly noted.

The manuscript should further acknowledge limitations in the measurement of key outcomes. General health is assessed using a single item with a 12-month recall period, which may introduce recall bias and limits temporal alignment with current working arrangements. The sleep measure reflects distress associated with sleep difficulties rather than the frequency or duration of sleep disturbances, and may therefore partly capture broader psychological distress rather than sleep quality per se. In addition, there is a temporal mismatch between WFH exposure (past month) and general health (past 12 months), which limits the ability to interpret associations as contemporaneous and raises the possibility of reverse causation.

In the reporting of results, there is an emphasis on statistical significance with limited discussion of effect sizes. The manuscript would benefit from brief interpretation of the magnitude of coefficients and their practical relevance. Terminology should also be used consistently, particularly with respect to “working from home,” “remote work,” and “telework.”

The manuscript would benefit from a thorough proofread. There are minor typographical errors (e.g., “• •his study…” on page 1) and some redundancy in the introduction that could be streamlined for clarity and concision.

Finally, the title is somewhat awkward as currently phrased. While technically accurate, it is difficult to read and relies on vague phrasing such as “differential associations.” A more direct and readable formulation would improve clarity. For example, “Hybrid vs Predominantly Remote Work: Associations with Work Environment, Job Satisfaction, and Health” would convey the same content more clearly and align better with common conventions in the literature.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript examines how different degrees of working from home (hybrid work vs. predominantly home-based work) relate to employees’ perceptions of the work environment, job satisfaction, and health outcomes. Using a national probability sample of Swedish employees (N = 2331), the study contributes to the ongoing debate about the consequences of remote work in post-pandemic contexts. Overall, the manuscript addresses a relevant and timely topic and is based on a relatively large and representative dataset. The distinction between hybrid and predominantly home-based work is a valuable contribution to the literature, as many studies treat remote work as a dichotomous condition. The analytical strategy is generally appropriate and the paper is clearly structured.

However, several issues related to theoretical positioning, methodological clarification, interpretation of findings, and presentation of results should be addressed to strengthen the manuscript.

1. The manuscript provides a solid overview of the literature on remote work and refers to relevant theoretical perspectives such as the Job Demands–Resources model and role theory. However, the theoretical contribution of the study could be more clearly articulated. At present, the manuscript mainly positions itself as addressing a methodological limitation in the literature (distinguishing hybrid vs. majority WFH). While this is valuable, the authors should more explicitly explain: What new theoretical insight the study provides; and how the findings extend existing models of remote work or work design. For example, the discussion could more clearly integrate the results with the JD-R model or work design theory, particularly when interpreting the simultaneous findings of:

• higher role ambiguity
• lower workload
• lower job satisfaction
• poorer health (for majority WFH)

Clarifying the underlying mechanisms would strengthen the conceptual contribution.

2. The study uses cross-sectional survey data. Although the authors acknowledge this limitation, some sections of the discussion still imply directional interpretations.For example, the manuscript suggests that working from home may lead to:

• poorer health
• sleep problems
• lower job satisfaction

However, reverse causality or selection effects are also possible (e.g., employees with poorer health may prefer working from home). The discussion should emphasize more clearly that the findings represent associations rather than causal effects.

3. Some key constructs are measured with relatively limited indicators. For example:

• General health is measured with a single item.
• Working from home intensity is measured only by number of days per week.

While these measures are common in survey research, the manuscript should discuss more explicitly that:

• single-item health measures may not capture specific dimensions of well-being;
• WFH intensity does not capture qualitative differences in remote work arrangements (e.g., voluntary vs. mandatory remote work, workspace quality, organizational support).

Adding this discussion would improve transparency regarding measurement limitations.

4. One notable result is that both hybrid and majority WFH workers reported lower job satisfaction than employees who never worked from home. This finding contrasts with several studies showing positive or neutral associations between remote work and job satisfaction. Although the authors mention possible explanations (e.g., reduced social interaction), the discussion could be expanded to consider additional explanations, such as:

• self-selection into remote work
• organizational expectations and availability norms
• boundary management difficulties
• changes in career visibility and advancement opportunities

Providing a more comprehensive interpretation would strengthen the discussion.

5. A limitation mentioned briefly is the absence of detailed occupational controls. This is potentially important because:

• WFH feasibility varies strongly across occupations.
• Work characteristics differ across professional groups.

Even though the study restricts the sample to employees with office tasks, there may still be substantial variation (e.g., managers, IT professionals, administrative workers). The authors should discuss more explicitly how occupational heterogeneity might influence the results.

The manuscript addresses an important and timely topic and is based on solid empirical data. However, the paper would benefit from:

• stronger articulation of the theoretical contribution,
• more cautious interpretation of associations,
• expanded discussion of alternative explanations and limitations.

Addressing these points would considerably strengthen the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses an important topic and would benefit from several clarifications.

1. Introduction

The contribution remains implicit. The manuscript states what is examined but does not indicate what is new compared to existing multivariate studies.

The argument on post-pandemic data (lines 74-78) is plausible, but not supported. The claim that the data reflect stabilized conditions is not substantiated.

The classification of hybrid and predominantly home-based work (lines 89–92) is clear, but the threshold is not justified. The choice of two days per week is not explained.

The restriction to office-based work (lines 93-97) improves internal validity. The limitation in terms of generalizability is not mentioned.

The workload section (lines 144-154) remains general. Mechanisms are listed, but the expected direction of the relationship is not specified.

The health section (lines 199-231) introduces sleep as an outcome. The link with the other outcomes is not integrated in the framework.

2. Materials and Methods

The sampling procedure is described, but the response rate is not reported. It is not possible to assess potential non-response bias.

The initial sample size is not indicated. The manuscript does not show how the final sample of 2331 participants was obtained.

The restriction to workplaces with at least ten employees (lines 249–250) is not justified. The impact of this criterion is not discussed.

The measurement of working from home relies on self-report over the past month (lines 276–277). Potential recall bias is not presented.

The classification into three WFH groups follows the definition in the introduction, but the cut-off points are not explained.

General health is measured with a single item (lines 295–299). The limitation of using a single-item measure is not discussed.

Sleep problems are measured using three items. The scale is described, but the choice of instrument is not justified.

The sensitivity analysis including psychological distress is relevant but the role of this variable in the main model remains unclear.

The justification for using multivariate regression instead of separate models is specified, but assumptions of the model are not discussed.

The handling of income through winsorization and log transformation (lines 363–365) is described but the impact of these transformations is not explained.

The interpretation strategy for additional tests is not specified (lines 357–361).

3. Results

The section remains mostly descriptive. Results are presented outcome by outcome, with limited synthesis across variables.

The description of correlations (lines 371–376) is general. The strength and relevance of the associations are not presented.

Table 1 summarizes expected relationships but does not indicate notable patterns.

The comparison across WFH groups (lines 383–394) is presented. Differences are listed, but their magnitude is not covered. The statement that WFH arrangements were “strongly related” to workplace characteristics (line 394) is not quantified.

The finding of lower workload for majority WFH (lines 418–419) is reported but not contextualized within the overall pattern of results.

The sensitivity analysis is briefly reported. The statement that results remained unchanged is not supported by data in the main text.

4. Discussion

The section repeats parts from Results section without adding interpretation.

The reference to sensitivity analysis is brief. The claim that results remained unchanged is not supported in the main text.

The concept of coordination asymmetry is introduced, but not defined (lines 472–497).

At the lines 538–582 several explanations are proposed, but they remain at a general level.

The link between role ambiguity and sleep (lines 559–566) is plausible, but not supported by analysis.

The interpretation of managerial WFH (lines 598–614) is relevant but the argument is speculative and not directly supported by the data.

The health section follows the results. Recommendations remain general and are not derived from specific results.

6. Conclusions

The statement that WFH alters coordination processes (lines 674–678) is plausible but It is not tested in the study.

The link between WFH and role ambiguity is repeated. No additional interpretation is provided.

The conclusion remains general. The practical or theoretical contribution is not indicated.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I leave the assessment of language quality to a native English speaker or a qualified editor

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the effort you've put into making these revision suggestions. It's clear that the manuscript has improved in quality with these edits.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the English language has improved with the updates, and the writing quality is better than in the previous version.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The recommendations have been satisfactorily implemented

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I leave the assessment of language quality to a native English speaker or a qualified editor