Next Article in Journal
Digital Infrastructure and Agricultural Global Value Chain Participation: Impacts on Export Value-Added
Next Article in Special Issue
Beyond the Guestroom: Financial and Promotional Dimensions of Eco-Friendly Rural Hospitality in Agricultural Landscapes
Previous Article in Journal
Interspecific Variation in the Antioxidant Potential of Culinary and Medicinal Herbs
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Impact of Government Intervention in Rural Tourism Development on Residents’ Income: A Quasi-Natural Experiment from China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 15
Issue 15
10.3390/agriculture15151587
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Between the Farm and Family: A Cross-Sectional Survey on Work–Family Conflict in Farmers in Ireland

by
Siobhán O’Connor
1,*,
Anna Donnla O’Hagan
1,
Hannah Casey
1,
Annie O’Connor
1,
Mark Creegan
2,
Alison Stapleton
2,
Louise McHugh
2,
Tomás Russell
3 and
Sinéad O’Keeffe
1
1
School of Health and Human Performance, Dublin City University, Glasnevin, D09V209 Dublin 9, Ireland
2
School of Psychology, University College Dublin, D04V1W8 Dublin 4, Ireland
3
School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, D04V1W8 Dublin 4, Ireland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2025, 15(15), 1587; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15151587
Submission received: 26 June 2025 / Revised: 22 July 2025 / Accepted: 23 July 2025 / Published: 24 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Agricultural Citizen Science and Sustainable Regional Development—Second Edition)
Versions Notes

Abstract

Farming is a uniquely demanding occupation, with family and work often deeply intertwined. Whilst this integration is common amongst the agricultural sector in Ireland (99.7% farms classified as family), it can lead to a conflict of responsibilities, but this has not been examined to date. Therefore, this study aimed to examine work–family conflict (WFC) in farmers in Ireland, and if WFC differs based on socio-demographic factors, mental health, social support and farm-specific stressors. A cross-sectional study examined WFC in 446 farmers in Ireland. Depression, anxiety, stress, suicidality, general mental health, psychological flexibility, cognitive fusion, self-experience, perceived social support, farm stress and attachment were also measured. Participants reported moderately high levels of WFC (25.1 ± 7.2). Being younger, male, having children aged 5 years or less, higher reported working hours on the farm, higher farm-specific stressors, and lower psychological flexibility contributed to higher WFC. In addition, lower social support, mental health and psychological skills were significantly associated with higher WFC. Future research should consider the integrated nature of work and family in farm life and use a qualitative approach to further understand gendered experiences of WFC.

1. Introduction

The agricultural sector plays a vital role in Ireland’s economy and cultural heritage [1]. The demanding nature of farming, which is traditionally regarded as a stressful occupation [2,3], can present unique challenges for work–family balance. Unlike conventional occupations, farming is viewed as both a livelihood and a way of life, with work and home or family life typically deeply intertwined [4,5]. Family farms are the backbone of the Irish agriculture sector, with 99.7% of Irish farms classified as family farms [6], where spouses, children, and extended family often play active roles. The integration of work and family can foster a strong sense of commitment, but this integration can often blur the boundaries between professional and personal responsibilities [7,8]. The shared context can create significant work–family conflict (WFC), where the demands of farm work can interfere with family life and responsibilities [9].
Work and family balance is strongly valued by young farmers, with time spent with children and the family beneficial for ‘switching off’ from the farm and supporting mental health [10]. However, a preoccupation with farm-related stressors may reduce farmers’ ability to engage effectively in family activities [9], leading to an absence of quality time with their partner/family, missed family events or prioritisation of farm work over household duties. The geographical proximity of the house and the farm can often mean farmers find it difficult to switch off and feel a constant presence at work [10]. WFC may also be exacerbated by competing demands outside the home, as over half of Irish farm households have additional off-farm employment [11] and conflicts can arise between off-farm work and farm duties [12]. Work, family, and leisure are not considered separate constructs in farm families, but rather spillover and crossover are evident [9]. Spillover, viewed as an individual process, may occur when work stresses transfer to family life, whereas crossover describes a dyadic process where stresses are transferred from one person (e.g., farmer) to another (e.g., spouse) [9]. Therefore, it is important to understand the extent of WFC in farmers, and how their experience of and exposure to stressors moderates WFC.
The construct of WFC receives little attention in farmer- and farming-related research, however. While extensive research has been conducted on WFC in healthcare professions [13,14,15,16,17], studies focusing on farmers remain limited. Research on WFC has focused on international farming communities [8,18,19,20,21], with no current available research examining WFC in farming in Ireland. Farming remains a cornerstone of culture and the economy in Ireland, highlighting the need to understand how WFC manifests in the unique context. Understanding these pressures is essential for developing targeted support systems that ensure both the sustainability of farming as a livelihood and the wellbeing of farming families. Therefore, this study addresses the lack of understanding of WFC in the Irish farming community in the literature. Despite the demanding nature of farming and its potential impact on family life and wellbeing, little is known about WFC in this population. The aim of the study is to explore WFC among farmers in Ireland, with a particular focus on investigating factors that influence WFC. To achieve this, this study investigated the following research questions (1) if WFC is evident in farmers in Ireland and (2) if WFC differs depending on socio-demographic factors, mental health, social support and farm-specific stressors.

2. Literature Review

Gender roles in farming households may play a role in shaping experiences of WFC. Family farming has traditionally been restricted by gender inequality, leading to unequal decision-making and a lack of power and autonomy for women [22,23]. Farm women often carry a disproportionate share of caregiving and household responsibilities, even while contributing to farm labour [24]. They are also often expected to be the source of emotional support for their spouse [12], meaning farm women may have to bear their own mental health struggles in isolation. This evident role overload and role conflict [12] and juggling of multiple roles with limited support can deeply impact farm women’s wellbeing [24], as outlined in Role Theory, may lead to one role interfering with the ability to meet the demands of another and heighten the extent of WFC [25]. At the same time, male farmers pursuing hegemonic farming masculinity may experience elevated distress if unable to be their family’s “provider” [26]. This, coupled with help-seeking for health problems being “seen as an affront to one’s capacity to care for one’s farm (and one’s family)”, means that male farmers’ gender likely also interacts with their experiences of WFC [26].
Farmers additionally can face significant economic stressors in both personal and global economic contexts [9], relating to factors such as income volatility [27,28], fluctuating market prices [29] and increasing output costs (e.g., feed, fertiliser, fuel) [11]. These economic stressors are consistently ranked as one of the most stressful aspects of Irish farming [2,30]. Stress associated with economic unpredictability can lead to the experience of mental health issues by the farmer [2,31], but can also result in WFC, family distress [9] and reduced life satisfaction [32]. Farmers’ general functioning in work and family roles may also be hindered by economic stressors [9]. Economic instability can directly contribute to WFC as the number of hours worked on the farm tends to increase as the financial circumstances of the farmer declines [33], leaving less time for family activities and relationships.
Farming is highly dependent on weather conditions and environmental factors, which are often unpredictable [34]. Climate change, which has led to exacerbated farming conditions, can have a significant effect on critical decision-making on farms [35]. There is a constant need to adapt to changing environmental conditions [36], which can cause significant stress. Bad and unpredictable weather is one of the five most highly ranked factors affecting wellbeing in Irish and UK farmers [30], while almost half of Irish farmers (47%) acknowledge poor weather conditions as a source of stress [2]. Environmental stress can spill over into family life when farmers are forced to work long hours, particularly during harvest seasons [7], reducing available time to spend with spouses and children. Generational challenges can also contribute to stress, as some younger family members may not be interested in continuing the farming tradition, leading to concerns about succession planning and the future of the farm [2,30,31,37], which can heighten strain within the family. This research highlights the critical need to examine WFC in farmers.

3. Materials and Methods

A cross-sectional study using an anonymous online survey was utilised. Adult farmers residing in Ireland who were actively involved in farm work (including occasional workers, farm owners, family members of farm owners, etc.) were eligible to complete the survey. The data included in this study was part of a larger survey examining farmer mental health and suicidality. For this study, only WFC and its related variables were examined. Ethical approval was granted by the University College Dublin Research Ethics Committee (TMREC-SPSY 2023-08). All participants provided informed consent prior to completing the survey. The survey was available online on Google Forms and was open from March to May 2024. Recruitment occurred in two phases. At first, participants were recruited via social media, farmer media, promotions by charities related to mental health, and a national-level campaign. In the final month of recruitment, underrepresented regions and farm enterprises were targeted by recruiting in-person at agricultural marts and shows. Using the Raosoft sample size calculator (Raosoft Inc., Seattle, WA, USA, 2004) and based on our cross-sectional design, 95% Confidence Interval and 5% margin of error, 384 responses were required in this study. In total, 446 eligible responses to the survey were received.

3.1. Instrumentation

3.1.1. Socio-Demographics

The socio-demographic questions included age, gender, marital status, number of children, whether they were a farm holder, main farm enterprise, farm size in hectares, average farm income annually, years farming, current average hours worked per day on the farm and whether they held off-farm employment.

3.1.2. WFC

WFC was measured using the 5-item Work–Family Conflict Scale [38]. Participants rated from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7) the following statements: the demands of my work interfere with my home and family life, the amount of time my job takes up makes it difficult to fulfil family responsibilities, things I want to do at home do not get done because of the demands my job puts on me, my job produces strain that makes it difficult to fulfil family duties, and due to work-related duties, I have to make changes to my plans for family activities. The overall scale results can range from 5 to 35, with higher scores indicating greater work–family conflict.

3.1.3. Mental Health—Distress, Suicidality and Wellbeing

Participants firstly self-rated their general mental health as either excellent, very good, good, fair or poor. They then completed the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scales-21 (DASS-21 [39]), which measures psychological distress over the previous week with respect to depression, anxiety and stress. They rated the three sets of seven items from 0 (did not apply to me at all) to 3 (applied to me very much or most of the time) and higher scores indicated greater distress. The Depressive Symptom Inventory- Suicidality Subscale (DSI-SS [40]) examined suicidality, with higher ratings indicating greater suicidality. There were 4 items on the scale and were rated 0 (e.g., “I do not have thoughts of killing myself”) to 3 (e.g., “I always have thoughts of killing myself”) that best described themselves over the past 2 weeks. Wellbeing was assessed using the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF [41]), a 14-item measure examining emotional, social and psychological wellbeing over the previous month. Participants rated each item from 0 (never) to 5 (every day), with a higher score indicating greater wellbeing.

3.1.4. Psychological Skills

Psychological flexibility was measured over the previous 7 days using the 6-item PsyFlex [42]. Participants provided ratings of 1 (very seldom) to 5 (very often) for each item, with a higher score indicating higher psychological flexibility. The 7-item Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire (CFQ) examined cognitive fusion [43]. Participants rated statements from 1 (never true) to 7 (always true), with a greater score indicating greater cognitive fusion. The Self-Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ) [44], which measures self-as-context was also implemented. It rated how true 15 items are from 0 (never true) to 6 (always true), with a higher score indicating a flexible or contextual sense of self.

3.1.5. Social Support

The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS-R-3) was used to assess social support [45]. Considering their social support from a significant other, family and friends, participants rated this from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 7 (very strongly agree). Higher ratings indicated higher social support.

3.1.6. Farming Stressors and Attachment

As utilised previously by Russell et al. [46], farm-specific stressors were measured using a combined measure of Welke’s Farm/Ranch Stress Inventory (FRSI [47]), along with 5 subscales from Imel [48]. Higher ratings on the inventory indicated higher stress and participants rated each item from 1 (no stress) to 4 (very stressful). Farm attachment was measured via the Farm Attachment Inventory (FAI [46]), which is an adapted version of Williams and Vaske’s [49] Place Attachment Inventory (PAI). Participants rated relevant items like “I feel that the farm is a part of me” on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) scale, with the higher the rating indicating higher farm attachment.

3.2. Statistical Analysis

The data were examined on SPSS version 29 (IBM Corp, Released 2023, Armonk, NY, USA). Eleven surveys were removed as they did not fully complete the demographics section and the WFC scale, leaving 446 surveys in the final analysis. Cronbach’s alpha was utilised to examine the internal consistency of each of the scales. Descriptive statistics (frequencies, means, standard deviations, etc.) were first completed. Independent samples t-tests were conducted to identify if differences in WFC total score were present between (1) gender, (2) having a child 5 years or younger, (3) farm holder, and (4) off-farm employment. Cohen’s d was utilised to examine the effect size and was categorised as small (d = 0.2), medium (d = 0.5) and large (d = 0.8) [50]. A one-way Anova was utilised to examine the difference in WFC total score and (1) marital status, (2) size of farm, (3) main farm enterprise, (4) farm income, and (5) self-reported general mental health. Eta squared (η2) was used to establish the effect size for the Anova analysis and was classified as a small effect (η2 = 0.1), medium effect (η2 = 0.6) and large effect (η2 = 0.14) [50]. Pearson’s product correlations were used to examine the relationship between WFC total score and socio-demographic factors (age, number of children, years farming, average hours farming per day at the moment), distress (DASS-21 total score and its subscales; depression, anxiety and stress), suicidality (DSI-SS), wellbeing (MHC-SF total score and its subscales; emotional wellbeing, social wellbeing and psychological wellbeing), psychological skills (PsyFlex total score, CFQ total score, SEQ total score), social support (MSPSS-R-3), farm-specific stressors (adapted FRSI total score, financial stressors, isolation stressors, governmental stressors, operations stressors and work stressors), and farm attachment (FAI total score). The relationships were classified as weak (r = 0.10–0.29), moderate (r = 0.30–0.49) and strong (r = 0.50–1.0) [50]. Finally, a backward multiple regression was completed. Demographics (age, gender), distress (DASS-21 total score), suicidality (DSI-SS score), wellbeing (MHC-SF total score), psychological skills (PsyFlex total score, CFQ total score, SEQ total score), social support (MSPSS total score), farm specific stressors (adapted FRSI total score), and farm attachment (FAI total score) were included in the analysis. All assumptions for regression analysis were met and no multicollinearity was detected. The model’s overall significance as well as the variance of WFC it explained was examined. In addition, the regression coefficients and standard errors of the individual predictor variables were determined.

4. Results

Good internal consistency was observed for all scales utilised in this study including DASS-21 (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.95), DSI-SS (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89), MHC-SF (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.94), PsyFlex (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.86), CFQ (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.95), SEQ (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.96), MSPSS-R-3 (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.80), adapted FRSI (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.93) and FAI (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.95).
Table 1 displays participant demographics. Participants were mainly men (74.0%), married/in a civil partnership (55.2%) and farm holders (60.1%) (Table 1). Farmers in this study had a mean age of 40.6 ± 14.4 (18–77) years, had been farming for 21.4 ± 14.7 (0–66) years and worked on average 8.2 ± 4.3 (1–18) hours per day on the farm at the moment. In addition, 49.6% held off-farm employment currently.
Farmers presented with a mean WFC score of 25.1 ± 7.2 (5–35) out of a max score of 35. Farmers strongly agreed/agreed that due to work-related duties, they had to make changes to their plans for their family (47.3%, n = 211), things they want to do at home do not get done because of the demands their job puts on them (46.2%, n = 206), the demands of their work interfere with their home and family life (44.0%, n = 196) and their job produces strain that makes it difficult to fulfil family duties (39.9%, n = 178) (Table 2).

4.1. Relationship to Socio-Demographics

Those with children aged 5 years or less (28.1 ± 7.0) had a significantly higher WFC score than those without (24.1 ± 7.2, p < 0.001, d = 0.49) and younger farmers had higher WFC (r = −0.12, p = 0.01) (Table 3). WFC significantly differed among farmer type (η2 = 0.1, p = 0.005), with dairy (26.5 ± 5, p < 0.001) and mixed farmers (26.8 ± 6.4, p = 0.002) presenting with the highest WFC score, which was significantly higher than beef farmers (23.2 ± 7.5). WFC also differed depending on the size of the farm (η2 = 0.1, p < 0.001). Those with >40 hectares (26.4 ± 6.8) had significantly higher WFC scores than those with a 20–40 hectare-sized farm (24.0 ± 7.2, p = 0.009), and <20 hectares (20.6 ± 7.7, p < 0.001). Those with 20–40-hectare-sized farms also had a significantly higher WFC score than those with <20 hectares (p < 0.01). WFC was positively correlated with average hours worked per day on the farm (r = 0.30, p < 0.001).
No differences in WFC score were observed for gender, marital status, being a farm holder, holding off-farm employment, and farm income (p > 0.05). In addition, no correlation was noted between WFC and number of children and years farming (p > 0.05).

4.2. Relationship to Distress, Suicidality and Wellbeing

There was a significant difference with a small effect size in WFC scores among those with different self-reported ratings of their mental health (η2 = 0.1, p <0.001). Those who self-reported they had excellent mental health (19.3 ± 8.6) presented with significantly lower WFC scores than those with poor (27.9 ± 7.2, p < 0.001), fair (26.1 ± 6.9, p < 0.001) and good (26.1 ± 6.4, p < 0.001) mental health. In addition, those with very good mental health (22.6 ± 7.2) also reported significantly lower WFC scores than those with poor (p < 0.001), fair (p = 0.003) and good (p = 0.001) self-reported mental health. Weak correlations were observed between WFC and all psychological distress, suicidality, and wellbeing variables (Table 3), with greater psychological distress, higher suicidality and lower wellbeing related to higher WFC.

4.3. Relationship to Psychological Skills

Higher WFC was observed in those with less psychological flexibility, less healthy sense of self, and those with greater cognitive fusion (Table 3), but the correlations were weak.

4.4. Relationship to Social Support

Those with less perceived social support had significantly higher WFC, however the correlation was weak (r = −0.12, p = 0.009).

4.5. Relationship to Farm Specific Stressors and Farm Attachment

The adapted FRSI total score and FAI were positively correlated with WFC (Table 3). In fact, those that reported higher work stressors had a strong positive correlation with WFC (r = 0.61, p < 0.001), and higher governmental (r = 0.43, p < 0.001) and operations (r = 0.42, p < 0.001) stressors had a moderate positive correlation with WFC.

4.6. Backward Multiple Regression

A backward multiple regression model was conducted, and the final model was significant (F(7, 428) = 41.18, p < 0.001) and explained 39.3% of the variance of WFC (R2 = 0.393). Age, gender (male), having a child aged 5 or under, average hours worked on the farm per day, farm-specific stressors, and psychological flexibility all significantly contributed to the final model. Farm attachment (FAI total score) did not significantly contribute to the model. Regression coefficients and standard errors are reported in Table 4.

5. Discussion

The aim of this survey was to examine WFC in farmers in Ireland, along with how WFC may differ depending on sociodemographic factors, mental health, social support, and farm-specific stressors. Results indicate that WFC is common among farmers, with a mean WFC score of 25.1 ± 7.2 (5–35). The literature on WFC in farming populations is sparse, with few papers examining it in an international farming population, and none in farmers in Ireland. Direct comparison of WFC scores in this sample compared to international farmers is not possible due to the heterogeneity of reporting methods; however, contributing factors to high WFC among US and Australian farmers are comparable to what we observed [9,19]. US farm couples were significantly affected by farm-related financial stressors, and Australian farmers who reported higher levels of conflict between work and home also reported higher levels of depression, anxiety, and stress, in agreement with our findings [9,19]. Examinations of WFC in other high-stress occupations, such as nursing and other healthcare-related professions, have revealed similar associations between WFC and higher levels of depression and anxiety, long working hours, and an expectation to prioritise the needs of the job over those of family life [13,14,16].
Sociodemographic factors associated with higher WFC included being younger, being male, having children under five years, being a dairy farmer, higher reported working hours on the farm, higher farm attachment, higher farm-specific stressors, and larger farm size. Mental health factors significantly correlated with WFC included reporting poor, fair, or good mental health, higher psychological distress, lower psychological flexibility, and lower social support. However, in the regression analysis only age, gender, having children under five years, higher reported working hours on the farm, higher farm-specific stressors and lower psychological flexibility significantly contributed to the final model. Together these variables accounted for 39.3% of the variance in WFC, indicating a moderate level for explanatory power which suggests that additional unmeasured factors may also play a role. Thus, qualitative research would be useful to examine in detail the lived experiences of WFC in farmers in Ireland and identify other potential contextual factors influencing WFC not considered in our study.
The finding that farm size contributes to WFC may be explained by larger farms requiring more time, attention, and work away from the home. This is somewhat supported by the literature, as previous research on UK farms has demonstrated that farmers working in farms over 300 acres were more likely to experience poor mental health outcomes due to increased responsibility and managerial requirements compared to farmers with smaller farms [51]; however, other more recent work examining Japanese farmers has indicated this is not the case, and found no relationship between farm size and psychological wellbeing [52,53]. The relationship between age and WFC is also relatively consistent with previous research, as previous examinations of differences in how WFC presents with respect to age among farmers have noted that younger farmers often face more WFC-related stressors than older farmers [19,54]. These studies have cited differing beliefs about farming men and their place in the family between younger and older farmers as a reason for this, with younger farmers desiring to take a more active role in childcare and household tasks, while older farmers believed the farm should remain their focus while their spouse managed family life and household tasks [19,54]. In addition, the impact of having children under five is important to consider and echoes recent literature addressing younger farmers’ desires to be more involved in parenting, but struggling to balance the requirements of the farm with childcare requirements [18,54,55]. In contrast with our findings, limited previous international research literature on WFC in farming has indicated that female farmers face unique, gendered expectations regarding the balance of home and farm work, due to the assumption that they should be active, present parental figures as well as active, present farmers [24]. However, much of the previous research was completed in the United States, and as such, cultural context must be considered. This noted difference between US and Irish WFC outcomes has been seen in other cohorts with high WFC, such as athletic therapists [15]. Future qualitative research into WFC in farmers in Ireland should seek to explore how female farmers report experiencing WFC compared to their male counterparts to obtain further cultural context.
The association between WFC and poor mental health, lower psychological flexibility, and lower social support seen in this sample is significant. Though research examining WFC specifically remains scarce, the impact of related mental health factors among farmers have been well documented. Lower psychological flexibility has been found to contribute significantly to the prevalence of mental health issues in farmers, and often inhibits resilience and the ability to adapt following stressful incidents [56]. However, farmers frequently experience mental health issues such as high stress levels, depression, and anxiety [31], often due to fluctuating conditions, uncertain outcomes, and high-impact changes, meaning lower levels of psychological flexibility indicate a reduced ability to cope with these occupational changes [56]. Furthermore, the results of this survey indicate that poor mental health among farmers may contribute to lower support systems, as although this is the first study to examine WFC among farmers in Ireland, the results show that these experiences do not occur in isolation, but affect WFC, which in turn affects their social support structures. Higher levels of depression and anxiety among farming parents has been found to lead to higher levels of depression and anxiety among farming teens, particularly when coupled with farming-related financial stressors [57]. Spillover between farm-related concerns and family stress has been found to increase levels of conflict among farming couples [9], and preoccupation with and prioritisation of the farm itself over personal wellbeing among farmers and their families has been found to lead to health issues such as poor sleep, burnout, and lower mental wellbeing [58,59,60]. The mirroring of farmer wellbeing in that of their families seen in the literature may be in large part due to the commonality of farms being run as family businesses, with spouses, children, and extended family members frequently engaged in regular farm work [4]. This indicates that the lower levels of social support seen among participants reporting higher WFC here may be explained by overall increased mental health issues among the family. Therefore, future examination of WFC among farmers must consider including other family members to capture how the entire family unit might be affected by elevated levels of WFC.
These results indicate that future research must examine what farmers require from mental health services and supports to enable them to take steps to improve their mental health. However, practical steps must first be taken to increase the number of mental health services available to farmers, as historically they have been an underserved population due to mitigating factors such as poor rural outreach, the isolating nature of their profession, and an expectation of stoicism and self-reliance [61,62,63]. In addition, strategies to reduce work-related stressors must be sought to foster a healthier work–life balance for farmers, which might in turn contribute to lower reported WFC. However, due to the demanding nature of farming, and the noted intertwining of farm and family, such efforts must consider the reality of farming and the needs of farmers and their families. Many farms are run as family-led businesses, and as such, it is not always possible to create distance from farm-related duties and requirements. Therefore, it is crucial that farmers and their families remain at the centre of future efforts and that their voices inform any steps taken to improve WFC and mental health outcomes.
This study demonstrates several methodological and practical strengths. By exploring WFC in Irish farmers, it addresses a significant gap in the literature by providing cultural- and occupational-specific understanding of this issue in the Irish farming community. The number of eligible surveys in the study reached the minimum sample size required, therefore enhancing the statistical power of the findings and supporting the generalizability of the results to the broader Irish agricultural sector. The study employed validated survey instruments, ensuring the reliability and comparability of the data collected. In addition, it examined a broad range of influencing factors (such as socio-demographic, mental health, social support and farm-specific stressors) therefore ensuring more nuanced insights were gleaned to facilitate the development of future supports for farmers in Ireland. The study also highlights specific sub-groups within the population that should be prioritised for targeted interventions.
This study was limited by its cross-sectional design, as participants self-selected to complete it. Responses may also be affected by social desirability among respondents, in an effort to represent their work–life balance more favourably. A convenience sampling strategy was utilised in this study and a high volume of this sample were dairy farmers, younger, and male and are thus not representative of all farmers in Ireland limiting the generalizability of our findings. In Ireland, 66% of farmers are over 45, and only 18% of Irish farms are dairy farms; however, 86.6% of all farm holders are male, meaning the proportionality of gender in the survey was reflective of national statistics [64]. Thus, future research should utilise a proportionate stratified sampling strategy to ensure the sample is representative of Irish farmers nationally. We utilised the WFC scale which focuses solely on the work-to-family direction of conflict and does not account for potential family-to-work conflict. Thus, future research should examine WFC as two-directional processes to provide a more comprehensive view of this topic in farming families. We utilised backward stepwise regression in this study. Future research should build on these findings by using theory-driven modelling such as hierarchical regression or structural equation modelling.

6. Conclusions

This survey demonstrates that moderately high levels of WFC are common among farmers in Ireland (25.1 ± 7.2). Being younger, male, having children aged 5 years or younger, higher reported working hours on the farm, experiencing higher farm-specific stressors and lower psychological flexibility all significantly contributed to WFC. In addition, lower mental health, social support and psychological skills were associated with higher WFC. Future research on WFC research should explore the influence of family responsibilities on work and qualitatively examine WFC in Irish farmers and their families. Further research is also needed to identify practical ways for farmers to achieve a healthy work–life balance and mitigate the effects of WFC. This survey indicates that further mental health support services for farmers are required to enable this healthier balance, with particular emphasis on stakeholder voices to facilitate the creation of supports that take the realities of farming life into consideration and acknowledge the need for flexibility in their execution. Recognition of WFC within strategies and policies relating to farmers and ensuring mental health programmes currently available, such as the successful On Feirm Ground [65], incorporate WFC is recommended. Community-based interventions to support farmers and their families nationwide should also be prioritised.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.O. (Siobhán O’Connor), A.D.O., M.C., A.S., L.M. and T.R.; Methodology, S.O. (Siobhán O’Connor), A.D.O., M.C., A.S., L.M. and T.R.; Formal analysis, S.O. (Siobhán O’Connor), A.S. and S.O. (Sinead O’Keeffe); Investigation, M.C.; Writing—original draft, S.O. (Siobhán O’Connor), H.C., A.O. and S.O. (Sinead O’Keeffe); Writing—review and editing, S.O. (Siobhán O’Connor), A.D.O., H.C., A.O., M.C., A.S., L.M., T.R. and S.O. (Sinead O’Keeffe); Supervision, L.M. and T.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the University College Dublin Research Ethics Committee (TMREC-SPSY 2023-08).

Data Availability Statement

Data available on request from the authors. The present data includes farmer mental health and wellbeing information. Due to the inclusion of a large number of demographic variables, the data may be identifiable. Therefore, the data was not made freely available.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
WFCWork Family Conflict
DASS-21Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scales-21
DSI-SSDepression Symptom Inventory-Suicidality Subscale
MHC-SFMental Health Continuum-Short Form
CFQCognitive Fusion Questionnaire
SEQSelf-Experiences Questionnaire
MSPSSMultidimensional Scale of perceived Social Support
FRSIFarm/Ranch Stress Inventory
FAIFarm Attachment Inventory

References

  1. Hennessy, T.; Doran, J.; Bogue, J.; Repar, L. The Economic and Societal Importance of the Irish Suckler Beef Sector; University College Cork Cork University Business School and the Irish Farmers’ Association: Cork City, Ireland, 2018; pp. 1–82. [Google Scholar]
  2. Brennan, M.; Hennessy, T.; Meredith, D.; Dillon, E. Weather, Workload and Money: Determining and Evaluating Sources of Stress for Farmers in Ireland. J. Agromed. 2022, 27, 132–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. McShane, C.J.; Quirk, F.; Swinbourne, A. Development and Validation of a Work Stressor Scale for Australian Farming Families. Aust. J. Rural Health 2016, 24, 238–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Janker, J.; Mann, S.; Rist, S. Social Sustainability in Agriculture—A System-Based Framework. J. Rural Stud. 2019, 65, 32–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Rissing, A.; Inwood, S.; Stengel, E. The Invisible Labor and Multidimensional Impacts of Negotiating Childcare on Farms. Agric. Hum. Values 2021, 38, 431–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Central Statistics Office. Farm Structure Survey 2016; Central Statistics Office: Dublin, Ireland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  7. Donohoe, E. Mental Health in Agriculture: Preventing and Managing Psychosocial Risks; The European Agency for Safety and Health at Work: Bilbao, Spain, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  8. Leshed, G.; Håkansson, M.; Kaye, J. “Jofish” “Our Life Is the Farm and Farming Is Our Life”: Home-Work Coordination in Organic Farm Families. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, Baltimore, MD, USA, 15–19 February 2014; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 487–498. [Google Scholar]
  9. Sprung, J.M. Economic Stress, Family Distress, and Work-Family Conflict among Farm Couples. J. Agromed. 2022, 27, 154–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Roy, P.; Tremblay, G.; Robertson, S.; Houle, J. “Do It All by Myself”: A Salutogenic Approach of Masculine Health Practice Among Farming Men Coping with Stress. Am. J. Mens. Health 2017, 11, 1536–1546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Dillon, E.; Donnellan, T.; Moran, B.; Lennon, J. National Farm Survey 2024—Preliminary Results; Teagasc: Athenry, Ireland, 2025; pp. 1–66. [Google Scholar]
  12. Scheyett, A.; Hollifield, S.; Scarrow, A.; Garcia, A.; Marburger, I. “A Great Life, If You Can Stand It”: Stress and Farm Women. J. Rural Ment. Health 2024, 48, 191–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Gonnelli, C.; Agus, M.; Raffagnino, R. Work-Family Conflict in Nursing: The Role of Work Schedules, Familial Antecedents and Emotional Regulation. Open J. Med. Psychol. 2018, 7, 123–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gonnelli, C.; Raffagnino, R. Work-Family Conflict in Nursing: An Integrative Review of Its Antecedents and Outcomes. IAFOR J. Psychol. Behav. Sci. 2017, 3, 61–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. O’Connor, S.; O’Connor, C.; McCarthy, S.; Singe, S.M. Perceived Stress, Work–Family Conflict, and Burnout in Irish Certified Athletic Therapists. Int. J. Athl. Ther. Train. 2023, 28, 328–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Humphries, N.; McDermott, A.M.; Creese, J.; Matthews, A.; Conway, E.; Byrne, J.-P. Hospital Doctors in Ireland and the Struggle for Work–Life Balance. Eur. J. Public Health 2020, 30, iv32–iv35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Stanley, S.; Murphy, C.; Brougham, R.; Richardson, C. Psychological Distress, Work–Family Conflict and Family Life Satisfaction: A Quantitative Study of Social Workers in the UK. Int. Social. Work 2025, 68, 267–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Černič Istenič, M. Work-Life Balance on a Farm with Young Children in Slovenia. Agric. Hum. Values 2025, 42, 675–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. McShane, C.J.; Quirk, F. Mediating and Moderating Effects of Work–Home Interference upon Farm Stresses and Psychological Distress. Aust. J. Rural Health 2009, 17, 244–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Mora-Guerrero, G.; Herrera-González, F.; Constanzo-Belmar, J.; Alveal-Álamos, C.; Viscardi, S. Uncovering the Work–Family Interface: The Impact of Facilitators and Stressors on the Health of Farm Women. Healthcare 2023, 11, 2726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sprung, J.M.; Jex, S.M. All in the Family: Work–Family Enrichment and Crossover among Farm Couples. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2017, 22, 218–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Contzen, S.; Forney, J. Family Farming and Gendered Division of Labour on the Move: A Typology of Farming-Family Configurations. Agric. Hum. Values 2017, 34, 27–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Cush, P.; Macken-Walsh, Á.; Byrne, A. Joint Farming Ventures in Ireland: Gender Identities of the Self and the Social. J. Rural Stud. 2018, 57, 55–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Becot, F.; Inwood, S.; Budge, H. “The Source of All My Joy and All My Stress”: Children and Childcare as Underappreciated Sources of Stress That Affect Farm Women. J. Agromed. 2025, 30, 114–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Qimin, J. Role Conflict and Social Shaping of High Family Power Women. Interdis Human. Com. Stud. 2025, 1, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hammersley, C.; Richardson, N.; Meredith, D.; Carroll, P.; McNamara, J. “That’s Me I Am the Farmer of the Land”: Exploring Identities, Masculinities, and Health Among Male Farmers’ in Ireland. Am. J. Mens. Health 2021, 15, 15579883211035241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Knapp, E.; Loughrey, J. The Single Farm Payment and Income Risk in Irish Farms 2005–2013. Agric. Econ. 2017, 5, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Loughrey, J.; Hennessy, T. Farm Income Variability and Off-Farm Employment in Ireland. Agric. Finance Rev. 2016, 76, 378–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Nozières, M.O.; Moulin, C.H.; Dedieu, B. The Herd, a Source of Flexibility for Livestock Farming Systems Faced with Uncertainties? Animal 2011, 5, 1442–1457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Rose, D.C.; Bradley, F.; O’Connor, D.; Hall, J.; Morrison, R.; Mulkerrins, M.; Nye, C.; Russell, T. The Mental Wellbeing of Young Farmers in Ireland and the UK: Driving Factors, Help-Seeking, and Support. Scott. Geogr. J. 2024, 140, 155–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Daghagh Yazd, S.; Wheeler, S.A.; Zuo, A. Key Risk Factors Affecting Farmers’ Mental Health: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4849–4871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Heo, W.; Lee, J.M.; Park, N. Financial-Related Psychological Factors Affect Life Satisfaction of Farmers. J. Rural Stud. 2020, 80, 185–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Schirmer, J.; Peel, D.; Mylek, M. Farmers and Agriculture: The 2014 Regional Wellbeing Survey; The 2014 Regional Wellbeing Survey; University of Canberra: Sydney, Australia, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  34. Furey, E.M.; O’Hora, D.; McNamara, J.; Kinsella, S.; Noone, C. The Roles of Financial Threat, Social Support, Work Stress, and Mental Distress in Dairy Farmers’ Expectations of Injury. Front. Public Health 2016, 4, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Green, S.; Cawkwell, F.; Dwyer, E. How Current Environmental and Weather Conditions Affect Time Critical Decision Making on Irish Dairy Farms. Int. J. Agric. Manag. 2018, 7, 50–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Dang, H.L.; Li, E.; Nuberg, I.; Bruwer, J. Factors Influencing the Adaptation of Farmers in Response to Climate Change: A Review. Clim. Dev. 2019, 11, 765–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hayden, M.T.; Leonard, B. Concerns and Barriers Surrounding the Farm Succession Process—Perception versus Reality for Beef Farmers in Ireland. J. Rural Stud. 2024, 112, 103456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Netemeyer, R.G.; Boles, J.S.; McMurrian, R. Development and Validation of Work–Family Conflict and Family–Work Conflict Scales. J. Appl. Psychol. 1996, 81, 400–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lovibond, P.F.; Lovibond, S.H. The Structure of Negative Emotional States: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. Behav. Res. Ther. 1995, 33, 335–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Joiner, T.E.; Pfaff, J.J.; Acres, J.G. A Brief Screening Tool for Suicidal Symptoms in Adolescents and Young Adults in General Health Settings: Reliability and Validity Data from the Australian National General Practice Youth Suicide Prevention Project. Behav. Res. Ther. 2002, 40, 471–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Lamers, S.M.A.; Westerhof, G.J.; Bohlmeijer, E.T.; ten Klooster, P.M.; Keyes, C.L.M. Evaluating the Psychometric Properties of the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF). J. Clin. Psych. 2011, 67, 99–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Gloster, A.T.; Block, V.J.; Klotsche, J.; Villanueva, J.; Rinner, M.T.B.; Benoy, C.; Walter, M.; Karekla, M.; Bader, K. Psy-Flex: A Contextually Sensitive Measure of Psychological Flexibility. J. Cont. Behav. Sci. 2021, 22, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Gillanders, D.T.; Bolderston, H.; Bond, F.W.; Dempster, M.; Flaxman, P.E.; Campbell, L.; Kerr, S.; Tansey, L.; Noel, P.; Ferenbach, C.; et al. The Development and Initial Validation of the Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire. Behav. Ther. 2014, 45, 83–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Yu, L.; McCracken, L.M.; Norton, S. The Self Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ): Preliminary Analyses for a Measure of Self in People with Chronic Pain. J. Context. Behav. Sci. 2016, 5, 127–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Slavin, V.; Creedy, D.K.; Gamble, J. Single Item Measure of Social Supports: Evaluation of Construct Validity during Pregnancy. J. Affect. Disord. 2020, 272, 91–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Russell, T.; Stapleton, A.; Markey, A.; McHugh, L. Dying to Farm: Developing a Suicide Prevention Intervention for Farmers in Ireland; HSE National Office for Suicide Prevention: Ireland, Dublin, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  47. Welke, C.K. Farm/Ranch Stressors and the Distress and Job Satisfaction of Farm Family Members: The Buffering Effects of Perceived Social Support. Ph.D. Thesis, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  48. Imel, J. From Sunrise to Sunset: A Lifespan Approach to Understanding the Mental Health of a Subset of American Farmers. Ph.D. Thesis, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Williams, D.R.; Vaske, J.J. The Measurement of Place Attachment: Validity and Generalizability of a Psychometric Approach. For. Sci. 2003, 49, 830–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Cohen, J.W. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  51. Gregoire, A. The Mental Health of Farmers. Occup. Med. 2002, 52, 471–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kanamori, M.; Hanazato, M.; Kondo, K.; Stickley, A.; Kondo, N. Neighborhood Farm Density, Types of Agriculture, and Depressive Symptoms among Older Farmers: A Cross-Sectional Study. BMC Public Health 2021, 21, 440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kato, H.; Ono, H.; Sato, M.; Noguchi, M.; Kobayashi, K. Relationships between Management Factors in Dairy Production Systems and Mental Health of Farm Managers in Japan. J. Dairy. Sci. 2022, 105, 441–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Brandth, B. Farmers Framing Fatherhood: Everyday Life and Rural Change. Agric. Hum. Values 2019, 36, 49–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Eriksson, C.; Hajdu, F. “You Have to Focus All Your Energy on Being a Parent”: Barriers and Opportunities for Swedish Farmers to Be Involved Fathers. J. Rural Stud. 2021, 83, 88–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Gunn, K.M.; Skaczkowski, G.; Dollman, J.; Vincent, A.D.; Brumby, S.; Short, C.E.; Turnbull, D. A Self-Help Online Intervention Is Associated with Reduced Distress and Improved Mental Wellbeing in Australian Farmers: The Evaluation and Key Mechanisms of www.ifarmwell.com.au. J. Agromed. 2023, 28, 378–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Rudolphi, J.M.; Berg, R.L. Mental Health of Agricultural Adolescents and Adults: Preliminary Results of a Five-Year Study. Front. Public Health 2023, 11, 1056487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Booth, N.J.; Lloyd, K. Stress in Farmers. Int. J. Soc. Psychiatry 2000, 46, 67–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Corbett, R.W.; Pories, M.L.; Marcom, R.T.; Rose, M.A. When Your Patient Is a Farm Family: Challenges Farm Wives Perceive in Promoting Farm Family Health. J. Nurs. Pract. 2020, 16, 457–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. O’Connor, S.; O’Hagan, A.D.; Malone, S.M.; O’Shaughnessy, B.R.; McNamara, J.; Firnhaber, J. Sleep Issues and Burnout in Irish Farmers: A Cross Sectional Survey. Safety Sci. 2024, 171, 106377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Parry, J.; Lindsey, R.; Taylor, R.; Barnes, H. Farmers, Farm Workers and Work-Related Stress; HSE Research Report: London, UK, 2005; p. 116. [Google Scholar]
  62. Firnhaber, J.; Malone, S.M.; O’Hagan, A.D.; O’Keefe, S.; McNamara, J.; O’Connor, S. ‘You Don’t Want to Be Seen to Be Struggling’; Identifying Sociocultural Barriers and Facilitators for Irish Farmers’ Mental Health Help-Seeking. Sociol. Rural 2024, 64, 353–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Malone, S.M.; Firnhaber, J.; O’Hagan, A.D.; O’Keeffe, S.; McNamara, J.; O’Connor, S. “Lacking the Rural Empathy”, Irish Farmers’ and Stakeholders’ Opinions on Current Mental Health Services and Preferences for Support. J. Rural Stud. 2025, 114, 103508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Central Statistics Office. Census of Agriculture 2020 Detailed Results; Central Statistics Office: Dublin, Ireland, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  65. Hammersley, C.; Richardson, N.; Meredith, D.; McNamara, J.; Carroll, P.; Jenkins, P. On Feirm Ground, Supporting Farmer Mental Health: Analysing the Effectiveness of a Bespoke Farmer Mental Health Training Programme Targeted at Farm Advisors in Ireland. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2025, 31, 90–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Demographics of participants (n = 446).
Table 1. Demographics of participants (n = 446).
Gender% (n)Average Farm Income (Yearly)% (n)
Male74.0 (330)<EUR10,0007.8 (35)
Female26.0 (116)EUR10,000–€19,00013.9 (62)
Marital StatusEUR20,000–€29,00011.9 (53)
Single31.8 (142)EUR30,000–€39,0009.0 (40)
Married/civil Partnership55.2 (246)EUR40,000–€49,0006.7 (30)
Cohabiting12.1 (54)EUR50,000–€59,0006.5 (29)
Divorced/separated0.7 (3)EUR60,000–€69,0003.8 (17)
Widowed0.2 (1)EUR70,000–€79,0003.4 (15)
Children EUR80,000–€89,0004.7 (21)
Yes50.9 (227)EUR90,000€99,0002.2 (10)
No49.1 (219)>EUR100,00014.1 (63)
Farm HolderPrefer not to say/Do not know15.9 (71)
Yes60.1 (268)Farm Size (Hectares)
No39.9 (178)<2011.9 (53)
Hold off-Farm Employment20–4022.6 (101)
Yes49.6 (221)>4065.5 (292)
No50.4 (225)
Main Farm Enterprise
Dairy35.4 (158)
Beef29.8 (133)
Mixed22.9 (102)
Sheep7.8 (35)
Tillage2.5 (11)
Other1.6 (7)
Table 2. Work–Family Conflict Scale (n = 446).
Table 2. Work–Family Conflict Scale (n = 446).
Strongly DisagreeDisagreeSomewhat DisagreeNeither Agree nor DisagreeSomewhat AgreeAgreeStrongly Agree
% (n)
The demands of my work interfere with my home and family life2.9 (13)7.4 (33)4.0 (18)12.1 (54)29.6 (132)23.8 (106)20.2 (90)
The amount of time my job takes up makes it difficult to fulfil family responsibilities3.1 (14)10.5 (47)5.4 (24)10.5 (47)31.6 (141)19.5 (87)19.3 (86)
Things I want to do at home do not get done because of the demands my job puts on me3.4 (15)9.4 (42)3.6 (16)7.6 (34)29.8 (133)26.2 (117)20.0 (89)
My job produces strain that makes it difficult to fulfil family duties 3.4 (15)10.8 (48)5.8 (26)11.2 (50)28.9 (129)24.4 (109)15.5 (69)
Due to work-related duties, I have to make changes to my plans for family activities2.9 (13)7.8 (35)3.8 (17)9.2 (41)28.9 (129)27.8 (124)19.5 (87)
%: Percentage. n: Number.
Table 3. Correlational analysis between WFC score and socio-demographics, mental health, psychological skills, farm-specific stressors and attachment and social support.
Table 3. Correlational analysis between WFC score and socio-demographics, mental health, psychological skills, farm-specific stressors and attachment and social support.
Variablerp
Socio-Demographic
Age−0.120.01 *
Average hours worked per day on the farm0.30<0.001 *
Years farming−0.090.06
Number of children−0.040.56
Psychological Distress
DASS-21 Total Score0.34<0.001 *
     Depression0.28<0.001 *
     Anxiety0.26<0.001 *
     Stress0.39<0.001 *
Suicidality
DSI-Suicidality Subscale0.15<0.002 *
Wellbeing
Mental Health Continuum-SF−0.29<0.001 *
     Emotional Wellbeing−0.22<0.001 *
     Social Wellbeing−0.29<0.001 *
     Psychological Wellbeing−0.25<0.001 *
Psychological Skills
PsyFlex—Psychological flexibility−0.24<0.001 *
Cognitive fusion Questionnaire0.27<0.001 *
Self-Experiences Questionnaire−0.21<0.001 *
Social Support
Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support−0.120.009 *
Farm-Specific Stressors
Farm/Ranch Stress Inventory0.120.01 *
   Financial Stressors0.36<0.001 *
   Isolation Stressors0.29<0.001 *
   Governmental Stressors0.43<0.001 *
   Operations Stressors0.42<0.001 *
   Work Stressors0.61<0.001 *
Farm Attachment
Farm Attachment Inventory0.120.01 *
* Denotes statistical significance.
Table 4. Regression coefficients and standard errors for the Backward Multiple Regression.
Table 4. Regression coefficients and standard errors for the Backward Multiple Regression.
B95% CI for BSE Bβp
LLUL
Constant8.333.2813.392.57-0.001 *
Age−0.05−0.09−0.0110.02−0.10.012 *
Gender (male/female)1.620.332.910.660.100.014 *
Child 5 and under (yes/No)3.321.834.820.760.17<0.001 *
Average hours worked on the farm per day0.310.180.440.070.18<0.001 *
Farm/Ranch Stress Inventory—FRSI total score0.210.170.240.020.49<0.001 *
Psychological flexibility—PsyFlex total score−0.13−0.25−0.020.06−0.090.022 *
Farm attachment—FAI total score0.11−0.010.230.060.070.06
B: Unstandardised regression coefficient; CI: Confidence Interval. LL: Lower limit. UL: Upper limit. SE B: standard error of the coefficient. β: standardised coefficient. p: statistical significance. * Denotes statistical significance.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

O’Connor, S.; O’Hagan, A.D.; Casey, H.; O’Connor, A.; Creegan, M.; Stapleton, A.; McHugh, L.; Russell, T.; O’Keeffe, S. Between the Farm and Family: A Cross-Sectional Survey on Work–Family Conflict in Farmers in Ireland. Agriculture 2025, 15, 1587. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15151587

AMA Style

O’Connor S, O’Hagan AD, Casey H, O’Connor A, Creegan M, Stapleton A, McHugh L, Russell T, O’Keeffe S. Between the Farm and Family: A Cross-Sectional Survey on Work–Family Conflict in Farmers in Ireland. Agriculture. 2025; 15(15):1587. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15151587

Chicago/Turabian Style

O’Connor, Siobhán, Anna Donnla O’Hagan, Hannah Casey, Annie O’Connor, Mark Creegan, Alison Stapleton, Louise McHugh, Tomás Russell, and Sinéad O’Keeffe. 2025. "Between the Farm and Family: A Cross-Sectional Survey on Work–Family Conflict in Farmers in Ireland" Agriculture 15, no. 15: 1587. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15151587

APA Style

O’Connor, S., O’Hagan, A. D., Casey, H., O’Connor, A., Creegan, M., Stapleton, A., McHugh, L., Russell, T., & O’Keeffe, S. (2025). Between the Farm and Family: A Cross-Sectional Survey on Work–Family Conflict in Farmers in Ireland. Agriculture, 15(15), 1587. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15151587

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop