Next Article in Journal
Comparison of the Injury Mechanism between Pregnant and Non-Pregnant Women Vehicle Passengers Using Car Crash Test Dummies
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Regular Low-Level Alcohol Consumption in Healthy Individuals: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Crossover Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Depression Risk Factors for Knowledge Workers in the Post-Capitalist Society of Taiwan
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

The Effect of Employee-Oriented Flexible Work on Mental Health: A Systematic Review

Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, P.O. Box 18, Työterveyslaitos, FI-00032 Helsinki, Finland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Healthcare 2022, 10(5), 883; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10050883
Submission received: 7 April 2022 / Revised: 4 May 2022 / Accepted: 6 May 2022 / Published: 10 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Risk and Protective Factors for Developing Mental Disorders)

Abstract

:
The effect of flexible work on mental health is not well known. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effects of employee-oriented flexible work on mental health problems and associated disability. Literature searches were conducted in the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, ProQuest and EconPapers databases from their inception through October-November 2020. Sixteen studies on the associations of worktime control, working from home, or flexible working arrangements with mental health related outcomes were included in the review: one cluster randomized controlled trial, two non-randomized controlled trials, two cross-over studies, and 11 prospective cohort studies. Three reviewers independently assessed the met-hodological quality of the included studies and extracted the data. The included studies differed in design, intervention/exposure, and outcome, so meta-analysis was not carried out and qualitative results were reported. A few prospective cohort studies found that low employees’ control over worktime increases the risk of depressive symptoms, psychological distress, burnout, and accumulated fatigue. One cross-over and a few cohort studies found small beneficial effects of working partly from home on depressive symptoms, stress, and emotional exhaustion. A small number of controlled trials, cross-over or cohort studies found that flexible working arrangements increase employees’ control over working hours, but have only modest beneficial effects on psychological distress, burnout, and emotional exhaustion. This systematic review suggests that employee-oriented flexible work may have small beneficial effects on mental health. However, randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies are needed to identify the health effects of flexible work.

1. Introduction

Globally, the COVID-19 pandemic markedly increased working from home, at least temporarily [1]. Working from home as an example of telework is part of flexible working arrangements. Some previous studies have reported that flexible working arrangements are linked to better balance of work and private life, and consequently lead to longer work careers [2,3]. However, other studies have reported that flexible working arrangements may increase work–private life conflict [4], and have no beneficial effects on health [5].
Depending on the organization, flexibility may entail flexibility in time, in space, or in the way the work is performed [6]. Flexible work comprises company-oriented and employee-oriented flexibility. Company-oriented flexibility involves employers extending, modifying, or reducing working hours or other work arrangements according to organizational objectives, for example, to better meet a financial budget. Employee-oriented flexible work permits workers to modify when, where, or how to work. It can refer to autonomy regarding working times (i.e., worktime control) or working location or other work arrangements [7]. Worktime control refers to control over work schedule, or control over working hours and non-working hours (e.g., when to have holidays or unpaid leave) [8]. Employer-based flexibility has been linked to employees’ poor health and wellbeing, while employee-oriented flexibility has been associated with better employee health and wellbeing [9,10].
Mental disorders have surpassed musculoskeletal disorders as the leading cause of disability benefits in many EU countries [11,12], and are among the leading causes of years lived with disability [13,14]. The number of years lived with disability due to depressive disorders increased by 32% in females and by 35% in males between 1990 and 2007 and further increased by 14% in females and by 15% in males between 2007 and 2017 [14]. Depressive disorders were the third leading cause of years lived with disability in females and the fifth leading cause in males in 2017 [14]. However, mental health also entails the positive side: improving mental wellbeing increases work engagement [15]. Some studies suggested that flexible working arrangements decrease symptoms of mental disorders and improve mental health [16,17,18]. Enabling employees to determine their own working patterns more freely can boost their mental well-being and protect against mental health decline. Given the widespread use of flexible work arrangements in various sectors of employment, the potential role of flexible working arrangements in the prevention and management of mental health problems is noteworthy due to the steep rise in mental health problems in various countries. In the presence of a positive association between flexible working arrangements and mental health, even a small beneficial effect can produce considerable impacts in current societies where there are more options to arrange the time and place of work.
To date, three systematic reviews have been published on the association between employee control over working hours or flexible working hours and health. A systematic review [19] published in 2007 examined the associations of organizational-level measures to improve employee control or participation in workplace decision-making with psychosocial factors and health. The review included 18 studies published between 1981 and 2006 on various workplace measures such as control over working hours, flexible working hours, identifying and reducing workplace stressors, establishing problem-solving committees, a health-related educational course, stress management training, and participatory ergonomic changes. The review found that a decrease in demands or increase in employee control or support had beneficial effects on health, particularly mental health. Another systematic review published in 2012 included studies on the health effects of worktime control published between 1995 and 2011 [20]. Of the 53 studies included in that review, the majority were cross-sectional studies, and only six studies were prospective cohort studies and five were experimental studies. The review found that worktime control improved work-private life balance and found evidence only for a cross-sectional association between control over daily working hours and health/wellbeing. Furthermore, a Cochrane systematic review on the health effects of flexible working conditions [21] published in 2010 included four non-randomized controlled trials on self-scheduling of shift work and one trial on flexible working time. The review [21] found that self-scheduling of shift work had beneficial health effects, while a single before-after study on flexible starting and ending times of a workday and flexible timing and duration of lunch breaks found no health effects. In the earlier reviews, the association between employee-oriented flexible work and mental health was mainly based on cross-sectional studies. Furthermore, the previous reviews did not examine the association between working from home and mental health.
To date, the role of flexible work in the prevention of mental health problems or to support mental health is not well known. In the present study, we aimed to systematically review the available literature on the effects of employee-oriented worktime control, working from home, flexible work (when, where, or how to do the work), and employee-oriented flexible workplace arrangements on mental health, mental disorders, and work disability due to mental disorders.

2. Methods

2.1. Search Strategy

We used the PRISMA statement [22] to develop the review protocol. The checklist consists of 27 recommendations which help the reviewers to report transparently the results of their systematic reviews. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020214134). We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, ProQuest and EconPapers databases from their inception through October-November 2020. Supplementary Table S1 shows the search terms and search strings used in the different databases. The language of publications was restricted to English only. The reference lists of included articles were also hand-searched for any additional relevant studies. Our search strings lacked a search term “worktime control”. We conducted an additional search for “worktime” OR “work-time” in relation to mental health problems in PubMed and Embase.

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

For each publication, at least two reviewers (J.T., J.E., R.S., J.K., P.L.-A., P.V., or A.V.) independently screened the titles and abstracts using Covidence to identify studies on the associations of employee-oriented worktime control, working from home, flexible work (when, where, or how to do the work), and employee-oriented flexible workplace arrangements with any mental health problem and associated work disability (sickness absence or disability pension due to mental disorder) or indicators of positive mental health outcomes. Randomized and non-randomized clinical trials, cross-over studies, prospective cohort studies, and case-control studies were eligible. Cross-sectional studies were excluded due to their descriptive nature with no indication on cause and effect. Studies on the number of weekly working hours, studies on different work schedules or shift work, studies comparing long with short shifts, studies comparing part-time with full-time sickness absence, and studies on overtime work or extended work availability were not classified as employee-oriented flexible work and were excluded from the review. Disagreements between the reviewers were resolved by a third reviewer.

2.3. Quality Assessment

For each publication, three reviewers (J.T., J.E. and R.S.; or J.K., P.L.-A. and R.S.) independently evaluated the methodological quality of the studies included in the review using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB-2) for randomized controlled trials [23], ROBINS-I for quasi-experimental studies [24], Joanna Briggs Institute’s Critical Appraisal Checklist for Cohort Studies [25], and used a checklist proposed by Ding et al. [26] based on the Cochrane handbook for cross-over studies. Disagreements between raters were resolved through discussion with or the involvement of an additional reviewer. The Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB-2) evaluates bias arising from the randomization process, bias arising from the timing of randomization, bias due to deviations from intended interventions, bias due to missing outcome data, bias in measurement of the outcome, and bias in selection of the reported result.

2.4. Data Synthesis

We extracted the details of the studies included in the review such as year of publication, country, follow-up time, study population, sex distribution, age range and/or mean age, sample size, intervention or exposure, outcome, findings, and adjustment for confounding factors. The included studies differed in study design, intervention/exposure (worktime control, working from home/teleworking, or a combination of flexible working arrangements) and outcome (different indicators of symptoms of mental ill-health or positive mental health outcomes) and we therefore synthesized the results qualitatively.

3. Results

Our searches identified 1915 relevant publications in PubMed, 3767 in Web of Science, 3997 in Scopus, 1436 in Cochrane Library, 3078 in PsycINFO, 333 in ProQuestand and 421 in EconPapers (Table 1 and Figure 1). After removing 3961 duplicates, 8832 publications remained relevant to be screened. A total of 8748 reports were ineligible based on screening titles and abstracts for study design, population, exposures/interventions, and outcomes. The overall percentage of interrater agreement between the reviewers was more than 97%. Moreover, our additional search of “worktime” OR “work-time” in relation to mental health problems retrieved 231 publications in PubMed and 330 in Embase. Ninety-six studies were selected for full-text screening, and of them 16 studies (19 articles, the results of some studies have been reported in more than one article) including one cluster randomized controlled trial, two non-randomized controlled trials, two cross-over studies, and 11 prospective cohort studies (14 reports) fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the review (Table 1 and Supplementary Table S2). Mental health outcomes included depressive symptoms, perceived stress, psychological distress, emotional exhaustion, burnout, accumulated fatigue, disability pension due to mental disorders, sickness absence due to depression or anxiety, and work-related well-being (work engagement). The risk of bias was high for the randomized controlled trial due to measurement of outcome and missing outcome data (Supplementary Table S3), moderate for the non-randomized controlled trials due to not adequately controlling for confounding factors, selection of participants and missing data (Supplementary Table S4), and moderate for cross-over studies (Supplementary Table S5). For prospective cohort studies, the number of “yes” scores (low risk of bias) ranged between 6 and 10 out of 11 items (Supplementary Table S6).

3.1. Worktime Control

A small (N = 35 for intervention group and n = 187 for control group) non-randomized controlled trial [28] found that worktime self-scheduling via a computer program increased employees’ involvement in the planning of their working hours but did not decrease the level of stress. Moreover, a cohort study found that schedule flexibility assessed with a single item was not associated with changes in depressive symptoms among working women who returned to work within six months after childbirth [39].
Most of the included prospective cohort studies examined the impact of worktime control on mental health outcomes. The included prospective cohort studies used between four and eight items to assess worktime control and the items consisted of perceived control over (1) length of a workday, (2) starting and ending times of a workday, (3) taking breaks during work, (4) handling private matters during work, (5) which days to work), (6) scheduling shifts, (7) scheduling vacations, and (8) scheduling unpaid leave [29,30,31,33,34,41].
High worktime control at both baseline and follow-up was associated with lower risk of depressive symptoms at follow-up [41], and low control over daily hours (i.e., length of a workday and starting and ending times) or low control over time off (i.e., scheduling vacation and unpaid leave) at baseline was associated with higher risk of depressive symptoms at follow-up [34]. The associations did not differ between men and women [34]. Moreover, this prospective cohort study [34] found a bidirectional association between low worktime control and depression. Low control over worktime was associated with subsequent depressive symptoms, and depressive symptoms were associated with subsequent low control over worktime. However, this study used prevalent cases rather than incident cases as outcomes of interest and did not exclude cases of depression at baseline when assessing the effect worktime on subsequent depressive symptoms and did not exclude people with low worktime control at baseline when assessing the effect of depressive symptoms on subsequent low control over worktime. Thus, a bidirectional association between low worktime control and depressive symptoms observed in the study [34] can be due to analysing a prospective cohort study like a cross-sectional study.
Work-life imbalance partly mediated the relationship between worktime control and depressive symptoms [35]. However, the indirect effect of low worktime control on depressive symptoms was small, and neither control over daily hours nor control over time off was associated with sickness absence due to depression or anxiety [29].
Two cohort studies found an association between low worktime control and increased risk of burnout [32,33]. One of these studies showed that the elimination of low worktime control can prevent 5–7% of burnout cases [32]. A cohort study (two reports) found an association between worktime control and mental health problems in women only. Low worktime control was associated with a higher risk of psychological distress [31], and high worktime control was associated with a lower risk of disability pension due to mental health problems among female dominated municipal employees (77.5 to 78.6% of the participants were women) [30]. However, the latter study [30] controlled the observed association for age and socioeconomic status only, and co-worker assessed worktime control was not associated with the risk of disability pension due to mental disorders.
Lastly, high worktime control at both baseline and follow-up was associated with lower risk of accumulated fatigue measured with 11 items and higher recovery from fatigue at follow-up [41]. Moreover, a small cohort study [38] subjectively assessed accumulated fatigue using 13 items, which included several items on symptoms of mental illness in the past month and objectively measured fatigue using a psychomotor vigilance task. The increase in worktime control during one-year follow-up was not associated with the subjective measure of accumulated fatigue, but it was associated with objectively measured fatigue [38].

3.2. Working from Home/Teleworking

A cohort study among 570 working women who returned to work within six months after childbirth found that women who worked from home had a lower risk of depressive symptoms than women who did not work from home; however, the number of hours worked from home was not associated with changes in depressive symptoms [39]. Another prospective cohort study found a U-shaped or J-shaped association between the number of hours worked from home per month and depression. Non-telecommuters were at a higher risk of depression than telecommuters [37]. Telecommuters who worked from home for eight hours or less per month had a lower risk of depression compared with non-telecommuters. The difference was not statistically significant for off-hour telecommuting and prime time telecommuting for 9–32, 33–72, and 73 h or more per month [37].
A small cross-over study (N = 39) [17] reported that the level of stress was reduced during one-week telework in a rural archipelago environment and did not return to the original level after the experiment. However, the beneficial effect for stress was small. Moreover, the study [17] found that emotional exhaustion decreased during telework but returned to the original level after the experiment, and telework had no effect on work engagement [17]. A cohort study found no statistically significant association between the number of hours worked from home per month and stress [37]. Another cohort study found that an increase in interpersonal interaction was associated with the increased risk of work exhaustion, and part-time telework (one or two days per week) reduced the effect of interpersonal interaction on work exhaustion [36].

3.3. Flexible Working Arrangements

The included studies defined flexible work arrangements in various ways. The intervention consisted of at least two domains, also including working from home and worktime control. A cluster randomized controlled trial [18] examined the effect of an intervention to facilitate working from home and to improve employees’ control over working time, shift scheduling, and when, where, and how to do their work. Among the total sample randomized, the intervention decreased the risk of burnout (p < 0.01). However, the intervention had beneficial effects on perceived stress (p < 0.05) and psychological distress (p < 0.05) only among the subgroup of workers who received intervention before the firm’s merger announcement, but not among workers who received intervention after the merger announcement. Changes in schedule control mediated the effect of intervention on psychological distress by 23% and on burnout by 19% among workers who received intervention before the firm’s merger announcement. However, this trial did not control the subgroup analyses for multiple testing, and the observed associations in the subgroup do not remain statistically significant if the estimates are adjusted for Bonferroni correction.
A non-randomized controlled trial [27] examined the effects of an organizational initiative (a natural experiment) on mental health. The experiment aimed to increase flexible working arrangements by allowing employees to be able to change their schedules or work location. The natural experiment did not directly lead to changes in emotional exhaustion or psychological distress at the follow-up [27]. However, the experiment increased schedule control and decreased negative work-home spillover, which were both associated with lower emotional exhaustion and psychological distress. There was no statistically significant difference in the associations between men and women [27].
A small cross-over study (N = 71) [16] found that the transition into open workspaces including flexible working arrangements reduces the risk of occupational stress; however, the beneficial effect was small. There was an interaction between flexible working arrangements and job autonomy. Flexible working arrangements reduced the risk of occupational stress in employees with high job autonomy but not in those with low job autonomy [16]. A small prospective cohort study (N = 91) [42] found no beneficial effect of flexibility idiosyncratic deals consisting of working time flexibility, work schedule flexibility and influence over working hours at baseline, on work engagement at follow-up. However, a prospective cohort study on flexible working arrangements consisting of (1) flexitime, (2) a compressed working week, (3) telecommuting, and (4) part-time work found lower work engagement and higher psychological distress at follow-up in workers who were provided flexible working arrangements at baseline [40]. However, the adverse effect on psychological distress was small.

4. Discussion

This systematic review aimed to assess the effects of employee-oriented flexible work on mental health. The findings indicate that flexible work increases employees’ control over working hours and has beneficial effects on depressive symptoms, burnout, fatigue, psychological distress, and emotional exhaustion. However, the beneficial effects are modest, and evidence is mostly based on observational studies. The review included only one randomized controlled trial and the rest were observational studies. Flexible work had no effect on work engagement; however, there were only two studies with work engagement as an outcome [17,42].
Flexible work can allow workers to fulfil both family and work responsibilities. Studies reported that women may perceive lower levels of control over daily working hours than men [34], and flexible work arrangements may have a larger beneficial effect on work-family conflict among women than men [43]. Furthermore, two other cohort studies found that low worktime control is associated with a higher risk of psychological distress [31] and disability pension due to mental health problems [30] in women only. However, a cohort study found no gender difference in the association between worktime control and depressive symptoms [34], and a cross-sectional study showed that low work flexibility is associated with a larger increase in emotional exhaustion in men than in women [44]. Employees with family responsibilities might benefit more from flexible work than employees without family responsibilities. Company policies toward flexibility may favour employees who justify taking advantage of flexible work, so lower perceived stress in employees with flexible work compared with those without flexible might be due to the fulfilling of family responsibilities.
Work-life imbalance may partly mediate the effect of worktime control on mental health [35]. Low worktime control can lead to work-to-family conflict [20], and work-to-family conflict can increase the risk of poor mental health [45]. Sleep disturbance may also play a role in the association between worktime control and mental health. This hypothesis has not been studied, but low control over taking breaks during work, handling private matters during work, and taking paid leave were associated with a higher rate of injuries at work or during leisure time, and accidents during commuting to and from work [46]. Sleep disturbance partially mediated the association between low worktime control and accidents [46]. However, the indirect effect of sleep disturbance on accidents was small (5%).
This is the first comprehensive review on the role of worktime flexibility, telework and flexible working arrangements in the prevention of mental health problems and their associated disability. We searched seven databases using comprehensive search terms and screened over 9393 abstracts. However, our search strings lacked a search term “worktime control”. We conducted additional searches for worktime control in relation to mental health problems in PubMed and Embase, and also searched the reference lists of reviews and original studies on worktime control. The studies included in the present review had some limitations. The studies used different definitions for flexible work. Some studies considered part-time work [40] and a compressed working week [40] as flexible work. However, people may work part-time because of a health problem, and in a compressed working week employees work nine hours or longer per day. Long working hours increase the risk of mental health problems [47], and a reduction in working time improves sleep duration and quality and reduces perceived stress [48]. This may be one of the reasons that a study found lower work engagement and higher psychological strain in employees who used flexible working arrangements that consisted of part-time work and a compressed working week [40]. Flexible work might also be arranged for workers with a health problem. The current evidence does not allow us to disentangle whether flexible work arrangements improve mental health or flexible work arrangements are a consequence of a mental health problem. Moreover, hybrid work might be more difficult to manage than solely remote or in-person work. This might contribute to adverse effects of flexible work arrangements.
Only a few studies examined the effects of flexible work on mental health problems, and the majority of the studies were observational ones, which are prone to selection bias and confounding. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to support the findings of observational studies on the associations between flexible work and mental health. Some of the observational studies did not control for some known confounding factors, thus the observed associations can be partly due to residual confounding. Moreover, some of the included studies recruited a small number of workers and did not have adequate statistical power to detect a modest effect of flexible work.
We did not include observational studies on self-scheduling or control over scheduling of shifts among shift workers which combined various shift workers (e.g., night, evening, or day workers) in a single analysis, did not control the health effect of scheduling flexibility for types of shifts, or did not conduct subgroup analysis by types of shifts. Shift work has adverse effects on mental health [49], and the health effects of control over scheduling of shifts can differ between different shift workers. The effect of scheduling flexibility on mental health should be estimated for different shift workers. Lastly, we did not use the GRADE tool [50] to rate the level of evidence. A small number of studies, mostly observational ones, examined the effects of various interventions/exposures on several mental health outcomes. The number of studies on each intervention/exposure-outcome pair was limited.

5. Conclusions

Worktime flexibility, working from home, and other flexible working arrangements may modestly improve self-rated mental health; however, the evidence is limited and based on observational studies with varying mental health outcomes. Intervention studies, particularly randomized and non-randomized controlled trials are needed to study the effect of flexible work, particularly working from home, on mental health. As the COVID-19 pandemic drastically increased working from home, this offers an opportunity to study the effects of working from home on mental health.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/healthcare10050883/s1, Table S1: Literature searches made in October-November 2020; Table S2. Characteristics of studies included in the review; Table S3: Methodological quality of the included randomized controlled trial; Table S4: Methodological quality of the included non-randomized controlled trials; Table S5: Methodological quality of the included cross-over studies; Table S6: Methodological quality of the included prospective cohort studies using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Cohort Studies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.S., J.T., J.K., P.L.-A., P.V., A.V. and J.E.; funding acquisition, R.S., J.T., J.K., P.L.-A., P.V., A.V. and J.E.; screening the publications, R.S., J.T., J.K., P.L.-A., P.V., A.V. and J.E.; assessment of the methodological quality of the included studies and extraction of the results, R.S., J.T., J.K., P.L.-A. and J.E; writing—original draft preparation, R.S. and J.E.; writing—review and editing, R.S., J.T., J.K., P.L.-A., P.V., A.V. and J.E.; project administration, J.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by Government’s Analysis, Assessment and Research Activities (grant no VN/14606/2019).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Ethics Approval

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bouziri, H.; Smith, D.R.M.; Descatha, A.; Dab, W.; Jean, K. Working from home in the time of COVID-19: How to best preserve occupational health? Occup. Environ. Med. 2020, 77, 509–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Jonsson, R.; Dellve, L.; Halleröd, B. Work despite poor health? A 14-year follow-up of how individual work accommodations are extending the time to retirement for workers with poor health conditions. SSM Popul. Health 2019, 9, 100514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Jonsson, R.; Hasselgren, C.; Dellve, L.; Seldén, D.; Larsson, D.; Stattin, M. Matching the Pieces: The Presence of Idiosyncratic Deals and Their Impact on Retirement Preferences Among Older Workers. Work Aging Retire. 2021, 7, 240–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Higgins, C.; Duxbury, L.; Julien, M. The relationship between work arrangements and work-family conflict. Work 2014, 48, 69–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Engelen, L.; Chau, J.; Young, S.; Mackey, M.; Jeyapalan, D.; Bauman, A. Is activity-based working impacting health, work performance and perceptions? A systematic review. Build. Res. Inf. 2019, 47, 468–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Jeffrey Hill, E.; Grzywacz, J.G.; Allen, S.; Blanchard, V.L.; Matz-Costa, C.; Shulkin, S.; Pitt-Catsouphes, M. Defining and conceptualizing workplace flexibility. Community Work Fam. 2008, 11, 149–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. 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, 291–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Takahashi, M.; Iwasaki, K.; Sasaki, T.; Kubo, T.; Mori, I.; Otsuka, Y. Worktime control-dependent reductions in fatigue, sleep problems, and depression. Appl. Ergon. 2011, 42, 244–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Costa, G.; Akerstedt, T.; Nachreiner, F.; Baltieri, F.; Carvalhais, J.; Folkard, S.; Dresen, M.F.; Gadbois, C.; Gartner, J.; Sukalo, H.G.; et al. Flexible working hours, health, and well-being in Europe: Some considerations from a SALTSA project. Chronobiol. Int. 2004, 21, 831–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Costa, G.; Sartori, S.; Akerstedt, T. Influence of flexibility and variability of working hours on health and well-being. Chronobiol. Int. 2006, 23, 1125–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Blomgren, J.; Perhoniemi, R. Increase in sickness absence due to mental disorders in Finland: Trends by gender, age and diagnostic group in 2005–2019. Scand. J. Public Health 2021, 50, 318–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Viola, S.; Moncrieff, J. Claims for sickness and disability benefits owing to mental disorders in the UK: Trends from 1995 to 2014. BJPsych Open 2016, 2, 18–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. WHO. Global Health Estimates 2014. Summary Tables: YLD by cause, age and sex, by WHO Region, 2000–2012. Available online: https://www.who.int/data/global-health-estimates (accessed on 27 August 2021).
  14. GBD 2017 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet 2018, 392, 1789–1858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Donaldson, S.I.; Lee, J.Y.; Donaldson, S.I. Evaluating Positive Psychology Interventions at Work: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Appl. Posit. Psychol. 2019, 4, 113–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. 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, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Vesala, H.; Tuomivaara, S. Slowing work down by teleworking periodically in rural settings? Pers. Rev. 2015, 44, 511–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Moen, P.; Kelly, E.L.; Fan, W.; Lee, S.-R.; Almeida, D.; Kossek, E.E.; Buxton, O.M. Does a Flexibility/Support Organizational Initiative Improve High-Tech Employees’ Well-Being? Evidence from the Work, Family, and Health Network. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2016, 81, 134–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Egan, M.; Bambra, C.; Thomas, S.; Petticrew, M.; Whitehead, M.; Thomson, H. The psychosocial and health effects of workplace reorganisation. 1. A systematic review of organisational-level interventions that aim to increase employee control. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2007, 61, 945–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Nijp, H.H.; Beckers, D.G.; Geurts, S.A.; 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]
  21. Joyce, K.; Pabayo, R.; Critchley, J.A.; Bambra, C. Flexible working conditions and their effects on employee health and wellbeing. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2010, 2010, CD008009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int. J. Surg. 2021, 88, e1003583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Sterne, J.A.C.; Savovic, J.; Page, M.J.; Elbers, R.G.; Blencowe, N.S.; Boutron, I.; Cates, C.J.; Cheng, H.Y.; Corbett, M.S.; Eldridge, S.M.; et al. RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019, 366, l4898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Sterne, J.A.; Hernan, M.A.; Reeves, B.C.; Savovic, J.; Berkman, N.D.; Viswanathan, M.; Henry, D.; Altman, D.G.; Ansari, M.T.; Boutron, I.; et al. ROBINS-I: A tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016, 355, i4919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Moola, S.; Munn, Z.; Tufanaru, C.; Aromataris, E.; Sears, K.; Sfetcu, R.; Currie, M.; Qureshi, R.; Mattis, P.; Lisy, K.; et al. Systematic reviews of etiology and risk. In Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual; Chapter, 7, Aromataris, E., Munn, Z., Eds.; The Joanna Briggs Institute: Adelaide, Australia, 2017; Available online: https://reviewersmanual.joannabriggs.org/ (accessed on 29 March 2022).
  26. Ding, H.; Hu, G.L.; Zheng, X.Y.; Chen, Q.; Threapleton, D.E.; Zhou, Z.H. The method quality of cross-over studies involved in Cochrane Systematic Reviews. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0120519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Moen, P.; Kelly, E.L.; Tranby, E.; Huang, Q. Changing work, changing health: Can real work-time flexibility promote health behaviors and well-being? J. Health Soc. Behav. 2011, 52, 404–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Nabe-Nielsen, K.; Garde, A.H.; Diderichsen, F. The effect of work-time influence on health and well-being: A quasi-experimental intervention study among eldercare workers. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 2011, 84, 683–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Albrecht, S.C.; Leineweber, C.; Ojajärvi, A.; Oksanen, T.; Kecklund, G.; Härmä, M. Association of work-time control with sickness absence due to musculoskeletal and mental disorders: An occupational cohort study. J. Occup. Health 2020, 62, e12181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Vahtera, J.; Laine, S.; Virtanen, M.; Oksanen, T.; Koskinen, A.; Pentti, J.; Kivimaki, M. Employee control over working times and risk of cause-specific disability pension: The Finnish Public Sector Study. Occup. Environ. Med. 2010, 67, 479–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ala-Mursula, L.; Vahtera, J.; Pentti, J.; Kivimaki, M. Effect of employee worktime control on health: A prospective cohort study. Occup. Environ. Med. 2004, 61, 254–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Aronsson, V.; Toivanen, S.; Leineweber, C.; Nyberg, A. Can a poor psychosocial work environment and insufficient organizational resources explain the higher risk of ill-health and sickness absence in human service occupations? Evidence from a Swedish national cohort. Scand. J. Public Health 2019, 47, 310–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lee, Y.; Eissenstat, S.J. A longitudinal examination of the causes and effects of burnout based on the job demands-resources model. Int. J. Educ. Vocat. Guid. 2018, 18, 337–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Albrecht, S.C.; Kecklund, G.; Rajaleid, K.; Leineweber, C. The longitudinal relationship between control over working hours and depressive symptoms: Results from SLOSH, a population-based cohort study. J. Affect. Disord. 2017, 215, 143–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Albrecht, S.C.; Kecklund, G.; Leineweber, C. The mediating effect of work-life interference on the relationship between work-time control and depressive and musculoskeletal symptoms. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 2020, 46, 469–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Windeler, J.B.; Chudoba, K.M.; Sundrup, R.Z. Getting away from them all: Managing exhaustion from social interaction with telework. J. Organiz. Behav. 2017, 38, 977–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Henke, R.M.; Benevent, R.; Schulte, P.; Rinehart, C.; Crighton, K.A.; Corcoran, M. The Effects of Telecommuting Intensity on Employee Health. Am. J. Health Promot. 2016, 30, 604–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kubo, T.; Takahashi, M.; Liu, X.; Ikeda, H.; Togo, F.; Shimazu, A.; Tanaka, K.; Kamata, N.; Kubo, Y.; Uesugi, J. Fatigue and Sleep Among Employees with Prospective Increase in Work Time Control: A 1-Year Observational Study with Objective Assessment. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2016, 58, 1066–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Shepherd-Banigan, M.; Bell, J.F.; Basu, A.; Booth-LaForce, C.; Harris, J.R. Workplace Stress and Working from Home Influence Depressive Symptoms Among Employed Women with Young Children. Int. J. Behav. Med. 2016, 23, 102–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Timms, C.; Brough, P.; O’Driscoll, M.; Kalliath, T.; Siu, O.L.; Sit, C.; Lo, D. Flexible work arrangements, work engagement, turnover intentions and psychological health. Asia Pac. J. Hum. Resour. 2015, 53, 83–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Takahashi, M.; Iwasaki, K.; Sasaki, T.; Kubo, T.; Mori, I.; Otsuka, Y. Sleep, fatigue, recovery, and depression after change in work time control: A one-year follow-up study. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2012, 54, 1078–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hornung, S.; Glaser, J.; Rousseau, D.M.; Angerer, P.; Weigl, M. Employee-oriented leadership and quality of working life: Mediating roles of idiosyncratic deals. Psychol. Rep. 2011, 108, 59–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Carlson, D.S.; Grzywacz, J.G.; Kacmar, K.M. The relationship of schedule flexibility and outcomes via the work-family interface. J. Manag. Psychol. 2010, 25, 330–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Leineweber, C.; Falkenberg, H.; Albrecht, S.C. Parent’s Relative Perceived Work Flexibility Compared to Their Partner Is Associated with Emotional Exhaustion. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Carlson, D.S.; Grzywacz, J.G.; Ferguson, M.; Hunter, E.M.; Clinch, C.R.; Arcury, T.A. Health and turnover of working mothers after childbirth via the work-family interface: An analysis across time. J. Appl. Psychol. 2011, 96, 1045–1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Tucker, P.; Albrecht, S.; Kecklund, G.; Beckers, D.G.; Leineweber, C. Work time control, sleep & accident risk: A prospective cohort study. Chronobiol. Int. 2016, 33, 619–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Virtanen, M.; Ferrie, J.E.; Singh-Manoux, A.; Shipley, M.J.; Stansfeld, S.A.; Marmot, M.G.; Ahola, K.; Vahtera, J.; Kivimaki, M. Long working hours and symptoms of anxiety and depression: A 5-year follow-up of the Whitehall II study. Psychol. Med. 2011, 41, 2485–2494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Schiller, H.; Lekander, M.; Rajaleid, K.; Hellgren, C.; Akerstedt, T.; Barck-Holst, P.; Kecklund, G. The impact of reduced worktime on sleep and perceived stress—A group randomized intervention study using diary data. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 2017, 43, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  49. D’Oliveira, T.C.; Anagnostopoulos, A. The Association Between Shift Work and Affective Disorders: A Systematic Review. Chronobiol. Int. 2021, 38, 182–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Guyatt, G.; Oxman, A.D.; Akl, E.A.; Kunz, R.; Vist, G.; Brozek, J.; Norris, S.; Falck-Ytter, Y.; Glasziou, P.; DeBeer, H.; et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2011, 64, 383–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Brief description of the characteristics of studies included in the review.
Table 1. Brief description of the characteristics of studies included in the review.
N of StudiesStudyCountryFollow-Up Time (Years)PopulationSampleAge (Mean, Range, or %)% of Female SexExposure or InterventionOutcomeResults
Cluster randomized controlled trials
1Moen 2016 [18]USA1Employees and managers of a large firm’s IT division865 (436 intervention group, 429 control group)Birth year: 1946–198037.9The intervention to facilitate working at home and to improve employees’ control over working time, shift scheduling, and when, where, and how to do their work.Burnout, perceived stress, psychological distressAmong total sample, the intervention significantly decreased burnout.
Non-randomized controlled trials
2Moen 2011 [27]USA0.5White-collar workers of corporate headquarters of Best Buy Co., Inc.659 (325 intervention, 334 control)3248.4The natural experiment moved employees from conventional practices to environments wherein they did not need permission to modify their work location or schedules.Emotional exhaustion, psychological distressIntervention did not directly change emotional exhaustion or psychological distress, but indirectly affected these outcomes by increasing schedule control and decreasing negative work-home spillover, which both improved well-being outcomes.
3Nabe-Nielsen 2011 [28]Denmark1Eldercare workers35 intervention subgroup A, 187 controls44 to 45 100Worktime self-scheduling via a computer program (subgroup A)Self-reported stressThe intervention increased employee involvement in planning of their working hours but did not decrease stress.
Cross-over studies
4Mache 2020 [16]Germany1Full-time employees of a large technology company713953.5Transition into open workspaces including flexible working arrangementsOccupational stressOccupational stress decreased one year after flexible working arrangements.
5Vesala 2015 [17]Finland0.1 to 0.25A sample of knowledge workers394450One week telework in the rural archipelago environmentStress, emotional exhaustion, and work engagementStress reduced during the telework period and did not reach the original level after experiment. Emotional exhaustion reduced during telework but returned to the original level after experiment. Telework had no effect on work engagement.
Prospective cohort studies
6Albrecht 2020a [29]Finland7Full-time employees of public sector2259939% were ≥50 years75Worktime controlSickness absence due to depression or anxietyControl over daily hours and control over time off were not associated with sickness absence due to depression or anxiety.
6Vahtera 2010 [30]Finland4.4Employees of public sector3070044.877.5Worktime controlDisability pension due to mental disordersSelf-assessed, but not co-worker assessed worktime control was associated with lower risk of disability pension among women.
6Ala-Mursula 2004 [31]Finland3Permanent full-time employees of public sector4218Men 46, women 4578.6Worktime controlPsychological distressLow worktime control was related to high psychological distress in women.
7Aronsson 2019 [32]Sweden2General working population who worked at least 30% full-time44085158Worktime controlBurnoutPopulation attributable fraction of burnout for low worktime control was 5% for human service occupations and 7% for other occupations.
8Lee 2018 [33]USA1.5Employees from 26 different technology offices507Not reported45Control over working hours/scheduleBurnoutA positive correlation between low control over working hours and burnout.
9Albrecht 2017 [34]Sweden6General working population27224758.6Worktime controlDepressive symptomsLow control over daily hours and low control over time off were associated with higher subsequent depressive symptoms.
9Albrecht 2020b [35]Sweden6General working population268044955.4Worktime controlDepressive symptomsWork-life imbalance partially mediated the relationship between worktime control and depressive symptoms.
10Windeler 2017 [36]USA0.3Employees of the IT business unit of a financial services firm514339Teleworking for 1–2 days per weekWork exhaustionWork exhaustion increased as interpersonal interaction increased. Part-time telework reduced the effect of interpersonal interaction on work exhaustion.
11Henke 2016 [37]USA2Active prudential financial employees370388% were <55 years62Prime time telecommuters, off-hour telecommutersDepression, stressA U-shaped or J-shaped association between the number of hours worked from home per month and depression. No association with stress.
12Kubo 2016 [38]Japan1Employees of a manufacturing industry and a research institute3741.923Worktime controlSubjectively assessed accumulated fatigue and objectively measured fatigueIncrease in worktime control during one-year follow-up was not associated with accumulated fatigue but had positive effect on objectively measured fatigue.
13Shepherd-Banigan 2016 [39]USA2Working women who returned to work within six months after childbirth57029.6100Schedule flexibility, working from homeDepressive symptomsWorking from home reduced depressive symptoms, but schedule flexibility and number of hours worked from home were not associated with changes in depressive symptoms.
14Timms 2015 [40]Australia1Employees representing education, banking, and public/community services8234372Flexible working arrangementsPsychological strain work engagementUse of flexible work arrangement was associated with lower work engagement and higher psychological strain.
15Takahashi 2012 [41]Japan1.3Daytime managers, professionals, and clerical, sales or transportation workers238240.634.8Worktime controlFatigue, depressive symptomsHigh worktime control was related to lower levels of fatigue and depressive symptoms.
16Hornung 2011 [42]Germany1Medical doctors9139.447Flexibility idiosyncratic deals: (1) working time flexibility, (2) work schedule flexibility, and (3) influence over working hours.Work-family conflict, work-related well-being (work engagement).Idiosyncratic deals related were not associated with work-family conflict or with work engagement.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram of the studies selection.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram of the studies selection.
Healthcare 10 00883 g001
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Shiri, R.; Turunen, J.; Kausto, J.; Leino-Arjas, P.; Varje, P.; Väänänen, A.; Ervasti, J. The Effect of Employee-Oriented Flexible Work on Mental Health: A Systematic Review. Healthcare 2022, 10, 883. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10050883

AMA Style

Shiri R, Turunen J, Kausto J, Leino-Arjas P, Varje P, Väänänen A, Ervasti J. The Effect of Employee-Oriented Flexible Work on Mental Health: A Systematic Review. Healthcare. 2022; 10(5):883. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10050883

Chicago/Turabian Style

Shiri, Rahman, Jarno Turunen, Johanna Kausto, Päivi Leino-Arjas, Pekka Varje, Ari Väänänen, and Jenni Ervasti. 2022. "The Effect of Employee-Oriented Flexible Work on Mental Health: A Systematic Review" Healthcare 10, no. 5: 883. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10050883

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