Executive Summary
Working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic became the new normal as many countries adopted measures to curb the spread of infection. However, the process of transitioning from working in the office with mental and material support had a greater impact on workers. This study aims to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on the mental well-being of individuals working from home during the pandemic.
All the studies reviewed indicated that home-based office operations during the COVID-19 pandemic affected employees’ psychological well-being. The results indicated that functioning from one’s residence increased stress, anxiety, and depression levels. Causes of mental health issues found include loneliness, lack of communication with colleagues and supervisors, lack of social interactions, distractions, and lack of a conducive working environment. Thus, the study concluded that COVID-19 influenced mental health among staff operating from their homes during the pandemic.
Background
COVID-19 is the greatest nightmare the world has experienced in recent times. The disease caught the world off guard, with no clear information on its cause, prevention approaches, or cure. The virus is a transmissible respiratory illness produced by a strain of coronavirus that leads to sickness in humans (Ciotti et al., 2020).
The infection can move from an ill individual’s mouth or nose in small microscopic particles through coughing, sneezing, speaking, or breathing (Watkins, 2020). A person can contract the virus by breathing in air from someone who already has COVID-19 or by touching a contaminated surface and then touching their eyes, nose, or mouth (Cullen, Gulati, and Kelly, 2020). The virus can move from one person to another in crowded areas, hence the importance of social distancing.
Due to its easy transmission mode, many people globally were infected and affected by the virus. Millions contracted the disease, and large numbers of people died in a very short period since the infection hit the world. As of August 28, 2022, there have been nearly 601 million coronavirus (COVID-19) cases worldwide, with 16% of these cases occurring in the United States (Elflein, 2022). As of August 29, 2022, the COVID-19 disease had spread to nearly every part of the globe, and approximately 6.49 million individuals had passed away as a result of the virus (Elflein, 2022). Above one million deaths occurred in the United States.
Due to its dangers, the virus required various approaches to protect people from its threat, as no single cure had been found. Many countries enforced lockdowns to prevent the disease from spreading, forcing people to stay at home without going to work or school (Padhan & Prabheesh, 2021). Many employers adopted the work-from-home method to ensure their operations continued as usual.
Working from home (WFH) means executing office mandates from home or residence instead of working from the office. Various firms have a WFH program that permits their personnel to operate away from the office, either all the time or partly (Irlacher & Koch, 2021). Video conferencing structures and collaborative technology allow staff to communicate and pass on important information despite their geographical location.
There are entirely remote and even WFH works, so workers function from home daily (Irlacher & Koch, 2021). WFH employees often design a home office or structure a certain space in their house. They can focus and be productive. According to Bloom (2020), although various categories of jobs can be utilized to work from home, other professionals cannot be employed from home. Many workers in merchandising, clinical fields, the transport industry, and commercial services are not free to work away from their offices because they must interact with their consumers on a one-on-one basis and require materials and equipment only available at their place of work (Bloom, 2020). The latter means that even with the COVID-19 lockdowns, some people still needed to be at work, especially the healthcare workers who played a key role in fighting the pandemic.
Working at home ensures people are safe from COVID-19 and can earn a living. Most workplaces that could not implement the policy of working from home ended up closing, and many people worldwide lost their jobs. This model was adopted as a protection measure to ensure that those not infected were not infected and that those who had contracted the virus did not pass it to others. The efficiency of isolation methods in curbing COVID-19 contagion and transmission has been proven (Atalan, 2020; Feng et al., 2020; Oraby et al., 2021).
The WFH policy limited interactions between people, reducing the infection rates, which motivated the use of the home approach (Alfano & Ercolano, 2020). This work method permits individuals to operate in their houses or other areas through technology without time and place limitations (Moretti et al., 2020). In 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) endorsed working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic for the entire workforce (WHO, 2020). WHO suggested that personnel with mental and physical disabilities should continue operating from their homes even after the virus.
The rates of WFH increased greatly across the globe during the COVID-19 period. For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy, the number of people WFH increased by 69% (Chirico et al., 2021). In the U.S., as of September 2021, 45% of full-time personnel functioned from their homes, including 25% who worked from home all the time and 20% who worked from home part of the time. 45% of people working in the U.S. increased from 8.2% of persons WFH before COVID-19 (Bick, Blandin, and Mertens, 2020).
In 2021, among the people who worked from home in the U.S., 91% argued that they desired to continue working from home even after COVID-19. Additionally, 54% of staff reported they believed their firm’s principles would not change because of WFH, whereas 12% said it would advance, and 33% projected it would depreciate (Saad & Wigert, 2021). Thus, the above varying opinion demonstrates the uncertainty caused by the pandemic.
Before the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany, only 4% of the citizens worked from home. With the first lockdown in April 2020, the rate of persons operating from their residence rose to 27%. At the end of 2019, only 5% of the WFH in the UK was working from home (White, 2018). With COVID-19, the number rose to 43.1% in April 2020 (Taylor, Scholarios, and Howcroft, 2021). These statistics show that working from home existed before the novel coronavirus erupted in 2019. Its levels increased during the pandemic, especially after the World Health Organization declared isolation and working from home as measures to control the spread of the virus.
WFH has various benefits, including flexibility, especially for those who care for young children, sick loved ones, and people living with a disability. Additionally, this approach reduces the cost of travel to and from work, saves commuting time, and reduces psychological stress, resulting in increased efficiency and productivity and higher employee motivation (Moretti et al., 2020). Working at home could allow people to choose their own work schedules that are appropriate for them. It also provided people with an opportunity to spend time with their families. Various surveys showed that most people were comfortable working at home and executed their duties effectively and on time (Birimoglu Okuyan & Begen, 2022; Ipsen et al., 2021; Hallman et al., 2021).
In addition, Ipsen et al. (2021) indicated three advantages of working from home: work-life balance, improved work efficiency, and greater control. The above-discussed studies revealed that though working remotely during COVID-19 was abrupt, those who could quickly adjust to the new normal benefited greatly. This approach to working gives people free personal space that is unavailable at work. Moreover, working from home is an achievable and maintainable answer to modern cities’ challenges like the traffic congestion, unfavorable surroundings, and social and financial effects (Loo & Huang, 2022).
Rachmawati et al. (2021) argued that working from home benefits larger towns as it results in decreased population organization. This, in turn, reduces overcrowding and transportation expenses and enhances the effectiveness of working time by lessening travel time. Reducing the number of people going to work every morning reduces the number of people driving daily, decongesting the cities and roads.
However, working from home during the pandemic came abruptly and quickly changed people’s lives. No gradual change could have given people time to process the changes. The latter means that the way of life for many has changed completely, and this comes with some levels of stress and mental disturbances that might persist over time and result in mental illnesses if not addressed.
The WFH phase for COVID-19 was not necessarily the employees’ will but the enforcement to protect people from the virus. Therefore, people had no option to accept or reject the policy; hence, to some individuals, it would be forced isolation they never bargained for, and this could come with psychological distress. Additionally, social distancing prevented people from engaging in social activities they loved, and this could leave people stressed or depressed. Therefore, though there are various advantages of working from home, they will vary from one individual to another, and others could find it challenging to adjust to the ‘new normal, developing mental health issues.
Past investigations have demonstrated that operating from home and the lockdown could affect people differently. For instance, Bonacini, Gallo, and Scicchitano (2021) revealed that a positive shift in WFH feasibility would be connected with a rise in average labor revenue. Nonetheless, these probable advantages might not be equally distributed among all workers. Bonacini et al. (2021) added that increasing the opportunities for working from home would favor male, older, highly educated, and highly paid employees.
Moreover, according to Bonacini et al. (2021), the approach would benefit more employees living in provinces more affected by the novel coronavirus. The above findings indicate that people respond to situations differently; some individuals benefit from working from home, while others develop psychological issues.
Working from home also affected employers and the types of work done differently. For instance, in a study, Bao et al. (2022) found that WFH positively and negatively affected developer productivity regarding different metrics, like the number of builds/commits/and code reviews. Moreover, Bao et al. (2022) discovered that WFH had different influences on tasks with diverse features. For instance, WFH adversely influenced designer productivity for large projects. Researchers also agree that working from home saves employees’ and employers’ financial expenses (Beno, 2021; Alipour, Fadinger, and Schymik, 2021). Workers save on costs for transport and lunch, while employers can save on the finances used to sustain employees at work.
The differences in how working at home affects people can be connected to various aspects. As per Xiao et al. (2021), changes in physical exercise, food intake, communication with coworkers, having children at home, and workstation set-up influenced the variation in how people adjusted to WFH. Oakman et al. (2020) added that the effects of working on health consequences were highly influenced by the degree of organizational support given to staff, colleague support, social connectedness (outside of work), and levels of work-to-family conflict.
The study indicated that women were less likely to experience improved health outcomes when working from home. Working from home positively and negatively influences employees. The latter implies that working from home can also impact workers’ mental health. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on people’s mental health when they are required to work from home.
Aim of the Study
The COVID-19 pandemic forced governments to lock down their countries, halting both external and internal movements. Many companies allowed workers to work from home to protect them from contracting the virus. However, the change to operating remotely came with both physical and emotional changes.
Most people were isolated during this period. Many became lonely and had to change their lifestyles and adopt new ways of living. Changes require people to adjust psychologically, which is never easy; hence, many end up with mental health issues due to trying to adapt to the new normal. This review was, therefore, important and necessary for comprehending how working from home during the COVID-19 period mentally influenced the lives of workers.
Theoretical Review
This review was based on the person-environment fit model, which explains the interaction between humans and their working environment. Working in a conducive environment is a civil right for every employee. Organizations and their stakeholders must understand how well the features of the person and the organization’s environment fit (Van Vianen, 2018).
Administrations desire to pick employees who will best meet the job demands, adapt to their working environment and changes in job demands, and remain loyal and committed to the organization. Similarly, potential personnel seek institutions that utilize their particular abilities and meet their needs (Van Vianen, 2018). Achieving the goals of firms and workers requires collaboration and compromise among all parties.
The person-environment (P-E) fit is a theory that aims to understand the relationship between employees and their work environment. The model explains the adjustment process between organizational members and their work environments. The theory was initially proposed by French, Rodgers, and Cobb (1974) (Liu et al., 2019). The P-E fit has various properties that can be of both theoretical and empirical value in understanding organizational adjustment. One of the features is the operational necessity to assess the characteristics of the person and the environment along commensurate dimensions (Van Vianen, 2018).
The above aspect enables the definition of goodness of fit as the discrepancy between P and E. The second property differentiates between objective and subjective measures of fit and its constituents (Liu et al., 2019). The latter makes it possible to describe the accuracy of perception as an inconsistency between objective and subjective fit. A third property distinguishes between fit, defined in terms of abilities, environmental demands, and needs, and environmental supplies.
Needs-Supplies and Demands-Abilities Fit
Recent literature on organizational stress suggests that needs for autonomy and control are important predictors of job satisfaction in the work setting. The need for affiliation/social support/nurturance is also important. For each such need, one can derive the commensurate supply.
For example, if the person requires a particular level of task clarity, one can attempt to assess the degree to which tasks are clarified. Consequently, one type of fit can be called needs-supplies (Van Vianen, 2018). Demands-abilities fit deals with whether the person has the abilities that fit the work’s demands. For example, jobs vary in their requirements for mathematical, motor, verbal, analytic, and social skills (see above citations for examples of detailed taxonomies).
Needs-supplies fit the perspective of the employees enquiring about what they could benefit from their job, and the employers asking what they can do to keep the best employees. On the other hand, the demands-abilities fit represents the employees’ perspective, where they ask themselves what they are expected to do to retain their jobs, and employers ask what they want from their employees (De Cooman et al., 2019).
It becomes essential to differentiate between these two types of P-E fit when attempting to predict employee retention and performance. Focusing on one type of fit can leave out important elements of the exchange process (Van Vianen, 2018). These elements are necessary to clarify the obligations and expectations that form the psychological contract between the employer and employee.
Subjective and Objective Fit
The subjective fit refers to what is perceived by the target person, in this case, the employee. By definition, the objective fit is free of human perception bias. The above can include details about the person and their environment that they are not aware of. The subjective bias aspect can result in P-E misfit, resulting in two outcomes (De Cooman et al., 2019). One set of outcomes includes psychological, physical, and behavioral strains, defined as deviances from normal functioning.
Psychological strains incorporate dissatisfaction, anxiety, dysphoria, insomnia, or restlessness. Physiological tensions might include high blood pressure, increased serum cholesterol, and compromised immune system functioning. Behavioral symptoms might include smoking, overeating, absenteeism, and frequent use of health care services. The above response for the P-E is risk factors for disease and mental health issues.
The second set of outcomes under the subjective-objective fit comprises determinations to resolve P-E misfit through coping and defense. Coping entails improving the accurate P-E fit by changing the objective person or environment (De Cooman et al., 2019). For instance, an individual experiencing excess work demands may opt to train to improve their skills or attempt to negotiate the working terms to reduce the workload.
On the other hand, defense involves efforts to enhance subjective P-E fit through cognitive restructuring of the subjective person or environment, without altering their objective counterparts (Van Vianen, 2018). For example, individuals may react to work overload by overestimating their capabilities, downplaying, or ignoring excess demands.
Person and Environment
The third concept of person-environment fit theory believes in the commensuration of person and environment characteristics. For both needs-supplies, fit and demands-abilities fit, P-E fit theory requires that a person and environment all strive to refer to the same content dimension (Van Vianen, 2018). For example, needs-supplies fit regarding accomplishment should involve comparing the need for success with opportunities for success in the surroundings.
Similarly, demands-abilities fit regarding workload would involve comparing the amount of work to be conducted with the amount of work the person can do (Liu et al., 2019). This balances what needs to be done and the available materials to achieve the goals. The person-environment fit forms the basis for this study because it describes how the interaction between people and their working surroundings can result in satisfaction and high productivity. The theory also describes how the relationship can result in dissatisfaction, poor productivity, and mental and physical exhaustion. Working from home means a person is responsible for creating a conducive working environment.
On the other hand, when working in the office, the employer is responsible for creating better working conditions. The change in working environments during the COVID-19 period meant that the responsibilities of the working environment were transferred from the employer to the employee. The latter comes with many changes, which can create a person-environment misfit, leading to physical and psychological strains.
A perfect example of the above is that when working at home, one will not have the support of colleagues, and the person has to prepare psychologically for the fact that their working environment has completely changed. Working at home also requires less material support (Hayes et al., 2021; Sahni, 2020). For instance, while working at the office, one could use another machine if one’s machine is faulty. In contrast, at home, there are no alternatives. These factors might explain why working at home comes with reduced mental health.
Moreover, working from home adds more responsibilities to the employees, especially women with children. It interrupts work schedules; hence, the worker might not fully concentrate or finish their work on time (Kumar et al., 2021; Bergefurt et al., 2021). The earlier mentioned shows that a person-environment misfit can result in emotional distress. Men can concentrate more on working from home than women in most instances because they are less likely to be disturbed by children or caregiving responsibilities (Şentürk et al., 2021; Nidhi et al., 2021).
The latter is because females are more easily distracted by house chores than males. The person-environment fit theory is, therefore, the appropriate theory to form a basis for explaining how working remotely during the COVID-19 lockdown can impact mental health. Working from home can be challenging because it changes the working conditions, lack of support from workmates, defective materials, and personal responsibility to cater to operational capital. The above factors create an imbalance between the person and their environment, resulting in mental disturbance.
Methodology
This study employed a systematic review research method, one of the most utilized study models in clinical practice. This approach aims to summarize all the available primary research in response to a research question. A systematic review uses all the existing research and is sometimes referred to as ‘secondary research’ or (research on research) because it utilizes data from already done studies.
Systematic reviews answer research questions by synthesizing all accessible information and evaluating the quality of the data. The approach combines several pieces of information from different authors to tell a cohesive story. Since it combines various studies, the design generates both qualitative and quantitative data. Systematic reviews rely on search engines where past studies are published to acquire what has been done before regarding the study question under scrutiny.
The researcher searched information related to the influence of COVID-19 on the mental health of people working from home during the pandemic from BMC Public Health, Google Scholar, and PubMed. To get clearer information, the search was divided into three parts: the influence of working from home on the level of stress during the COVID-19 pandemic; the impact of working from home on depression among employees during the COVID-19 pandemic; and the effect of WFH on anxiety among workers during the pandemic. The researcher thought it better to divide mental health into stress, depression, and anxiety to get more advanced data on the question under study.
The systematic review yielded 200 studies on the effects of working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic period. Of the 200, 13 studies met the inclusion criteria, and the researcher adopted them for this review. The included studies examined the effects of work-from-home on mental health in terms of stress, depression, and anxiety in people working from home regardless of their age, gender, type of work, or financial or social status.
Characteristics of the Studies
A total of 13 studies were included in this study; the majority of the studies (6) utilized the cross-sectional research model, four engaged online interviews, one quick, systematic review like the one used in the current study, one telephone interview, and one online questionnaire. Among the 13 studies, 12 collected primary data from a total sample of 6,618 respondents who participated; the other study was a systematic review like the current investigation. The studies gathered data to explain the influence of working from home on mental health in terms of anxiety, depression, and stress during the COVID-19 period. The studies covered various countries and engaged a diverse population across all working ages, working categories, and men and women.
Findings
Influence of Working from Home on the Level of Stress
Galanti and other investigators evaluated the effect of family-work conflict, social isolation, distracting environment, job autonomy, and self-leadership on workers’ output, work engagement, and stress experienced when WFH during the pandemic. Galanti et al. (2021) employed a cross-sectional approach and collected data through an online questionnaire completed by 209 personnel working from home during the pandemic. The study indicated that workers’ family-work conflict and social isolation were negatively linked. In contrast, self-leadership and autonomy were positively connected to WFH productivity and WFH engagement. Further, the findings indicated that family-work conflict and social isolation were adversely related to WFH stress, which was not influenced by autonomy and self-leadership.
Sahni examined how organizations and individuals adjusted to changes and challenges in working at home. Sahni (2020) collected data through 23 in-depth interviews (Male 12; female 13, the average age of 39 years). The study population comprised middle-level managers in the public and private service industry of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The examination was based on the Conservation of Resources theory (COR).
Sahni (2020) found that employees had moderate to high stress levels. The findings further revealed that stress was caused by fear of the unknown, ineffective communication with colleagues, lack of clarity and direction, and disruptions when WFH caused a loss of resources like time and energy. These issues might disturb employee mental health, leading to prolonged stress.
Hayes and other investigators evaluated the influence of involuntary remote working during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic on perceived stress and work-related burnout for workers with and without previous experience working from home. Hayes et al. (2021) adopted a transversal, self-report online questionnaire that gathered primary data, and the sample consisted of 256 professionals who self-identified as working at home during the pandemic.
Hayes et al. (2021) found that the pandemic restrictions increased perceived stress for all participants, but age and gender substantially influenced stress and burnout. Additionally, the outcome showed that burnout was most prevalent for workers working from home before COVID-19. The major challenges that caused stress and burnout included: communication, collaboration, and time management with fellow workers through technology.
Bergefurt and colleagues analyzed the influence of workspace and personal characteristics on employees’ stress and burnout levels, mediated by workspace distractions at home. Bergefurt et al. (2021) adopted a cross-sectional approach; the sample consisted of male and female employees with regular jobs. Data were collected from November to December 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, among 271 employees of a large Dutch technology company. The analysis indicated a major influence of workspace distractions on stress levels and disengagement from the job, which was affected by physical workspace characteristics. These findings imply that distractions at home are likely to cause stress, especially when one has no private working space.
Scholars analyzed the effect of COVID-19-induced stressors (role overload, lifestyle choices, family distraction, and occupational discomfort) on employees’ distress levels and job performance. Kumar et al. (2021) examined the impact of such distress and job performance on the employees’ life satisfaction during the lockdown period. Kumar et al. (2021) gathered information via an online survey from 433 working professionals of private and public organizations in Delhi, India, in the third and fourth phases of lockdown.
The outcome of the analysis revealed that COVID-19-induced stressors were significant predictors of distress during the lockdown. The results showed that family distraction, occupational discomfort, and distress significantly influenced work productivity, with distress being the most significant. Kumar et al. (2021) concluded that during the COVID-19 pandemic, life satisfaction has decreased because of the substantial rise in distress levels and lowered job success.
Influence of Working from Home on the Level of Depression
Platts and other scholars investigated the effects of enforced home working under lockdown on employee well-being via markers of stress, burnout, depressive symptoms, and sleep. Platts, Breckon, and Marshall (2022) utilized the cross-sectional data gathered over 12 weeks through a virtual survey; the study engaged 623 participants. The study’s findings indicated that 81% of participants worked full-time or part-time from home. The study also demonstrated that high levels of negative health effects of working at home were experienced by persons with prior mental health conditions, irrespective of age, gender, or work status, and were worsened by overworking.
Among those workers without existing psychological issues, contributors to stress and depressive symptoms were being female, under 45 years, home-working part-time, and having two dependents. Moreover, men reported greater levels of work-life conflict, while place and work patterns had a greater influence on females. Platts et al. (2022) concluded that minimal leadership quality was a major contributor to stress and burnout for both men and women, and, for personnel aged > 45 years, had substantial effects on the level of depressive symptoms experienced.
Şentürk and other authors evaluated the predictors of depression, anxiety, and stress among first-time remote workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Şentürk et al. (2021) explored sex variations at work and home during the COVID-19 pandemic. The researchers included 459 participants working from home for the first time during the COVID-19 pandemic. The scholars collected primary data through an online survey. Şentürk et al. (2021) revealed that the prevalence of depression, anxiety, and stress among the participants was 17.9%, 19.6%, and 19.6%, respectively.
Further, the scholars discovered that poor sleep quality, trouble focusing at work, being female, workplace loneliness, low control over working hours, and low levels of physical activity predicted depression. Poor sleep quality, increased workload, and being female were predictors of anxiety. Insomnia, lack of concentration, being female, financial concerns, and workplace isolation projected anxiety levels.
Burn and other researchers assessed the experiences of working women during the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic and evaluated the aspects linked with women experiencing the symptoms of depression. Burn et al. (2022) utilized a cross-sectional survey of European working women across France, Italy, Poland, Sweden, and the UK.
The study engaged a sample of 2,659 participants with observations. Burn et al. (2022) found that women working from home experienced a higher prevalence of symptoms of depression compared to other women traveling to a workplace every day. Moreover, the study’s results showed that maintaining contact with people face-to-face and participating in exercise were substantial protective elements against experiencing symptoms of depression during a period of social distancing.
Examiners examined the connection between various features linked with working from home status (WFHS) and positive/negative experiences because of social distancing and their related effects on depressive symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic. The researchers collected data by conducting telephone interviews with 200 participants (Yu, Lau, and Lau, 2022). The study’s outcome revealed mild to severe levels of depression among 12% of the respondents.
The incidence of depression among WFH categories was 14% for 3-7 days and 13% for ≥ 8 days. Additionally, Yu et al. (2022) illustrated that working from home for eight days considerably mediated social seclusion’s risk/protective effects, enhanced family relationships, and reduced depressive symptoms. From this study, as indicated above, the more days working from home, the higher the psychological issues.
Influence of Working from Home on the Level of Anxiety
Researchers investigated the work challenges and psychological difficulties experienced by working women working from home during COVID-19. Nidhi et al. (2021) conducted a cross-sectional survey using Google Forms among 209 married women in India. The researchers sent the respondents a link to the questionnaire through email, WhatsApp, and other social media platforms. Nidhi et al. (2021) revealed that 60.3% of women worked more than 8 hours a day, and 64.6% of women worked for 2-5 days a week. 32.1% of women reported dissatisfaction with their working hours’ arrangement. The major outcome of the study showed that the arrangement of working hours was strongly associated with general anxiety regarding coronavirus (p < 0.001).
Scholars explored the extent to which employees’ mental health impacts their productivity while working from home (WFH) during the COVID-19 crisis and whether psychological welfare and productivity differed across different socio-demographic features. Sutarto, Wardaningsih, and Putri (2021) adopted a cross-sectional study model and used an online questionnaire to gather data from 472 respondents. Sutarto et al. (2021) showed that the prevalence of depression was 18.4%, anxiety at 46.4%, and stress at 13.1%, with relatively good work performance.
Further, the outcome of the investigation demonstrated that gender, age, education level, job experiences, marital status, number of children, and nature of the organization were linked with the workers’ psychological health but not with their performance. The availability of workspaces has impacted both mental health and work productivity. Sutarto et al. (2021) concluded a negative correlation between workers’ psychological well-being and job performance.
A study evaluated the psychopathological influence of teleworking during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy and identified mental health causes among home-based workers. The authors engaged a sample of 804 respondents who filled out an online survey, incorporating the psychometric scales “Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale – 21 items” (DASS-21) and the “Insomnia Severity Index” (ISI) (Bertino et al., 2021).
Bertino et al. (2021) found that 30% of the workers experienced pathological levels of depression, 20.8% of anxiety, and 30.7% of stress. Additionally, 5% of the participants reported that they had insomnia. The participants with mental and somatic infirmities, high social loneliness, or insufficient working spaces revealed higher incidences of psychiatric symptoms.
An investigation described the mental and physical adverse impacts of WFH among workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Chirico et al. (2021) did a quick, systematic literature review on PubMed/Medline using pre-defined search terms. For inclusion in the review, studies were needed to focus solely on previously healthy adults, white collar/professional employees, and teachers (full-time or part-time) working from home during working hours and to include mental or physical health-related outcomes of workers (Chirico et al., 2021).
Chirico et al. (2021) extracted data using a standardized form and included the country of study, study design, details of participants, industry setting, the measure used, and health outcome of interest. Overall, 1,447 articles were retrieved, and 15 were included in the systematic review. Chirico et al. (2021) found that the physical effects of WFH were reduced physical activity, increased consumption of junk food, weight gain, poor sleep quality, and musculoskeletal pain. Further, the outcome showed that the mental effects of WFH incorporated high levels of anxiety, depression, stress, headache, fatigue, and lower job satisfaction. Likewise, a substantial reduction in workplace comfort reduces workers’ efficacy and job fulfillment.
Discussion
This study investigated how COVID-19 influenced the mental health of workers working from home during the pandemic. To acquire detailed data, the researcher divided the search into three main mental health indicators: stress, anxiety, and depression. The findings indicate that working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic influences mental health; it comes with isolation, less social interaction, and reduced communication and support from colleagues.
Additionally, COVID-19 was abrupt, and those sent to work from home did not have adequate time to prepare for the transition from working in the office, where everything is arranged by the employer, to home, where the employee has to organize all the operations by themselves. Moreover, many who began working at home during the pandemic did not have a conducive working space. Many distractions from family and home responsibilities made it hard for people to work effectively and meet deadlines.
Specifically, the review findings revealed that working from home increased stress levels among workers. The stress levels were elevated by changing the work environment and the working terms (Sahni, 2020; Hayes et al., 2021). The workers who could not balance their family life with their company roles were more stressed because they could not meet their deadlines, which reduced their productivity (Galanti et al., 2021; Bergefurt et al., 2021). These findings align with the P-E fit model, arguing that people must be comfortable with their working environment to be more productive and avoid developing burnout and stress. These results have shown that failure to balance personal and environmental features leads to stress and poor or reduced productivity.
The review revealed that working from home during the COVID-19 period increased the levels of depression among individuals. Depression was elevated because people were working in isolation and with less social interaction. Various studies associated loneliness that came with the lockdown and the social distancing with depression, and adding work on top fueled the incidence of depression (Platts et al., 2022; Burn et al., 2022; Yu et al., 2022). These findings illustrate that people are more likely to develop mental health issues when there is a misfit between the person and their working environment.
The COVID-19 period was characterized by anxiety and the fear of the unknown. People were anxious about every move they made, for they feared that they might contract the virus and die in the process. Having relatives who contracted the virus was also associated with reduced mental well-being, including high levels of anxiety. Working at home did not help, for it increased anxiety levels, as revealed by the reviewed studies (Nidhi et al., 2021; Bertino et al., 2021; Chirico et al., 2021). The fear of losing jobs and income also contributed to high anxiety levels; those who worked at home were afraid of underperforming because it would cost them their jobs.
Conclusion
Because of the need to protect people and reduce the rapid infections and high mortality rates during the pandemic, the World Health Organization passed the work-from-home policy. Various jurisdictions and companies worldwide adopted this working model to continue their operations even as the countries were locked down. Working from home offers many opportunities for employees, especially those who have never worked like this. The isolation and the fear of COVID-19 resulted in many increased levels of mental health issues. Predictors of mental health status incorporated the lack of communication with colleagues at work, social engagements, lower levels of exercise, inability to accept the new working conditions, low support from colleagues, and poor emotional well-being.
Further, the study concluded that working from home affected individuals differently because of personal differences in adjusting to changes. Likewise, WFH influenced the mental health of employees differently. For instance, the study concluded that women were more likely to experience negative effects of working from home compared to men, as family responsibilities disrupted them more. Specifically, the study concluded that those who worked from home during COVID-19 experienced increased stress, anxiety, and depression. This study concluded that there is a need for both employers and employees to invest in aspects that promote mental well-being.
Recommendations
This study recommends that employers engage employees working at home in regular team meetings and virtual hangout sessions through Skype, Zoom, or other virtual platforms to help counteract any isolation among workers. Secondly, this study recommends that organizations provide monetary compensation for employees to cover unintended costs associated with WFH environments. For instance, working from home requires internet, so the employer should pay for such expenses. Further, managers should ensure that their staff are trained well enough to have all the skills required to execute their mandates from home. The latter will reduce stress and psychological disturbances that come with incompetence.
In addition, the study recommends that individuals working from home should keep in touch with friends through various virtual means of communication. Moreover, to reduce the burden, employees operating from home should have workable schedules that eliminate disruption from family or domestic responsibilities. The study also recommends that employees working remotely regularly see a therapist to release negative energy and emotions.
The study also recommends that future researchers examine whether working from home has decreased with the reduction in COVID-19 and whether mental health improved with time as people continued to work at home. Additionally, upcoming studies in relation to this topic should examine how employers’ mental health was influenced by their workers operating from home during the pandemic. The latter is important because most past studies have concentrated only on employees’ WFH.
Reference List
Alfano, V. and Ercolano, S (2020) ‘The efficacy of lockdown against COVID-19: A cross-country panel analysis’, Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 18(4), pp.509-517.
Alipour, J.V., Fadinger, H. and Schymik, J. (2021) ‘My home is my castle–The benefits of working from home during a pandemic crisis’, Journal of Public Economics, 196, pp.1-54.
Atalan, A. (2020) ‘Is the lockdown important to prevent the COVID-19 pandemic? Effects on psychology, environment and economy-perspective’, Annals of medicine and surgery, 56, pp.38-42.
Bao, L., Li, T., Xia, X., Zhu, K., Li, H. and Yang, X. (2022) ‘How does working from home affect developer productivity?—A case study of Baidu during the COVID-19 pandemic’, Science China Information Sciences, 65(4), pp.1-15.
Beno, M. (2021) ‘Analysis of three potential savings in E-Working expenditure’, Frontiers in Sociology, 6, pp. 1-8.
Bergefurt, L., Weijs-Perrée, M., Maris, C. and Appel-Meulenbroek, R. (2021) Analyzing the effects of distractions while working from home on burnout complaints and stress levels among office workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic. In The 3rd International Electronic Conference on Environmental Research and Public Health, pp. 1-9.
Bertino, V., Nisticò, V., D’Agostino, A., Priori, A., Gambini, O. and Demartini, B. (2021) Telework during COVID-19 outbreak: Impact on mental health among Italian workers. International Journal of Healthcare 7(2), p. 29.
Bick, A., A. Blandin, and K. Mertens (2020) ‘Work from home after the COVID-19 outbreak’, CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP15000. Web.
Birimoglu Okuyan, C. and Begen, M.A. (2022) ‘Working from home during the COVID‐19 pandemic, its effects on health, and recommendations: The pandemic and beyond’, Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 58(1), pp.173-179.
Bloom, N. (2020) ‘How working from home works out. Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR)’, Policy Brief June, pp.1-9.
Bonacini, L., Gallo, G. and Scicchitano, S. (2021) ‘Working from home and income inequality: Risks of a ‘new normal’with COVID-19’, Journal of population economics, 34(1), pp.303-360.
Burn, E., Tattarini, G., Williams, I., Lombi, L. and Gale, N.K. (2022) ‘Women’s experience of depressive symptoms while working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from an international web survey’, Frontiers in Sociology, 7, pp. 1-11
Chirico, F., Zaffina, S., Di Prinzio, R.R., Giorgi, G., Ferrari, G., Capitanelli, I., Sacco, A., Szarpak, L., Nucera, G., Taino10, G. and Afolabi11, A. (2021) ‘Working from home in the context of COVID-19: A systematic review of physical and mental health effects of teleworkers’, J Health Soc Sci, 6(3), pp.319-332.
Ciotti, M., Ciccozzi, M., Terrinoni, A., Jiang, W.C., Wang, C.B. and Bernardini, S. (2020) ‘The COVID-19 pandemic’, Critical reviews in clinical laboratory sciences, 57(6), pp.365-388.
Cullen, W., Gulati, G. and Kelly, B.D. (2020) ‘Mental health in the COVID-19 pandemic. QJM:’ An International Journal of Medicine, 113(5), pp.311-312.
De Cooman, R., Mol, S.T., Billsberry, J., Boon, C. and Den Hartog, D.N. (2019) ‘Epilogue: Frontiers in person–environment fit research’, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28(5), pp.646-652.
Elflein, J. (2022) ‘Number of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) deaths worldwide as of August 29, 2022, by country’. Web.
Feng, Z.H., Cheng, Y.R., Ye, L., Zhou, M.Y., Wang, M.W. and Chen, J. (2020) ‘Is home isolation appropriate for preventing the spread of COVID-19’, Public Health, 183, p.4.
Galanti, T., Guidetti, G., Mazzei, E., Zappalà, S. and Toscano, F. (2021) ‘Work from home during the COVID-19 outbreak: The impact on employees’ remote work productivity, engagement, and stress’, Journal of occupational and environmental medicine, 63(7), p.e426.
Hallman, D.M., Januario, L.B., Mathiassen, S.E., Heiden, M., Svensson, S. and Bergström, G. (2021) ‘Working from home during the COVID-19 outbreak in Sweden: Effects on 24-h time-use in office workers’, BMC Public Health, 21(1), pp.1-10.
Hayes, S.W., Priestley, J.L., Moore, B.A. and Ray, H.E. (2021) ‘Perceived stress, work-related burnout, and working from home before and during COVID-19: An examination of workers in the United States’, SAGE Open, 11(4), pp. 1-12.
Ipsen, C., Van Veldhoven, M., Kirchner, K. and Hansen, J.P. (2021) ‘Six key advantages and disadvantages of working from home in Europe during COVID-19’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(4), p.1826.
Irlacher, M. and Koch, M. (2021) ‘Working from home, wages, and regional inequality in the light of COVID-19’, Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, 241(3), pp.373-404.
Kumar, P., Kumar, N., Aggarwal, P. and Yeap, J.A. (2021) ‘Working in lockdown: The relationship between COVID-19 induced work stressors, job performance, distress, and life satisfaction’, Current Psychology, 40(12), pp.6308-6323.
Liu, P., Wang, X., Li, A. and Zhou, L. (2019) ‘Predicting work–family balance: A new perspective on person–environment fit’, Frontiers in psychology, 10, p.1804.
Loo, B.P. and Huang, Z. (2022) ‘Spatio-temporal variations of traffic congestion under work from home (WFH) arrangements: Lessons learned from COVID-19’, Cities, 124, p.103-123.
Moretti, A., Menna, F., Aulicino, M., Paoletta, M., Liguori, S. and Iolascon, G. (2020) ‘Characterization of home working population during COVID-19 emergency: A cross-sectional analysis’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(17), p.6284.
Nidhi, K., Nandi, D., Segan, M., Awasthi, A.A. and Janardhanan, R. (2021) ‘Impact of work from home on married women during COVID-19 induced lockdown’, Journal of Women’s Health and Development, 4, pp.163-172.
Oakman, J., Kinsman, N., Stuckey, R., Graham, M. and Weale, V. (2020) ‘A rapid review of mental and physical health effects of working at home: How do we optimise health?’, BMC Public Health, 20(1), pp.1-13.
Oraby, T., Tyshenko, M.G., Maldonado, J.C., Vatcheva, K., Elsaadany, S., Alali, W.Q., Longenecker, J.C. and Al-Zoughool, M. (2021) ‘Modeling the effect of lockdown timing as a COVID-19 control measure in countries with differing social contacts’, Scientific Reports, 11(1), pp.1-13.
Padhan, R. and Prabheesh, K.P. (2021) ‘The economics of COVID-19 pandemic: A survey’, Economic analysis and policy, 70, pp.220-237.
Platts, K., Breckon, J. and Marshall, E. (2022) ‘Enforced home-working under lockdown and its impact on employee well-being: A cross-sectional study’, BMC Public Health, 22(1), pp.1-13.
Rachmawati, R., Choirunnisa, U., Pambagyo, Z.A., Syarafina, Y.A. and Ghiffari, R.A. (2021) ‘Work from Home and the Use of ICT during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Indonesia and its impact on cities in the future’, Sustainability, 13(12), p.6760.
Saad, L. and Wigert, B. (2021) ‘Remote work persisting and trending permanent’, Gallup. Web.
Sahni, J. (2020) ‘Impact of COVID-19 on employee behavior: Stress and coping mechanism during WFH (Work from Home) among service industry employees’, International Journal of Operations Management, 1(1), pp. 35-48.
Şentürk, E., Sağaltıcı, E., Geniş, B. and Günday Toker, Ö. (2021) ‘Predictors of depression, anxiety and stress among remote workers during the COVID-19 pandemic’, Work, (Preprint), pp.1-11.
Sutarto, A.P., Wardaningsih, S. and Putri, W.H. (2021) ‘Work from home: Indonesian employees’ mental wellbeing and productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic’, International Journal of Workplace Health Management.
Taylor, P., Scholarios, D. and Howcroft, D. (2021) ‘Covid-19 and working from home survey: Preliminary findings, pp. 1-30.
Van Vianen, A.E. (2018) ‘Person–environment fit: A review of its basic tenets’, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, pp.75-101.
Watkins, J. (2020) ‘Preventing a COVID-19 pandemic’, BMJ, p. 368.
White, D. (2018). Agency theory and work from home. Labour, 33(1), pp. 1-25.
World Health Organization (2020) Getting your workplace ready for COVID-19: How COVID-19 spreads.
Xiao, Y., Becerik-Gerber, B., Lucas, G. and Roll, S.C. (2021) ‘Impacts of working from home during COVID-19 pandemic on physical and mental wellbeing of office workstation users’, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 63(3), p.181.
Yu, Y., Lau, M. and Lau, J.T. (2022) ‘Working from home and positive/negative experiences due to social distancing as interacting factors of depressive symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic in a Chinese general population’, Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 57(6), pp.1235-1246.