Work from Home and Mental Health: Evidence from the First Lockdown.

IF 1 4区 医学 Q4 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Kai Kruk
{"title":"Work from Home and Mental Health: Evidence from the First Lockdown.","authors":"Kai Kruk","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The COVID-19 pandemic triggered widespread lockdown measures, including a sudden and substantial increase in working from home arrangements. While intended to reduce virus transmission, these measures may have had unintended consequences for mental health. Remote work limits in-person interactions and alters work-life boundaries, potentially influencing psychological well-being. However, empirical research on the mental health effects of working from home -especially under involuntary conditions- is still limited.</p><p><strong>Aims of the study: </strong>This study investigates the impact of working from home on mental health during the first lockdown in Germany. Specifically, it aims to differentiate between selection effects (i.e., individuals who choose working from home based on their circumstances) and causal effects (i.e., the mental health consequences of working from home itself). The goal is to understand whether working from home, when imposed rather than voluntarily chosen, negatively affects mental well-being.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We use data from the Mannheim Corona Study (MCS), which collected high-frequency panel data from a representative sample of the German population during the first lockdown (March-July 2020). The analysis focuses on employed individuals and excludes those not working. We create a binary working from home indicator and analyze its association with four mental health measures: two indicators of depressive symptoms, one of loneliness, and one of social interaction frequency. Both pooled linear regressions and fixed effects models are employed to estimate associations while accounting for confounders and unobserved heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Descriptive statistics reveal that working from home was more common among individuals with higher income and education, reflecting a socioeconomic selection effect. Pooled regression results show a significant association between working from home and increased loneliness, depressive symptoms, and reduced social interaction. These associations persist even after controlling for sociodemographic characteristics. Fixed effects panel regressions-focusing on within-individual changes-confirm a significant, though smaller, negative effect of working from home on mental health, particularly regarding loneliness and loss of interest. This strengthens the evidence for a causal link between working from home and reduced psychological well-being, independent of pre-existing personal characteristics.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The findings suggest that even privileged individuals working from home experienced a decline in mental health, highlighting the psychological costs of reduced social interaction during the lockdown. Limitations include the lack of pre-pandemic mental health data and the inability to distinguish between voluntary and enforced working from home beyond the lockdown context. Also, the relatively short observation period limits insights into long-term adaptation.</p><p><strong>Implications for health care provision and use: </strong>Health professionals should consider the mental health risks associated with remote work settings, especially in times of enforced isolation. Early identification of at-risk individuals and targeted support strategies may help prevent deterioration in mental well-being among remote workers.</p><p><strong>Implications for health policies: </strong>Policy makers should balance infection control measures with their broader psychosocial impacts. If remote work becomes a long-term strategy, accompanying mental health support mechanisms should be institutionalized. Flexibility in workplace options may help mitigate adverse psychological effects.</p><p><strong>Implications for further research: </strong>Future studies should explore how specific home-working conditions (e.g., workspace quality, household composition) moderate mental health outcomes. Longitudinal research beyond the lockdown period is necessary to assess the persistence and reversibility of these effects. Evaluating interventions that support mental health in remote work settings is also crucial.</p>","PeriodicalId":46381,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics","volume":"28 2","pages":"67-72"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic triggered widespread lockdown measures, including a sudden and substantial increase in working from home arrangements. While intended to reduce virus transmission, these measures may have had unintended consequences for mental health. Remote work limits in-person interactions and alters work-life boundaries, potentially influencing psychological well-being. However, empirical research on the mental health effects of working from home -especially under involuntary conditions- is still limited.

Aims of the study: This study investigates the impact of working from home on mental health during the first lockdown in Germany. Specifically, it aims to differentiate between selection effects (i.e., individuals who choose working from home based on their circumstances) and causal effects (i.e., the mental health consequences of working from home itself). The goal is to understand whether working from home, when imposed rather than voluntarily chosen, negatively affects mental well-being.

Methods: We use data from the Mannheim Corona Study (MCS), which collected high-frequency panel data from a representative sample of the German population during the first lockdown (March-July 2020). The analysis focuses on employed individuals and excludes those not working. We create a binary working from home indicator and analyze its association with four mental health measures: two indicators of depressive symptoms, one of loneliness, and one of social interaction frequency. Both pooled linear regressions and fixed effects models are employed to estimate associations while accounting for confounders and unobserved heterogeneity.

Results: Descriptive statistics reveal that working from home was more common among individuals with higher income and education, reflecting a socioeconomic selection effect. Pooled regression results show a significant association between working from home and increased loneliness, depressive symptoms, and reduced social interaction. These associations persist even after controlling for sociodemographic characteristics. Fixed effects panel regressions-focusing on within-individual changes-confirm a significant, though smaller, negative effect of working from home on mental health, particularly regarding loneliness and loss of interest. This strengthens the evidence for a causal link between working from home and reduced psychological well-being, independent of pre-existing personal characteristics.

Discussion: The findings suggest that even privileged individuals working from home experienced a decline in mental health, highlighting the psychological costs of reduced social interaction during the lockdown. Limitations include the lack of pre-pandemic mental health data and the inability to distinguish between voluntary and enforced working from home beyond the lockdown context. Also, the relatively short observation period limits insights into long-term adaptation.

Implications for health care provision and use: Health professionals should consider the mental health risks associated with remote work settings, especially in times of enforced isolation. Early identification of at-risk individuals and targeted support strategies may help prevent deterioration in mental well-being among remote workers.

Implications for health policies: Policy makers should balance infection control measures with their broader psychosocial impacts. If remote work becomes a long-term strategy, accompanying mental health support mechanisms should be institutionalized. Flexibility in workplace options may help mitigate adverse psychological effects.

Implications for further research: Future studies should explore how specific home-working conditions (e.g., workspace quality, household composition) moderate mental health outcomes. Longitudinal research beyond the lockdown period is necessary to assess the persistence and reversibility of these effects. Evaluating interventions that support mental health in remote work settings is also crucial.

在家工作与心理健康:来自第一次禁闭的证据。
背景:2019冠状病毒病大流行引发了广泛的封锁措施,包括在家工作安排突然大幅增加。这些措施虽然旨在减少病毒传播,但可能对心理健康产生了意想不到的后果。远程工作限制了面对面的互动,改变了工作与生活的界限,可能会影响心理健康。然而,关于在家工作对心理健康影响的实证研究——尤其是在非自愿的情况下——仍然有限。研究目的:本研究调查了德国第一次封锁期间在家工作对心理健康的影响。具体来说,它旨在区分选择效应(即,个人根据自己的情况选择在家工作)和因果效应(即,在家工作本身的心理健康后果)。其目的是了解在家工作是否会对心理健康产生负面影响,而不是自愿选择在家工作。方法:我们使用了曼海姆冠状病毒研究(MCS)的数据,该研究在第一次封锁期间(2020年3月至7月)从德国人口的代表性样本中收集了高频面板数据。分析的重点是有工作的个人,不包括那些没有工作的人。我们创建了一个在家工作的二元指标,并分析了它与四个心理健康指标的关联:两个抑郁症状指标,一个孤独指标和一个社会互动频率指标。在考虑混杂因素和未观察到的异质性的同时,采用合并线性回归和固定效应模型来估计关联。结果:描述性统计显示,在家工作在高收入、高教育程度的个体中更为普遍,反映了社会经济选择效应。汇总回归结果显示,在家工作与孤独感增加、抑郁症状和社交互动减少之间存在显著关联。即使在控制了社会人口特征之后,这些联系仍然存在。固定效应面板回归——专注于个体内部的变化——证实了在家工作对心理健康的显著负面影响,尽管影响较小,尤其是在孤独感和失去兴趣方面。这加强了在家工作与心理健康下降之间的因果关系的证据,独立于先前的个人特征。讨论:研究结果表明,即使是享有特权的在家工作的人,心理健康状况也有所下降,这突显了封锁期间社会互动减少的心理成本。限制包括缺乏大流行前的心理健康数据,以及无法区分在封锁背景下自愿和被迫在家工作。此外,相对较短的观察期限制了对长期适应的认识。对卫生保健提供和使用的影响:卫生专业人员应考虑与远程工作环境有关的心理健康风险,特别是在强制隔离期间。早期识别有风险的个体和有针对性的支持策略可能有助于防止远程工作者的心理健康恶化。对卫生政策的影响:决策者应平衡感染控制措施及其更广泛的社会心理影响。如果远程工作成为一项长期战略,应将相应的心理健康支持机制制度化。工作场所选择的灵活性可能有助于减轻不利的心理影响。对进一步研究的启示:未来的研究应探讨具体的家庭工作条件(如工作空间质量、家庭组成)如何调节心理健康结果。有必要在封锁期之后进行纵向研究,以评估这些影响的持久性和可逆性。评估支持远程工作环境中精神卫生的干预措施也至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
6.20%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics publishes high quality empirical, analytical and methodologic papers focusing on the application of health and economic research and policy analysis in mental health. It offers an international forum to enable the different participants in mental health policy and economics - psychiatrists involved in research and care and other mental health workers, health services researchers, health economists, policy makers, public and private health providers, advocacy groups, and the pharmaceutical industry - to share common information in a common language.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信