Work-from-home has become an increasingly adopted practice globally. Given the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, such arrangements have risen substantially in a short timeframe. Work-from-home has been associated with several physical and mental health outcomes. This relationship has been supported by previous research; however, these health and safety issues often receive little resources and attention from business perspectives compared to organizational and worker performance and productivity. Therefore, aligning work-from-home practices with business goals may help catalyze awareness from decision makers and serve to effectively implement work-from-home policies. We conducted a review to synthesize current knowledge on the impact of work-from-home arrangements on personal and organizational performance and productivity. Four large databases including Scopus, PubMed, PsychInfo, and Business Source Complete were systematically searched. Through a two-step screening process, we selected and extracted data from 37 relevant articles. Key search terms surrounded two core concepts: work-from-home and productivity/performance. Of the articles published prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 79% (n = 19) demonstrated that work-from-home increased productivity and performance whereas 21% (n = 5) showed mixed or no effects. Of the articles published during the pandemic, 23% (n = 3) showed positive effects, 38% (n = 5) revealed mixed results, and 38% (n = 5) showed negative effects. Findings suggest that non-mandatory work-from-home arrangements can have positive impacts on productivity and performance. When work-from-home becomes mandatory and full-time, or external factors (i.e., COVID-19 pandemic) are at play, the overall impacts are less positive and can be detrimental to productivity and performance. Results will help foster an understanding of the impact of work-from-home on productivity and performance and inform the development of organizational strategies to create an effective, resilient, and inclusive work-from-home workplace by helping to effectively implement work-from-home policies that are aligned with business goals.

Purpose: To identify and synthesize research evidence on workplace accommodations used by employers to recruit, hire, retain, and promote persons with physical disabilities. Method: A structured search of six electronic journal databases was undertaken to identify peer-reviewed literature on the topic published from January 1990 to March 2016. Articles describing or evaluating workplace disability accommodation policies and practices were given a full-text review. Topic experts were contacted to identify additional studies. Results: Details on specific accommodations described in 117 articles were synthesized and organized into three groups comprised of a total of 12 categories. The majority of studies did not rigorously evaluate effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of the accommodations under study. Conclusions: This evidence synthesis provides an overview of the peer-reviewed literature of value to occupational rehabilitation professionals and employers seeking guidance on workplace accommodation policies and practices for persons with physical disabilities. A wide range of accommodation options is available for addressing physical, social, and attitudinal barriers to successful employment. Besides physical/technological modifications, accommodations to enhance workplace flexibility and worker autonomy and strategies to promote workplace inclusion and integration are important. More comprehensive reporting and evaluations of the effectiveness of accommodations in research literature are needed to develop best practices for accommodating persons with disabilities.

This scoping review identified common barriers and facilitators encountered during the implementation of changes to prevent musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) and examined their relationship with those encountered in general Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) efforts. Thematic analysis of the literature identified 11 barriers: (i) Lack of time; (ii) Lack of resources; (iii) Lack of communication; (iv) Lack of management support, commitment, and participation; (v) Lack of knowledge and training; (vi) Resistance to change; (vii) Changing work environment; (viii) Scope of activities; (ix) Lack of trust, fear of job loss, or loss of authority; (x) Process deficiencies; and (xi) Difficulty of implementing controls. Three facilitators identified were: (i) Training, knowledge and ergonomists' support; (ii) Communication, participation and support; and (iii) An effective implementation process. The barriers and facilitators identified were similar to those in general OHS processes. The integration of MSD prevention into a general management system approach may overcome these barriers.

Musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) are a major cause of pain, disability, and costs. Prevention of MSD at work is frequently described in terms of implementing an ergonomics program, often a participatory ergonomics (PE) program. Most other workplace injury prevention activities take place under the umbrella of a formal or informal occupational health and safety management system (OHSMS). This study assesses the similarities and differences between OHSMS and PE as such knowledge could help improve MSD prevention activities. Methods Using the internationally recognized Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series (OHSAS 18001), 21 OHSMS elements were extracted. In order to define PE operationally, we identified the 20 most frequently cited papers on PE and extracted content relevant to each of the OHSAS 18001 elements. The PE literature provided a substantial amount of detail on five elements: (i) hazard identification, risk assessment and determining controls; (ii) resources, roles, responsibility, accountability, and authority; (iii) competence, training and awareness; (iv) participation and consultation; and (v) performance measurement and monitoring. However, of the 21 OHSAS elements, the PE literature was silent on 8 and provided few details on 8 others. The PE literature did not speak to many elements described in OHSMS and even when it did, the language used was often different. This may negatively affect the effectiveness and sustainability of PE initiatives within organizations. It is expected that paying attention to the approaches and language used in management system frameworks could make prevention of MSD activities more effective and sustainable.