Background: As of March 2020, the UK public were instructed to work from home where possible and as a result, nearly half of those in employment did so during the following month. Pre-pandemic, around 5% of workers chose to work from home; it was often seen as advantageous, for example due to eliminating commuting time and increasing flexibility. However, homeworking also had negative connotations, for example, blurred boundaries between work and home life due to a sense of constant connectivity to the workplace. Understanding the psychological impact of working from home in an enforced and prolonged manner due to the COVID-19 pandemic is important. Therefore, this review sought to establish the relationship between working from home, mental health, and productivity. Methods: In January 2022, literature searches were conducted across four electronic databases: Medline, Embase, PsycInfo and Web of Science. In February 2022 grey literature searches were conducted using Google Advanced Search, NHS Evidence; Gov.uk Publications and the British Library directory of online doctoral theses. Published and unpublished literature which collected data after March 2020, included participants who experienced working from home for at least some of their working hours, and detailed the association in terms of mental health or productivity were included. Results: In total 6,906 citations were screened and 25 papers from electronic databases were included. Grey literature searching resulted in two additional papers. Therefore, 27 studies were included in this review. Findings suggest the association between homeworking and both, mental health and productivity varies considerably, suggesting a complex relationship, with many factors (e.g., demographics, occupation) having an influence on the relationship. Conclusion: We found that there was no clear consensus as to the association between working from home and mental health or productivity. However, there are indications that those who start homeworking for the first time during a pandemic are at risk of poor productivity, as are those who experience poor mental health. Suggestions for future research are suggested.

Background: Many employees had to work remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic. Literature suggests there are both challenges and benefits to remote working and that remote working can have detrimental effects on mental health. This study aimed to explore diplomatic personnel’s perceptions and experiences of working from home during the pandemic. Methods: Twenty-five employees of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office took part in semi-structured interviews. Thematic analysis was carried out to extract recurring themes from the data. Results: Seven main themes emerged from the data: impact of the pandemic on work; relationships with colleagues; benefits of working from home; challenges of working from home; family; moving posts during the pandemic; and perceptions and predictions of post-pandemic work. Participants provided mixed views on how remote working had affected productivity and relationships with colleagues. Benefits of working from home included greater freedom and flexibility; new opportunities; and inclusivity of remote meetings. Challenges included being in different time zones to the countries they were working for; unsuitable home ergonomics; technological issues; and difficulties finding appropriate work-life balance. Those with young children reported difficulties juggling work and childcare. Adjusting to new posts at a time when staff were working remotely appeared particularly challenging. However, most did not want or expect to return to entirely office-based work. They predicted a hybrid model of working in the future, involving both office work and remote work; they stressed the importance of flexibility and suggested there would not be a one-size-fits-all approach to returning to face-to-face work. Conclusions: Remote working during the COVID-19 pandemic has changed the ways in which employees work, showing them that they do not have to be in the office to successfully achieve their work goals and leaving many wanting flexibility to make their own decisions about working from home (or not). There are both benefits and challenges to remote working; managers can take steps to reduce some of the challenges by being available to support their employees, organising regular remote meetings and allowing employees autonomy in terms of when and where they work.

This pre-registered systematic review aimed to examine whether online support groups affect the health and wellbeing of individuals with a chronic condition, and what mechanisms may influence such effects. In September 2024, literature searches were conducted across electronic databases (Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Web of Science and Google Scholar), pre-publication websites (MedRxiv and PsyArXiv) and grey literature websites. Qualitative and quantitative studies were included if they explored the impact of online support groups on the health and wellbeing outcomes of individuals with a chronic condition. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to appraise the quality of the included studies. In total 100 papers met the inclusion criteria with their findings presented in a thematic synthesis. Health and wellbeing outcomes were categorised as: physical health, mental health, quality of life, social wellbeing, behaviour and decision-making, and adjustment. Mechanisms reported in these studies related to exchanging support, sharing experiences, content expression, and social comparison. User and group characteristics were also explored. The included studies suggest that online support groups can have a positive impact on social wellbeing, behaviour, and adjustment, with inconclusive findings for physical health and quality of life. However, there is also the possibility of a negative effect on anxiety and distress, particularly when exposed to other group members’ difficult experiences. Research comparing different online group features, such as platforms, size, and duration is needed. In particular, future research should be experimental to overcome the limitations of some of the cross-sectional designs of the included studies. The review was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Protection Research in Emergency Preparedness and Response. Pre-registration ID: CRD42023399258

Introduction: The concept of “working from home” is extremely topical following the COVID-19 pandemic; therefore, it is unsurprising that there has been an increased interest in collating research related to homeworking. This has been carried out by multiple reviews, all with slightly different research aims and methodologies. Collating the findings from the available reviews is therefore highly beneficial to establish the experience of homeworking to create recommendations for the future of home-based work. Methods: An umbrella review was carried out. In June 2022, literature searches were conducted across 4 electronic databases. Published reviews of literature that used a systematic process, were focused on working from home populations, and detailed factors that could be related to the personal experience of homeworking (eg, barriers, facilitators, advantages, disadvantages) were included. Results: A total of 1930 records were screened and 6 review articles were included. Results report on the following sections: working environment (eg, workplace design, space conditions), personal impact (eg, satisfaction, career impact), and health (eg, physical health, well-being) including a total of 19 themes. Mixed findings were apparent for nearly all included themes, highlighting the need to consider individual and contextual circumstances when researching working from home. Conclusions: This review establishes the importance of retaining flexibility while homeworking for employees, managers, and organizations. Essentially, a one-size-fits-all approach to working from home is impractical as individual circumstances limit application. Eight recommendations for the future of working from home are suggested.

Background: Working from home (WFH) is becoming more common, but little is known about how it specifically affects neuro-divergent workers’ psychological and occupational well-being. Aims: This review aimed to explore the experiences of neuro-divergent staff WFH, including the challenges they face; the potential benefits of homeworking for this specific population and the support systems they require. Methods: We searched six electronic databases, as well as reference lists of included papers, one preprint server and Google, for literature on neuro-divergent workers’ experiences of WFH. Results were synthesized using thematic analysis. Results: We reviewed 25 studies (mostly based on data collected during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic), finding very little research statistically analysing the impact of WFH on well-being or productivity, or comparing the impact of WFH across neuro-divergent and neuro-typical populations. The (mostly qualitative) findings showed that neuro-divergent participants described various benefits and challenges of the sensory environment at home; the reduction of commuting; increased flexibility and lack of routine when homeworking; the reduction of ‘masking’ behaviours; lack of in-person social contact and increased use of technology. Conclusions: The findings emphasize the importance of not assuming a one-size-fits-all approach to homeworking and suggest managers should be mindful of workers’ individual preferences for working whilst ensuring that all employees are appropriately supported. The results can inform future research and provide insights for employers to help them create more inclusive work environments.

Effective and safe vaccines against COVID-19 are essential to achieve global control of the coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). Using faith centres may offer a promising route for promoting higher vaccine uptake from certain minority ethnic groups known to be more likely to be vaccine hesitant. This cross-sectional study explored attendees’ perceptions, experiences of being offered, and receiving COVID-19 vaccination in a local mosque in Woking, Surrey, UK. About 199 attendees completed a brief questionnaire on experiences, views, motivations about attending the mosque and vaccination on site. The most common ethnic groups reported were White British (39.2%) and Pakistani (22.6%); 36.2% identified as Christian, 23.6% as Muslim, 5.5% as Hindu, and 17.1% had no religion. Genders was relatively equal with 90 men (45.2%) and 98 women (49.2%), and 35–44-year-olds represented the most common age group (28.1%). Views and experiences around receiving vaccinations at the mosque were predominantly positive. Primary reasons for getting vaccinated at the mosque included convenience, accessibility, positive aspects of the venue’s intercultural relations, and intentions to protect oneself against COVID-19, regardless of venue type. Negative views and experiences in regards to receiving the vaccination at the mosque were less common (7% expressed no intention of recommending the centre to others), and disliked aspects mostly referred to the travel distance and long waiting times. Offering COVID-19 vaccination in faith centres appears acceptable for different faith groups, ensuring convenient access for communities from all religions and ethnic backgrounds. What is already known on this topic Effective and safe vaccines against COVID-19 are essential to achieve global control of the coronavirus Using faith centres for providing access to health services may offer a promising route for promoting higher vaccine uptake from certain minority ethnic groups known to be more likely to be vaccine hesitant. What this study adds Convenience, accessibility, positive aspects of the venue, the importance of promoting intercultural relations, and getting vaccinated to protect oneself against COVID-19 appear to be major influencers relevant for the specific type of venue where the vaccine was offered, i.e. a mosque. Long travel distance and waiting times were barriers to recommending the centre to others. How this study might affect research, practice or policy Offering COVID-19 vaccination in faith centres appears acceptable for different faith groups. Vaccine uptake can be maximized by ensuring convenient access to the centre for communities from all religions and ethnic backgrounds. Future research should continue to explore COVID-19 vaccination behaviours and underlying beliefs in larger ethnic minority samples. Faith centres could provide an alternative location for preventative healthcare offers, such as vaccines, in local communities, therefore representing a promising approach to maximize public health impacts.