• Open access
  • Published: 29 January 2022

Enforced home-working under lockdown and its impact on employee wellbeing: a cross-sectional study

  • Katharine Platts 1 ,
  • Jeff Breckon 2 &
  • Ellen Marshall 3  

BMC Public Health volume  22 , Article number:  199 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

20k Accesses

27 Citations

29 Altmetric

Metrics details

The Covid-19 pandemic precipitated a shift in the working practices of millions of people. Nearly half the British workforce (47%) reported to be working at home under lockdown in April 2020. This study investigated the impact of enforced home-working under lockdown on employee wellbeing via markers of stress, burnout, depressive symptoms, and sleep. Moderating effects of factors including age, gender, number of dependants, mental health status and work status were examined alongside work-related factors including work-life conflict and leadership quality.

Cross-sectional data were collected over a 12-week period from May to August 2020 using an online survey. Job-related and wellbeing factors were measured using items from the COPSOQIII. Stress, burnout, somatic stress, cognitive stress, and sleep trouble were tested together using MANOVA and MANCOVA to identify mediating effects. T-tests and one-way ANOVA identified differences in overall stress. Regression trees identified groups with highest and lowest levels of stress and depressive symptoms.

81% of respondents were working at home either full or part-time ( n  = 623, 62% female). Detrimental health impacts of home-working during lockdown were most acutely experienced by those with existing mental health conditions regardless of age, gender, or work status, and were exacerbated by working regular overtime. In those without mental health conditions, predictors of stress and depressive symptoms were being female, under 45 years, home-working part-time and two dependants, though men reported greater levels of work-life conflict. Place and pattern of work had a greater impact on women. Lower leadership quality was a significant predictor of stress and burnout for both men and women, and, for employees aged > 45 years, had significant impact on level of depressive symptoms experienced.

Conclusions

Experience of home-working under lockdown varies amongst groups. Knowledge of these differences provide employers with tools to better manage employee wellbeing during periods of crisis. While personal factors are not controllable, the quality of leadership provided to employees, and the ‘place and pattern’ of work, can be actively managed to positive effect. Innovative flexible working practices will help to build greater workforce resilience.

Peer Review reports

The Covid-19 pandemic, and subsequent public health lockdowns around the world, have precipitated a shift in the working practices of millions of people. An estimated 47% of the British workforce reported to be working at home in April 2020 (compared to 5% in 2019), with 86% of this number a direct result of the Covid-19 national lockdown [ 1 ].

Home-working, or ‘home-based telework’ as it is sometimes termed [ 2 ], has traditionally been undertaken by mutual agreement between employer and employee, typically in white-collar and professional occupations. Most of what is known about the impact of home-working on employees is in the context of voluntary and consensual arrangements, such as flexible working schedules and hybrid arrangements where time is shared between remote telework and office-based work. How a sudden and unexpected change in working circumstances impacts the psychological, emotional, and physiological wellbeing of workers is not well understood, and yet there is broad consensus that positive employee wellbeing is an important precursor to positive performance at work [ 3 ].

Conceptualization of wellbeing at work

Work-related wellbeing as characterised by Van Horn et al. [ 4 ] comprises the five interrelated dimensions of affective wellbeing (mood/affect, job satisfaction, organisational commitment, emotional exhaustion); cognitive wellbeing (cognitive weariness, concentration and taking up new information); social wellbeing (social functioning in relationships with colleagues); professional wellbeing (autonomy, aspiration, and competence); and psychosomatic wellbeing (physical health). This multi-dimensional approach provides a broader frame of reference to help understand the organisational and job-related factors that influence personal wellbeing. Though focused on the individual, these constructs are important to employers who must ensure that gains are not achieved at the cost of poor employee health outcomes [ 5 ].

Wellbeing in a home-working context

Experience of home-working will differ from population to population. While many studies have supported the view that home-working engenders positive health outcomes such as reduction in stress [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ], burnout [ 10 ] and fatigue [ 11 , 12 ], as well as increases in general happiness [ 11 ] and quality of life [ 8 , 13 ], others have found detrimental impacts to general psychological wellbeing [ 14 , 15 ], burnout [ 16 ], and work-life balance [ 17 , 18 ]. Nevertheless, the mechanisms driving these effects are not always clear and are dependent upon a range of individual and environmental factors. Gender and parental status, for example, play key roles in the nature and experience of working at home, as this arrangement tends to promote a more traditional division of labour, with women often using home-working as a tool to maintain work capacity in periods of increased family demands, such as after childbirth [ 19 ].

Flexible working arrangements, including working at home, that increase employee autonomy and choice are generally found to be conducive to positive wellbeing [ 20 ] and may help improve work-life balance. Flexible working arrangements are more accommodating of individual needs and allow for greater employee independence, higher levels of work-time control and agency over work-related decisions (autonomy), yet are associated with significantly higher levels of work-life conflict [ 21 ], where work concerns distract from and disrupt home life (or vice versa) wherein stress is induced or increased and efforts at sleep and recovery are hampered [ 22 , 23 ].

The elimination of choice – transitioning to a an ‘enforced’ home-working scenario

Inquiry into whether what is known about home-working under ‘normal’ circumstances holds true when the element of personal choice is removed, and the worker may have to share space and resources with other household members mandated to stay at home under lockdown.

Recent research suggests that mandated home-working environments may have negative impacts from a physical health perspective [ 24 ], that the persistent overuse of technology for communications is increasing levels of stress [ 25 ], and the social deficit created by lack of interpersonal contact while working at home under lockdown may be detrimental to emotional wellbeing [ 26 ]. Some have suggested that work-life conflict is exacerbated in an environment where the boundaries between work and home are permeable and ill-defined, in particular at a time when leaving the home for long periods of time is not possible, such as during lockdown [ 18 ]. For employees managing long-term mental health conditions, working at home during lockdown is likely to have had serious negative consequences, as routines are disrupted and access to critical support services and social contact are lost [ 27 , 28 ].

Female employees may be more at risk of emotional exhaustion and physical health problems under lockdown circumstances than male employees [ 29 , 30 ], and increased autonomy, such as the ability to adjust working times and work overtime to catch up on work at home, has a particularly detrimental impact on women due to increased work-life conflict [ 31 ]. Women, and those of both genders in younger age groups (< 35 years), more often report high emotional demands at work and physical exhaustion during periods of mandated home-working [ 32 ].

Quality of leadership, supervisory and collegial support all influence employee experience, yet in a time of crisis such as the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown, organisational leaders may not be properly equipped to manage their people from a distance, lacking the essential skills of effective ‘virtual leaders’ [ 33 , 34 ].

Aims of this study

This study examined the combined impact of age, gender, dependants, mental health status and work status in relation to enforced home-working and the effects on wellbeing markers including stress, burnout, depressive symptoms, and sleep in UK employees. The study considered the following across public, private and third sector organisations; (i) which groups have the poorest wellbeing levels at a time of mandated home-working and (ii) which factors exert significant moderating and mediating influences; both in terms of personal and environmental factors such as gender, age and dependants, and work-related factors such as quality of leadership and social support.

Participants and procedures

Ethical approval for the study was obtained via Sheffield Hallam University Research Ethics Committee (No. ER23891582). Private, public and third sector organisations operating in the United Kingdom were invited to participate in the study. Participating organisations were required to have a significant proportion of their workforce involuntarily working from home due to Covid-19 pandemic lockdown measures. Nine organisations volunteered to participate, with private ( n  = 5), public ( n  = 2) and third sector ( n  = 2) organisations represented in the sample. A total of 623 adults from these organisations responded to an invitation to participate delivered via their employer. Individual participant inclusion criteria included being of working age (18 years +) and in either full-time or part-time employment. A summary of participant demographics can be found in Table 1 .

Data collection and measures

Cross-sectional data were collected over a 12-week period from May 2020 to August 2020 during the first wave of Covid-19 pandemic lockdown measures in the UK. A 33-item questionnaire was developed for the purposes of the study and delivered online using Qualtrics secure web-survey (© Qualtrics LLC, 2021). Informed participant consent was collected on the Qualtrics platform prior to data collection, and those that did not consent were not able to access the survey.

Five demographic items were collected: age category, gender, number of dependants, mental health status (defined in two categories as presence or absence of diagnosed mental health condition), and work status (defined in four categories as working at home full-time, working at home part-time, working in usual place of work, furloughed).

Job-related and health and wellbeing factors were measured using 28 items from the English version of the Third Copenhagen Psychosocial Risk Assessment Questionnaire (COPSOQIII) [ 35 ] comprising core items plus additional items from the middle and long version as appropriate. The COPSOQIII was deemed appropriate for the study due to its effectiveness across diverse industry sectors and in organisations of varying sizes, and for allowing analysis against different workplace wellbeing frameworks including the Five-Dimension Model [ 4 ].

Work-related factors in six domains were investigated by assessing to what extent respondents were able to exert control over breaks (1 item), extent of overtime worked (1 item), how they rated quality of organisational leadership (2 items), how they rated social support from their supervisor and colleagues (2 items) and level of work-life conflict experienced (4 items). Work-related items were measured on a 5-point rating scales using various statements appropriate to the question.

Wellbeing factors in six domains were investigated by assessing to what extent the respondent suffered from common symptoms. The domains were sleeping troubles (1 item), burnout (4 items), stress (3 items), somatic stress (3 items), cognitive stress (3 items) and depressive symptoms (4 items). Wellbeing items were measured on a 5-point rating scale (scored as 100 = all the time, 75 = a large part of the time, 50 = part of the time, 25 = a small part of the time, 0 = not at all). All wellbeing subscales showed good internal consistency (Cronbach’s \(\alpha >0.8\) ) but the two items from the ‘control over working time’ subscale (control over breaks and extent of overtime worked) had poor consistency and were therefore used separately in analysis.

Data analysis

Statistical analyses of data were undertaken using IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS Version No. 26) Stress, burnout, somatic stress, cognitive stress and sleep trouble were all at least moderately correlated and demonstrated similar impact so were tested together using MANOVA initially and then MANCOVA to test mediating effects, all with Tukey post-hoc tests; whereas group comparisons for depressive symptoms were not consistent and were tested separately for all analyses.

A standardised factor score to represent ‘overall stress’ (alpha = 0.87) was created from the stress-related subscales stress, burnout, somatic stress, cognitive stress, and sleep trouble, and used instead of the individual variables. Initial analysis used independent t-tests and one-way ANOVA to test differences in overall stress, for each of the key demographic variables. Regression trees were used to identify groups with higher levels of the stress factor score or depressive symptoms using the core demographic variables of interest and the key work-related factors of quality of leadership, social support, and work-life conflict.

A total of 623 people completed the survey (62% female). 53% of all participants had one or more dependants, while 11% reported a diagnosed mental health condition. The majority (81%) were working at home because of lockdown restrictions, either full-time or part-time, while 9% continued to work in their usual place. 5% of participants were furloughed and so did not complete all the questions from the work-related subscales. 5% of people defined their work status as ‘other’ and were removed from analyses where work status was considered.

Gender, age, mental health status, dependants and work status effects on wellbeing markers and work-life conflict

As shown in Table 1 , women had significantly higher levels of stress and depressive symptoms (t = -3.06, p  = 0.002; t = -4.19, p  < 0.002), but men reported significantly higher levels of work-life conflict (t = 2.31, p  = 0.021). Across both genders, those aged 25–44 years had significantly higher stress compared to those aged 45 + years ( F  = 8.98, p  < 0.001). Depressive symptoms decreased with age, with those aged 16–24 years reporting the highest levels, and those aged 45 + years reporting lower levels than all other age groups. The 35–44 age group reported significantly higher levels of work-life conflict than those aged < 25 years or 45 + years of age ( F  = 4.9, p  = 0.001). Those who reported a diagnosed mental health condition had significantly higher stress and depressive symptoms than those who did not (t = -7.5, p  < 0.001; t = -5.7, p  < 0.001), but no significant difference in work-life conflict was found between these two groups. The number of dependants did not impact on depressive symptoms, but stress variables were found to be consistently higher for those with two dependants ( F  = 4.24, p  = 0.006). Levels of work-life conflict were significantly higher for those with two dependants when compared to the effects of 0, 1, or 3 + dependants ( F  = 15.8, p  < 0.001).

As shown in Fig.  1 , those working at home part-time generally had the highest levels of stress and depressive symptoms. There were significant work status differences for sleeping troubles ( F  = 5.32, p  = 0.001), with those working at home part-time having significantly higher levels of sleep troubles than those working at home full-time. Those working at home full-time or part-time, and those furloughed, had significantly higher levels of depressive symptoms than those working in their usual place of work ( F  = 3.94, p  = 0.009).

figure 1

Wellbeing factors and work life conflict by work status

Work status and mental health

There was a significant interaction between work status and mental health [Wilk's Λ = 0.935, p  = 0.002, \({{\eta }_{p}}^{2}=0.022]\) for the stress-related variables, and for depressive symptoms [ F (3,534) = 3.35, p  = 0.019, \({{\eta }_{p}}^{2}=0.018]\) . Those with a diagnosed mental health condition had consistently higher levels of stress, cognitive stress, somatic stress, burnout, and sleep troubles when working at home or furloughed. Within this group, part-time home-workers and those who were furloughed experienced the highest levels stress and depressive symptoms (see Fig.  2 as a typical example), although the differences were not significant for depressive symptoms.

figure 2

Mean cognitive stress (marginal) by work status and mental health status. 95% Confidence Intervals

Combined effects of work status and gender

The combined effects of work status and gender were only examined for the group with no diagnosed mental health condition. The interaction was significant between work status and gender for stress [Wilk's Λ = 0.935, p  = 0.007, \({{\eta }_{p}}^{2}=0.022]\) . As shown in the example in Fig.  3 , work status generally had more of an impact on women, with those working at home, particularly part-time, having consistently higher scores on the stress variables. For those in their usual place of work, men scored significantly higher than women for stress and burnout.

figure 3

Burnout by work status and gender

Quality of leadership was a significant negative predictor of stress, burnout, somatic and cognitive stress for both men and women [Wilk's Λ = 0.959, p  = 0.003, \({{\eta }_{p}}^{2}=0.041]\) . After controlling for quality of leadership, the interaction between gender and work status for stress was still significant [Wilk's Λ = 0.951, p  = 0.015, \({{\eta }_{p}}^{2}=0.025]\) but the place-of-work differences observed for women were reduced, so quality of leadership was not a mediating factor.

After controlling for work-life conflict, the interaction between gender and work status for stress was significant [Wilk's Λ = 0.953, p  = 0.017, \({{\eta }_{p}}^{2}=0.024]\) ], and gender differences increased as men had higher work-life conflict scores generally. For those working full-time at home, women had significantly higher stress, burnout, somatic stress, and sleep trouble than men after controlling for work-life conflict. Women working at home part-time had significantly higher stress scores than men, and women in their usual place of work had significantly higher levels of sleep troubles. No significant interactions were found between work status and gender for depressive symptoms.

Combined effects of work status and age

The interaction between work status and age group for stress-related factors was significant (Wilk’s lambda = 0.848, p  = 0.037, \({{\eta }_{p}}^{2}=0.034\) ) for the group with no diagnosed mental health condition, with age impacting most on part-time home-workers, and those in the 35–44-year age group most stressed. After controlling for quality of leadership, differences became more pronounced and a more general downward trend by age group was observed – particularly for somatic and cognitive stress (Fig.  4 ). No significant interactions were found between work status and age for depressive symptoms.

figure 4

Cognitive stress by work status and age group

Combined effects of work status and number of dependants

The interaction between work status and number of dependants for stress was not significant so was removed from the model. The interaction between work status and number of dependants for depressive symptoms was borderline significant [F(9,466) = 800.9, p  = 0.054,, \({{\eta }_{p}}^{2}=0.035\) ]. Those with one dependant whilst working at home full-time or part-time had significantly higher levels of depressive symptoms than those in their usual place of work. Those with 3 + dependants and on furlough leave experienced significantly more depressive symptoms than those in their usual place of work.

Identifying groups of workers with highest and lowest levels of depressive symptoms or stress.

Regression tree analysis enabled further groupings to be identified from a wider range of variables. Figure  5 shows the regression tree with depressive symptoms as the dependent variable and all key demographic and work-related factors included. The presence or absence of a mental health condition gave rise to the largest difference in mean level of depressive symptoms (20-point difference), so the groups were separated first. Those with an existing mental health condition who occasionally or always worked overtime were the most depressed group (M 54.1, 95% CI 47,61). Those with a mental health condition who never worked overtime had a much lower score for depressive symptoms (M 25.4, 95% CI 14,37) which is more in line with the group with no mental health condition (M 27.2).

figure 5

Comparison of wellbeing and work-related factor means by depressive symptoms regression tree group (M = mean score 0–100)

Amongst those with no mental health condition, the sub-group with the lowest depressive symptoms overall was the one aged over 45 years who rated quality of leadership highly (M13.35, 95% CI 9,18), and the sub-group with the highest levels of depressive symptoms overall were those aged under 35 years, who didn’t always have social support from their supervisor and could not always exert control over taking breaks (M 45.3, 95% CI 39,52).

Ten sub-groups were identified using the standardised stress factor score as the dependent variable which has a mean of zero; thus, positive scores were above average and negative scores were below average. Table 3 shows the group means for each of the stress variables as well as the standardised score for each group. The presence or absence of a mental health condition gave rise to the largest difference in mean level of stress, so those groups were separated first. Mean stress levels were highest overall in the sub-group with diagnosed mental health conditions that always had to work overtime (M 1.16, 94% CI 0.89,1.42). For the group with no mental health condition, the key variables selected to separate groups were quality of leadership, age, control over breaks, number of dependants and gender. Where quality of leadership was low (M < 69), the group with the highest mean levels of stress were those aged 25–44 (M 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21,0.62). Where quality of leadership was high (M 69 +) the group with the highest levels of stress had 2 + dependants and were less able to exert control over breaks (M 0.57, 95% CI: 0.15,1). This sub-group also had the highest levels of burnout, somatic stress, and sleep trouble. The sub-group with the lowest levels of stress were those aged under 25 or 45 + who had high levels of control over their breaks and zero dependants (M -0.97, 95% CI: -1.3,-0.64). This group also had the lowest levels of burnout, somatic stress, cognitive stress and depressive symptoms and relatively high levels of social support.

Employee wellbeing has been impacted by the recent global pandemic, typically resulting from increased levels of enforced home-working. This study set out to examine the impact of age, gender, dependants, mental health status and work status on employee wellbeing under enforced home-working conditions, as well as the influence of work-related factors such as work-life conflict, quality of leadership and social support from supervisors and colleagues.

The findings suggest that detrimental wellbeing impacts of enforced home-working are most acutely experienced by those with existing mental health conditions, regardless of age, gender, or work status, and that home-working and having to work regular overtime strongly exacerbate issues of poor sleep, stress, and depression in those who are suffering with mental health issues. In healthy individuals, both age and gender appear to play moderating roles in feelings of stress and depression at times of enforced home-working, with women and younger age groups generally faring worse than others.

Working pattern and place (‘work status’) has emerged [ 36 ], alongside the presence of a mental health condition, as a key factor in determining wellbeing impacts of enforced home-working, with place and pattern of work having a greater impact on women. Those working at home full- or part-time reported significantly higher levels of stress and depression than those who continued to work in their usual place during lockdown, indicating that abrupt disruption to routine and unfamiliarity of working practices and environment, potentially coupled with job insecurity and concerns about the pandemic in general, has a broadly negative effect on emotional wellbeing.

Quality of leadership and social support from colleagues also play key roles in moderating wellbeing outcomes, with leadership quality particularly influential in mental health outcomes for younger age groups. Poor organisational leadership and the requirement to work after hours are known to be significantly associated with occupational stress, anxiety, and depression [ 37 , 38 ] and for those with mental health issues these factors appear amplified; indeed, where regular overtime is not required, the positive impact on depressive symptoms in this cohort is considerable. Where leadership quality was rated highly in the present study, it had a positive impact by reducing stress and depressive symptoms in those working at home full-time with a diagnosed mental health condition. This reinforces the critical role organisational leaders play in mitigating any damaging effects of home-working in those suffering poor mental health, and thus should be a priority for organisations.

Any individual may suffer altered mood states on a short-, medium- or long-term basis which are experienced as depressive symptoms, stress, and poor sleep, as has been the case for much of the global population during the Covid-19 pandemic [ 39 ]. In the UK, around 1 in 5 adults reported feelings of depression in early 2021 – over double pre-pandemic levels [ 40 ]. In the present study, leadership quality impacted across several healthy groups and influenced the extent to which employees experienced stress, depressive symptoms and trouble sleeping. For example, leadership quality strongly influenced experience of depressive symptoms in employees aged 45 + , with those experiencing ‘very high’ leadership quality suffering virtually no depressive symptoms at all, compared to those who were not. This evidence suggests that the most important protective factors against stress and depressive symptoms were not having an existing mental health condition and high quality of leadership, the latter of which may act, for example, as a buffer against the stresses of a lack of work resources [ 41 ].

The role of gender and work status on mental health

Women’s psychological health appears to have been deeply affected by the pandemic [ 42 ]. Women have suffered significant and clinically relevant declines in mental wellbeing [ 39 ] alongside generally higher levels of health anxiety [ 43 ]. Evidence from this study shows that women suffered higher levels of stress, burnout, somatic stress, sleep trouble and depressive symptoms than their male counterparts during lockdown, particularly when home-working on a part-time basis, while men reported higher levels of work-life conflict.

As many organisations consider a move to permanent remote-working or ‘hybrid’ working models in the wake of the pandemic, they must be appropriately sensitive to the mental health challenges this may bring about for working women. Approximately 70% of the British national part-time workforce are women (some 5.67 million women in Q1 2021) [ 44 ] and the choice of many women to work part-time appears to be connected to childcare responsibilities [ 45 ]. Childcare and housework responsibilities remain predominantly within the remit of the mother (in households with children), with women in part-time work spending more time on house-work and childcare than those in full-time work [ 46 ]. Women working from home during lockdown with no access to supportive childcare are especially exhausted [ 42 ]. It is feasible that long periods of involuntary part-time home-working, such as that which could be imposed via a ‘hybrid’ model, could results in increased poor health outcomes for women as they struggle to balance domestic and professional responsibilities.

The impacts of enforced (often abrupt) new working patterns and practices appear to be equally felt by men. Working parents in general have higher levels of stress [ 47 ] and work-life conflict [ 48 ], and this study found that overall stress was significantly higher for individuals of either gender with two dependants (compared to 0,1, or 3 + dependants), although no impacts on depressive symptoms were found. Therefore, while women report more negative psychosomatic wellbeing effects, men appear to experience the greatest disruption under lockdown, reporting the highest levels of work-life conflict while home-working – which was itself observed to have a strong positive relationship with stress. This finding is somewhat unexpected and suggests that women are in some way better prepared to manage disruptions to their working life than men, which may be due to persisting traditional gender and parenting roles. The presence of dependants at home and age of dependants will influence stress-related issues [ 48 ], so in the absence of physical or temporal boundaries between work and home life, how effective an individual is at managing their transition between work and non-work activity whilst home-working may strongly influence the level of work-life conflict they experience [ 49 ], regardless of gender.

The influence of age and work status on mental health

For young adults in the UK, experience of depressive symptoms more than doubled during the pandemic, with 29% of those aged 16–39 reporting symptoms in early 2021 [ 40 ]. The reasons underpinning this wave of poor mental health are complex, but loneliness, work uncertainty, and financial insecurity are all indicated as factors that have amplified feelings of depression and sadness in young people during the pandemic [ 49 , 50 , 51 ].

For individuals without diagnosed mental health conditions, age emerges in this study as the key variable in determining level of depression and stress during periods of enforced home-working, with symptoms of both decreasing with age. After controlling for quality of leadership, differences between age groups became more pronounced and a downward trend by age was observed – particularly for somatic and cognitive stress. With poor ‘ cognitive wellbeing’ [ 4 ] comes lack of concentration, weariness, and burnout [ 52 ], yet a simple change in schedule may decrease the likelihood of job stress by 20% and increase job satisfaction [ 53 ] providing further evidence of the importance of competent and ‘health promoting’ leadership to maintain both positive wellbeing [ 54 ] and work engagement.

Professional isolation and lack of contact and communication with colleagues will negatively affect mental wellbeing in times of home-working during a crisis [ 55 , 56 ]. In this study, those under 35 without a pre-existing mental health condition who had low levels of support from supervisors (and no control over breaks) were found to have the highest levels of depressive symptoms, while those aged over 45 who rated leadership quality highly were the least depressed group in this study. While older age groups may be suffering less, they appear more willing to seek help and support with serious illness than their younger counterparts [ 57 ], which may make identification of arising issues more difficult. These findings further emphasize the importance of factors such as autonomy and relationships associated with the ‘ social’ and ‘ professional’ dimensions of wellbeing [ 4 ], and directs organisations to encourage employees to develop regular, meaningful social contact with peers and supervisors; but equally be supported to psychologically detach from work and draw firm boundaries between their work and domestic domains.

Implications for practice

There is a need to adapt approaches to leadership (and its training) that embrace the differences between home-working and traditional office-based environments and the challenges of ‘virtual’ leadership. It does not seem viable to rely on typical approaches to leadership and management that do not have currency and flexibility in the future work context. Organisations must invest in manager training and adopt a style of virtual leadership that is supportive and empowering (not intrusive or exploitative) alongside clear referral pathways for those needing more professional mental health support. This also raises the opportunity of increasing managers awareness of wellbeing in the workplace, its impact, and strategies for alleviating ill-health and enhancing wellbeing.

Limitations and future research

Working practices, especially for office-based individuals, are forever-changed. There is a need for research to consider the unique and varied contexts within which employees now work and to apply a range of quantitative and qualitative methods to understand both the ‘what’ and ‘why’ of home-working and its impact on individuals using validated tools [ 58 ].

A cross-sectional survey design was chosen for this study due to the ease and speed of implementation in a pandemic context, however the limitations of this design are acknowledged, as is the risk of sampling and survey bias. Though efforts were made to limit this, the analysis is susceptible to random statistical error due to sample size. Equally, the homogenous geographical location of participants must be considered. Nevertheless, this study provides critical insights and direction for future research, which must consider the mediators and moderators of employee wellbeing across larger and geographically diverse groups and provide frameworks for organisations to monitor and evaluate the effect of the workplace, be that office-based, or a blend of both.

Employee experiences of enforced home-working are influenced by factors such as personality, home environment, access to social support, physical and mental health issues, employment support structures and financial status. Yet, perhaps the most important factor that can be controlled and better managed by organisations is the quality of leadership provided to employees. The Covid-19 pandemic has forced employers to rethink their approach to how, where and when their employees work but the awareness of the need for adapting leadership styles, processes and mechanisms appears to be lagging. There is a need to better understand the factors that positively and negatively influence employee wellbeing and take a more proactive and preventative approach to improving employee outcomes through policy development, manager training and creative health interventions. While the pandemic will pass in time, organisations must consider the impact of future crises on their flexible working practices to build greater resilience in systems and employees. While personal employee factors are not controllable, organisations must develop a greater understanding of the role they play in reducing the likelihood of ill-health and promoting increased wellbeing and subsequently morale and productivity.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are held within Sheffield Hallam University Research Store and are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

ONS: Coronavirus and homeworking in the UK: April 2020. https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/coronavirusandhomeworkingintheuk/april2020 (2020). Accessed 1 March 2021.

Eurofound and the International Labour Office: working anytime, anywhere: the effects on the world of work. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg and the International Labour Office, Geneva. 2017. https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ef_publication/field_ef_document/ef1658en.pdf . Accessed 1 March 2021.

Taris TW, Schaufeli WB. Individual well-being and performance at work: a conceptual and theoretical overview. In: van Veldhoven M, Peccei R, editors. Well-being and performance at work: the role of context. London: Psychology Press; 2015. p. 24–43.

Google Scholar  

Van Horn JE, Taris TW, Schaufeli WB, Schreurs PJG. The structure of occupational well-being: a study among Dutch teachers. J Occup Organ Psychol. 2004;77(3):365–75. https://doi.org/10.1348/0963179041752718 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Health and Safety Executive: health and safety at work: criminal and civil law. https://www.hse.gov.uk/simple-health-safety/law/index.htm Accessed 1 March 2021.

Bosua R, Gloet M, Kurnia S, Mendoza A, Yong J. Telework productivity and wellbeing: an Australian perspective. Telecom J Aust. 2013;63(1):11.1-11.12. https://doi.org/10.7790/tja.v63i1.390 .

Delanoeije J, Verbruggen M. Between-person and within-person effects of telework: a quasi-field experiment. Eur J Work Organ Psy. 2020;29(6):795–808. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2020.1774557 .

Fílardí F, de Mercedes PenhaCastro R, Zaníní MTF. Advantages and disadvantages of teleworking in Brazilian public administration: analysis of SERPRO and Federal Revenue experiences. Cad EBAPEBR. 2020;18(1):28–46. https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-395174605x .

Hayman J. Flexible work schedules and employee wellbeing. NZ J Empl Relat. 2010;35(2):76 https://www.nzjournal.org/NZJER35%282%29.pdf .

Sardeshmukh SR, Sharma D, Golden TD. Impact of telework on exhaustion and job engagement: a job demands and job resources model. New Tech Work Employ. 2012;27(3):193–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-005X.2012.00284.x .

Giménez-Nadal JI, Molina JA, Velilla J. Work time and well-being for workers at home: evidence from the American time use survey. Int J Manpower. 2020;41(2):184–206. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-04-2018-0134 .

Tustin DH. Telecommuting academics within an open distance education environment of South Africa: more content, productive, and healthy? Int Rev Res Open Dis. 2014;15(3):185–214. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i3.1770 .

Hornung S, Glaser J. Home-based telecommuting and quality of life: further evidence on an employee-oriented human resource practice. Psychol Rep. 2009;104(2):395–402. https://doi.org/10.2466/PR0.104.2.395-402 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Mohapatra M, Madan, P, Srivastava S. Loneliness at work: its consequences and role of moderators. Glob Bus Rev. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150919892714

Song Y, Gao J. Does telework stress employees out? a study on working at home and subjective well-being for wage/salary workers. J Happiness Stud. 2020;21(7):2649–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00196-6 .

Windeler JB, Chudoba KM, Sundrup RZ. Getting away from them all: managing exhaustion from social interaction with telework. J Organ Behav. 2017;38(7):977–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2176 .

Bellmann L, Hübler O. Working from home, job satisfaction and work–life balance – robust or heterogeneous links? Int J Manpower. 2020;42(3):424–41. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-10-2019-0458 .

Palumbo R. Let me go to the office! an investigation into the side effects of working from home on work-life balance. Int J Public Sect Manag. 2020;33(6–7):771–90. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-06-2020-0150 .

Chung H, van der Horst M. Women’s employment patterns after childbirth and the perceived access to and use of flexitime and teleworking. Hum Relat. 2019;71(1):47–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726717713828 .

Joyce K, Pabayo R, Critchley JA, Bambra C. Flexible working conditions and their effects on employee health and wellbeing. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008009.pub2

Higgins C, Duxbury L, Julien M. The relationship between work arrangements and work-family conflict. Work. 2014;48(1):69–81. https://doi.org/10.3233/wor-141859 .

Bowen P, Govender R, Edwards P, Cattell K. Work-related contact, work–family conflict, psychological distress and sleep problems experienced by construction professionals: an integrated explanatory model. Constr Manag Econ. 2018;36(3):153–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2017.1341638 .

Schieman S, Young MC. Are communications about work outside regular working hours associated with work-to-family conflict, psychological distress and sleep problems? Work Stress. 2013;27(3):244–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2013.817090 .

Moretti A, Menna F, Aulicino M, Paoletta M, Liguori S, Iolascon G. Characterization of home working population during covid-19 emergency: a cross-sectional analysis. Int J Env Res Pub He. 2020;17(17):1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17176284 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Molino M, Ingusci E, Signore F, Manuti A, Giancaspro ML, Russo V, Zito M, Cortese CG. Wellbeing costs of technology use during covid-19 remote working: an investigation using the Italian translation of the technostress creators scale. Sustainability-Basel. 2020;12(15):5911. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12155911 .

Parry J, Young Z, Bevan S, Veliziotis M, Baruch Y, Beigi M, Bajorek Z, Salter E, Tochia C. Working from home under COVID-19 lockdown: transitions and tensions. 2021. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f5654b537cea057c500f59e/t/60143f05a2117e3eec3c3243/1611939604505/Wal+Bulletin+1.pdf Accessed 1 June 2021

Bakolis I, Stewart R, Baldwin D, Beenstock J, Bibby P, Broadbent M, Cardinal R, Shanquan C, Chinnasamy K, Cipriani A, Douglas S, Horner P, Jackson CA, John A, Joyce DW, Lee SC, Lewis J, McIntosh A, Nixon N, Osborn D, Phiri P, Rathod S, Smith T, Sokal R, Waller R, Landau S. Changes in daily mental health service use and mortality at the commencement and lifting of COVID-19 ‘lockdown’ policy in 10 UK sites: a regression discontinuity in time design. BMJ Open. 2021;11.

Chaturvedi SK. Covid-19, coronavirus and mental health rehabilitation at times of crisis. J Psychosoc Rehab Ment He. 2020;7(1):1–2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40737-020-00162-z .

Bhumika B. Challenges for work–life balance during COVID-19 induced nationwide lockdown: exploring gender difference in emotional exhaustion in the Indian setting. Gend Manag. 2020;35(7–8):705–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-06-2020-0163 .

Sharma N, Vaish H. Impact of COVID–19 on mental health and physical load on women professionals: an online cross-sectional survey. Health Care Women In. 2020;41(11–12):1255–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/07399332.2020.1825441 .

Kim J, Henly JR, Golden LM, Lambert SJ. Workplace flexibility and worker well-being by gender. J Marriage Fam. 2020;82(3):892–910. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12633 .

Eurofound: living, working and COVID-19. Publications office of the European Union. 2020. https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ef_publication/field_ef_document/ef20059en.pdf . Accessed 1 March 2021

Contreras F, Baykal E, Abid G. E-leadership and teleworking in times of COVID-19 and beyond: what we know and where do we go. Front Psychol. 2020;11:590271. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.590271 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Dolce V, Vayre E, Molino M, Ghislieri C. Far away, so close? the role of destructive leadership in the job demands–resources and recovery model in emergency telework. Soc Sci. 2020;9(11):1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci9110196 .

Burr H, Berthelsen H, Moncada S, Nübling M, Dupret E, Demiral Y, Oudyk J, Kristensen TS, Llorens C, Navarro A, Lincke HJ, Bocéréan C, Sahan C, Smith P, Pohrt A. The third version of the Copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire. Saf Health Work. 2019;10(4):482–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2019.10.002 .

Delanoeije J, Verbruggen M, Germeys L. Boundary role transitions: a day-to-day approach to explain the effects of home-based telework on work-to-home conflict and home-to-work conflict. Hum Relat. 2019;72(12):1843–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718823071 .

Ingusci E, Signore F, Giancaspro ML, Manuti A, Molino M, Russo V, Zito M, Cortese CG. Workload techno overload and behavioral stress during COVID-19 emergency: the role of job crafting in remote workers. Front Psychol. 2021;12:655148. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.655148 .

Magnavita N, Tripepi G, Chiorri C. Telecommuting, off-time work, and intrusive leadership in workers’ well-being. Int J Env Res Pub He. 2021;18(7):3330. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073330 .

Wilke J, Hollander K, Mohr L, Edouard P, Fossati C, González-Gross M, Sánchez Ramírez C, Laiño F, Tan B, Pillay JD, Pigozzi F, Jimenez-Pavon D, Sattler MC, Jaunig J, Zhang M, van Poppel M, Heidt C, Willwacher S, Vogt L, Verhagen E, Hespanhol L, Tenforde AS. Drastic reductions in mental well-being observed globally during the COVID-19 pandemic: results from the ASAP survey. Front Med. 2021;8:578959. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.578959 .

ONS: coronavirus and depression in adults, Great Britain: January to March 2021. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/articles/coronavirusanddepressioninadultsgreatbritain/januarytomarch2021 (2021) Accessed 1 June 2021.

Bregenzer A, Jimenez P. Risk factors and leadership in a digitalized working world and their effects on employees’ stress and resources: web-based questionnaire study. J Med Int Res. 2021;23(3):e24906. https://doi.org/10.2196/24906 .

Meyer B, Zill A, Dilba D, Gerlach R, Schumann S. Employee psychological well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany: a longitudinal study of demands, resources, and exhaustion. Int J Psychol. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12743 .

Kirmizi M, Yalcinkaya G, Sengul YS. Gender differences in health anxiety and musculoskeletal symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Back Musculoskelet. 2012;34(2):161–7. https://doi.org/10.3233/bmr-200301 .

ONS: part-time workers: UK: female. https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/timeseries/yccw/lms (2021) Accessed 1 June 2021.

Roantree B, Vira K. The rise and rise of women’s employment in the UK (IFS Briefing Note BN234). Institute for fiscal studies. 2018. https://ifs.org.uk/uploads/BN234.pdf Accessed 1 March 2021.

Wishart R, Dunatchik A, Speight S, Mayer M. Changing patterns in parental time use in the UK. NatCen. 2019. https://natcen.ac.uk/media/1722408/Parental_time_use_report.pdf Accessed 1 March 2021.

Davidsen AH, Petersen MS. The impact of covid-19 restrictions on mental well-being and working life among Faroese employees. Int J Env Res Pub He. 2021;18(9):4775. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094775 .

Schieman S, Badawy PJA, Milkie M, Bierman A. Work-life conflict during the COVID-19 pandemic. Socius. 2021;7(1):19. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023120982856 .

Mental health foundation: wave 4: late may, 2 months into lockdown. https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/our-work/research/coronavirus-mental-health-pandemic/key-statistics-wave-4 (2021) Accessed 1 March 2021.

Ipsen C, van Veldhoven M, Kirchner K, Hansen JP. Six key advantages and disadvantages of working from home in Europe during Covid-19. Int J Env Res Pub He. 2021;18(4):1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041826 .

ONS: personal and economic well-being in Great Britain: May 2021. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/bulletins/personalandeconomicwellbeingintheuk/may2021 (2021). Accessed 1 June 2021.

van Dijk DM, van Rhenen W, Murre J, Verwijk E. Cognitive functioning, sleep quality, and work performance in non-clinical burnout: the role of working memory. PLoS One. 2020;15(4).

Ray TK, Pana-Cryan R. Work flexibility and work-related well-being. Int J Env Res Pub He. 2021;18(6):1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18063254 .

Lengen JC, Kordsmeyer AC, Rohwer E, Harth V, Mache S. Social isolation among teleworkers in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: indications for organising telework with respect to social needs. Zentralblatt für Arbeitsmedizin, Arbeitsschutz und Ergon. 2021;71(2):63–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40664-020-00410-w .

Jamal MT, Anwar I, Khan NA, Saleem I. Work during COVID-19: assessing the influence of job demands and resources on practical and psychological outcomes for employees. Asia Pac J Bus Adm. 2021;13(3):293–319. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJBA-05-2020-0149 .

Xiao Y, Becerik-Gerber B, Lucas G, Roll SC. Impacts of working from home during COVID-19 pandemic on physical and mental well-being of office workstation users. J Occup Environ Med. 2021;63(3):181–90. https://doi.org/10.1097/jom.0000000000002097 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Latzman NE, Ringeisen H, Forman-Hoffman VL, Munoz B, Miller S, Hedden SL. Trends in mental health service use by age among adults with serious mental illness. Ann Epidemiol. 2019;30(71):73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2018.11.011 .

Johnson S, Regnaux J-P, Marck A, Berthelot G, Ungureanu J, Toussaint J-F. Understanding how outcomes are measured in workplace physical activity interventions: a scoping review. BMC Public Health. 2018;18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5980-x

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank all participating organisations for their role in facilitating this study. The authors wish to thank Will Gould for providing additional support with data analysis.

This research was part-funded by Innovate UK and part-funded by Westfield Health Ltd. as part of a Knowledge Transfer Partnership (KTP) project.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Advanced Wellbeing Research Centre, Sheffield Hallam University, Olympic Legacy Park, Sheffield, S9 3TU, UK

Katharine Platts

Academy of Sport & Physical Activity, Sheffield Hallam University, Collegiate Campus, Sheffield, S10 2BP, UK

Jeff Breckon

Department of Engineering and Maths, Sheffield Hallam University, City Campus, Sheffield, S1 1WB, UK

Ellen Marshall

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

KP conceived and designed the study, collected the data, and drafted the majority of the manuscript in consultation with the other authors. JB provided scientific support with study planning and provided content contributions and editorial feedback throughout the writing process. EM advised on data analysis methods, conducted all statistical analyses, and contributed to the writing of the results section. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ information

KP is a Research Associate at the Advanced Wellbeing Research Centre at Sheffield Hallam University studying workplace health and wellbeing interventions. JB is Head of Research for the Academy of Sport and Physical Activity at Sheffield Hallam University with expertise in the clinical application of behaviour change counselling using integrative therapies such as Motivational Interviewing. EM is a Senior Lecturer in mathematics and statistics at Sheffield Hallam University.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katharine Platts .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Ethics approval for this study was obtained via Sheffield Hallam University Research Ethics Committee (No. ER23891582). All methods were performed in accordance with the guidelines and regulations set out by Sheffield Hallam University Research Ethics Committee. Each participating organisation gave consent for its workforce to be surveyed. Individual participants were provided with full information regarding the study in advance of the survey. Consent to participate was collected on the Qualtrics survey platform prior to data collection, and those that did not consent were not able to access the survey.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Platts, K., Breckon, J. & Marshall, E. Enforced home-working under lockdown and its impact on employee wellbeing: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 22 , 199 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-12630-1

Download citation

Received : 11 August 2021

Accepted : 19 January 2022

Published : 29 January 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-12630-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Home-working
  • Mental health
  • Work-life conflict

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

working from home uk lockdown

National Statistical

News and insight from the office for national statistics, working from home: comparing the data.

  • Chris Shine
  • May 17, 2021

working from home uk lockdown

The onset of the coronavirus pandemic early last year has had huge impacts on many aspects of our everyday lives, and so the Office for National Statistics has needed to produce new and faster figures to track them. One aspect is the increase in those working from home, on which we have today published new data for 2020. Chris Shine examines the data sources and what they have to say.

At the start of the pandemic, the rapid creation of completely new data sources such as the Coronavirus Infection Survey and the Business Insights and Conditions Survey has played a vital role in  ONS’s ability to rise to the challenge of providing new and faster data to enhance our understanding of society and the economy.

While such new surveys and sources have provided timely data which complement existing official statistics, this has also led to more than one estimate on the same topic, whether created for different purposes or addressing different populations, such as business versus household surveys.

One example is our estimates of working from home, something that many people unexpectedly found themselves doing since the onset of the first lockdown early last year. So, on the day that we publish the latest dataset from the Annual Population Survey (APS), we consider the differences in coverage of our various sources on homeworking and their respective strengths and weaknesses.

Existing sources

While a number of new surveys have been introduced that report on employment-related indicators, the Labour Force Survey (LFS) remains the main source of official employment statistics published by the ONS.

The LFS is a rolling quarterly survey of the employment circumstances of the UK population and provides the official measures of employment, unemployment and economic inactivity. With a sample of approximately 80,000 people every quarter, it is the largest household survey in the UK and allows us to take an in-depth look at the labour market. To enable the ONS to provide even more detailed analysis, we combine part of the LFS sample with an additional top-up survey to create the Annual Population Survey (APS) which provides more granular estimates on an annual basis.

To estimate the proportion of people working from home, the LFS and APS primarily ask broad questions such as whether respondents mainly work from home, or if they did any work from home in the week prior to their interview. This method is a reliable way of obtaining general working habits and can be broken down in several different ways to produce detailed analysis across different groups, for example by industry, occupation, region, age, sex and ethnicity. However, the data are less timely than some of our newer sources, and so is less able to capture temporary or emerging changes. This source was used at the start of the pandemic to estimate the baseline for homeworking in 2019 in the UK.

New sources

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the ONS introduced new ways to enable us more easily to track the week-on-week changes that it brought, including the way the labour market was adapting to changing restrictions.

The existing Opinions and Lifestyle Survey (OPN) was redesigned as a weekly survey that contains questions on a wide range of different topics on how the pandemic is affecting households and individuals in the UK. The survey includes questions on where people have worked in the past seven days – including whether they have worked at home, whether they have travelled to work or both. This gives us timely insights on changing patterns of work, of considerable value to policymakers. However, due to its smaller sample size, it is not able to provide granular estimates of demographic differences like the LFS/APS. The OPN has been used regularly in our Social Impacts releases as well as in several iterations looking at sub-national estimates.

The Business Insights and Conditions Survey (BICS) is a fortnightly survey of businesses used to collect real-time information on issues impacting them and the economy. It asks employers a number of questions on homeworking, including the proportion of their workforce working from home in the previous 14 days. The strengths and weaknesses of BICS are similar to those of the OPN, albeit it is answered from an employers’ perspective. Questions in each of these surveys are flexible and can be altered or supplemented to align with emerging priorities and interests, which coupled with their timeliness, have made them valuable sources during the pandemic. However, unlike the APS, they cannot provide comparisons with the pre-pandemic situation.

Other sources, analysis and upcoming releases

As well as the regular releases described above, homeworking estimates have often had a role to play in other publications, including those using experimental surveys and methodologies.

The Labour Market Survey (LMS – an experimental online-only household survey) is being developed as a replacement for the LFS. Recent homeworking analysis compared the findings of the LMS and LFS and highlighted limited differences between the two. Data from this survey were used early in the pandemic to estimate its impact on homeworking in the UK.

Homeworking hours, rewards and opportunities in the UK:2011 to 2020 : using new, experimental weightings on the APS survey,we produced average Homeworking hours, rewards and opportunities in the UK: 2011 to 2020  across 2020 and used these to explore the impact homeworking has had on an individual’s job outcomes and productivity.

Online Time Use Survey : the Coronavirus and how people spent their time under lockdown gave us a fascinating insight into how people in Great Britain spent their time during different periods in the pandemic. Among other insights, the survey was able to look at the amount of time people were spending working at home, at a café or similar, and away from the home. This is done by people telling us all the activities they did across two 24-hour days, a work day and a weekend day.

Which jobs can be done from home? : applying data from a United States (US) survey of characteristics of different jobs to the Annual Population Survey and the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, we identified  five factors  that are associated with jobs being more or less feasible to be carried out from home.

Management practices, homeworking and productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic : this article , also published today, looks at the effect of management practices on the successful implementation of homeworking.

Next month, we are also publishing an article that will synthesize estimates from the OPN and BICS to explore what people and businesses think the future of work will be like in a post-pandemic world.

Insights from our sources

Our collection of sources enable us to provide a rich insight into what’s happening in the labour market and by bringing these sources together we are able to offer a holistic view of trends in homeworking.

For example, using  APS data we see that prior to the pandemic in 2019, just 26.7% of the workforce on average during the year reported that they had done any work from home. LMS data told us that by April 2020, following the outbreak of COVID-19, the proportion of people in employment who had done some work at home had increased to 46.6%.

We could then use sources such as OPN and BICS to monitor how this proportion changed over the course of the year and in particular attempt to isolate how it responded to events such as changes in government guidance or restrictions. The weekly OPN data showed us that as the country emerged from the spring 2020 lockdown and restrictions were gradually eased over the summer, the proportion of people working from home gradually declined towards a low point at the end of August of 27% before the reintroduction of restrictions in the autumn saw this number rebound to reach 47% in early February. The latest trends suggest the proportion is again declining as the UK nations continue along their various roadmaps for easing restrictions.

In conclusion

The pandemic has had huge effects on people’s propensity to work from home, just as with many other aspects of life. As the country emerges again from lockdown, it is too soon to say how permanent or widespread these changes will prove to be, with many commentators talking about ‘hybrid’ forms of working in which employees attend a central workplace, but much less often than in the past. However, thanks to the different sources of data which have been outlined in this blog, as these changes play out, the ONS will be well placed to track how people’s places of work are, or are not, changing.

working from home uk lockdown

Chris Shine works in  P ublic  P olicy  A nalysis at the Office for National Statistics.

Share this post

21 December 2022

Research shows working from home during lockdown may have impacted health behaviours

New research from the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience (IoPPN) at King’s College London and the University of Surrey has found that working from home may have impacted health behaviours and wellbeing during the COVID-19 lockdown of spring 2020.

Work from Home

The study, published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine , explored people’s experiences of working from home during the first UK COVID-19 lockdown. Following remote interviews with 27 employees, researchers identified four themes which categorised the impact of working from home during lockdown: changes to the work interface; adaptations to a new workspace; changes to work-life balance; and adjustments to a new social context.

Although home-working experiences during the COVID-19 lockdown may not represent typical home-working, the findings have important implications for organisational policy and practices outside of pandemic settings. The authors suggest organisations should develop policies and procedures to promote healthy home-working practices by encouraging employees to take activity breaks and communicating clear work time expectations.

Samuel Keightley, PhD Candidate at King’s IoPPN and the study’s first author said: “Due to the lockdowns imposed during the Covid-19 pandemic, many normally-office-based employees had to rapidly switch to working from home. To this day, it is apparent that this shift to remote working has set a new standard among both employers and employees, with home-working becoming a new norm.”

“Our study showed that home-working has the potential to impact employee health and wellbeing, with particular implications for daily physical activity, diet, work-life balance and stress. Furthermore, our findings suggest that these outcomes stem indirectly from individual’s working practices and routines, which are ultimately geared towards meeting work-related goals. Samuel Keightley, PhD Candidate at King’s IoPPN and the study’s first author.

The study found that working from home benefitted health behaviour and wellbeing for some, however there were also negative impacts. The authors identified four key themes outlining the impact of working from home:

1. Changes to the work interface

Some participants felt that a shift towards digital communication increased their sitting time and reduced physical activity. The loss of spontaneous interactions with colleagues and an increase in formal meetings negatively impacted reported workload, stress and wellbeing. Many described feeling pressured to be visibly online throughout the day to demonstrate to colleagues that they were working. Participants reported that reduced productivity and increased workload led many to feel obliged to work longer hours.

2. Adaptations to a new workspace

Whilst some participants had a dedicated room in which to work, most reported difficulties finding feasible workspaces in their homes due to disruption and/or difficulty finding a desk space, instead repurposing domestic spaces such as kitchen counters and dining tables. This led to self-reported physical comfort and posture problems.

3. Changes to work-life balance

Participants valued the removal of the daily commute because they used the time savings to exercise, cook nutritious meals or sleep. However, the blurring of physical and psychological boundaries between work and leisure time reportedly compromised wellbeing. Many described difficulties with ‘switching off’ at the end of the workday.

4. Adjustments to a new social context

Some participants felt more capable of taking regular breaks and achieve a better work-life balance without the social pressure of having colleagues around. However, others felt that not being in the physical presence of colleagues decreased their productivity because they were less accountable and therefore more susceptible to procrastination.

The findings illustrate the importance of recognising, outside pandemic-settings, that working from home requires adaptations to workplace-based practices and that these adaptations have the potential to affect employees’ health and wellbeing.

Samuel Keightley said: “It is not only crucial that organisations encourage healthy home working practices and routines, but the suggested behaviour changes should also allow for and promote daily work-related productivity. For example, when engaging with online meetings that don’t require sitting at your computer - this is great opportunity to get moving, so why not connect through your phone and go for a walk.”

Working from home: Experiences of home-working, health behaviour and wellbeing during the 2020 UK Covid-19 lockdown (Samuel Keightley, Myanna Duncan, Benjamin Gardner) was published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (DOI: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000002757).

For more information, please email [email protected] .

In this story

working from home uk lockdown

Mr Samuel Keightley

PhD Student & Psychology Demonstrator

Related departments

  • Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience
  • Department of Psychology

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We’d like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

working from home uk lockdown

  • Money and tax

Claim tax relief for your job expenses

Working from home.

You may be able to claim tax relief for additional household costs if you have to work at home for all or part of the week.

Who can claim tax relief

You can claim tax relief if you have to work from home, for example because:

  • your job requires you to live far away from your office
  • your employer does not have an office

Who cannot claim tax relief

You cannot claim tax relief if you choose to work from home. This includes if:

  • your employment contract lets you work from home some or all of the time
  • you work from home because of coronavirus (COVID-19)
  • your employer has an office, but you cannot go there sometimes because it’s full

What you can claim for

You can only claim for things to do with your work, such as:

  • business phone calls
  • gas and electricity for your work area

You cannot claim for things that you use for both private and business use, such as rent or broadband access.

How much you can claim

You can either claim tax relief on:

  • £6 a week from 6 April 2020 (for previous tax years the rate is £4 a week) - you will not need to keep evidence of your extra costs
  • the exact amount of extra costs you’ve incurred above the weekly amount - you’ll need evidence such as receipts, bills or contracts

You’ll get tax relief based on the rate at which you pay tax.

If you pay the 20% basic rate of tax and claim tax relief on £6 a week, you would get £1.20 per week in tax relief (20% of £6).

You’ll usually get tax relief through a change to your tax code .

You can claim for this tax year and the 4 previous tax years.

How to claim

Use this service to:

  • check if you can claim
  • make a claim if you’re eligible

Related content

Is this page useful.

  • Yes this page is useful
  • No this page is not useful

Help us improve GOV.UK

Don’t include personal or financial information like your National Insurance number or credit card details.

To help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know more about your visit today. We’ll send you a link to a feedback form. It will take only 2 minutes to fill in. Don’t worry we won’t send you spam or share your email address with anyone.

The Telegraph

Civil servants told to work from home as bedbugs infest offices

C ivil servants have been told to work from home after offices used by government departments including a health agency became infested with bedbugs .

Staff at 10 South Colonnade, home to the UK Health Security Agency in Canary Wharf, east London, have been advised to avoid entering the office while treatment to eradicate the parasitic insects is carried out.

Parts of the fourth floor of the building underwent an initial treatment in late January but precautionary treatments on the entire building are still in progress, with one scheduled for this weekend amid fears the infestations may have spread . Staff have been told not to go in on Saturday while the works are carried out.

The insects were first detected by a specialist sniffer dog in late January, with the initial treatment taking place on a week night outside of working hours.

Precautionary treatments carried out

Since then there have been two whole-building precautionary treatments carried out over the weekends of Feb 10 and Feb 17, with the third planned for Feb 24.

A Cabinet Office spokesman said they were continuing to monitor the situation after each treatment and that staff would receive advice on how to respond to the infestation from individual employers.

This was to “avoid any disruption to staff” who were working during the week.

The building is home to several government agency staff, including those from the Pensions Ombudsman, HM Revenue & Customs, the UK Health Security Agency and the Medical and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

The Government began using the Canary Wharf offices in 2016 and the MHRA relocated there from its former Victoria headquarters in June 2018.

Unionists have called on the Government to urgently eradicate the problem.

Garry Graham, deputy general secretary of Prospect, said: “This may seem like a trivial matter but for anyone who has had bed bugs they will know the deep and lasting irritation an inconvenience and infestation can cause.

“Any employer must take this seriously , health and safety is not just about danger to life.

“We have raised the matter urgently with the Government Property Agency to be sure they are taking the necessary steps to eradicate the problem and to prevent the threat.”

Underwent two deep cleans

Parts of the Government’s energy department were temporarily closed in July 2023 amid reports of “unspecified” insects in the building.

The 1 Victoria Street London office, home to the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero in Westminster, underwent two deep cleans and further testing in an effort to remove the pests.

Concerns over bedbugs shot up after a French epidemic resulted in the insects infesting the country’s hotels, cinemas and public transport in 2023.

More than 2,700 industry experts from 30 countries gathered in the French capital for a Parasitic Paris conference in October 2023, dedicated to discussing the possible spread of the insects.

The infestation led to additional deep cleaning of the Eurostar and debates around the grounding of flights to prevent the bugs spreading to Europe and the UK.

At the time, Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, said the possibility of bedbugs spreading to the capital’s public transport was a “real source of concern”.

A Cabinet Office spokesman said: “Treatment to the original site on the fourth floor has now been completed.

“As a precautionary measure, whole-building treatment has been conducted over the weekend to avoid disruption during the tenant’s working hours.

“The final treatment will be applied this weekend. We will continue to monitor the building for any signs of infestation.”

Sign up to the Front Page newsletter for free: Your essential guide to the day's agenda from The Telegraph - direct to your inbox seven days a week.

Bedbug

  • International edition
  • Australia edition
  • Europe edition

A young father with a baby sitting at a table in an airy kitchen in front of a laptop

From beating burglary to weight gain: 12 ways that working from home has changed Britain

A new review of post-Covid social research has revealed how much society has changed since the pandemic – and in unexpected ways

Have we finally reached the new normal? It was an enduring question during the pandemic, as people grappled with rapidly changing laws and emerging advice about Covid.

Now, two years after most of the restrictions were lifted, Britain appears to have found a balance between Working From Home and Returning To Office. Just under half of workers WFH at least some of the time, according to the Office for National Statistics , a state of affairs that seems unlikely to change, since the number of job ads mentioning home working tracked by analysts WFH Research has been hovering at 15%-20% for the past two years, compared with 3% in 2019.

This profound shift in working patterns has had effects on workers, firms and society. Academics around the world have focused on the subject and their work has been examined in a major piece of research – a review of almost 2,000 papers by Charlotte Hall of the UK Health Security Agency and Professor Neil Greenberg and colleagues at King’s College London. Some of the results were predictable – others less so.

1 Presenteeism

Home working is popular because workers enjoy the flexibility of being able to tackle practical matters, from childcare to taking deliveries. The Hall review found those who WFH tend to feel more productive and enjoy their work more. But that positivity can lead to unhealthy behaviour , with workers less likely to take breaks or take time off if they fall ill.

That might sound like a win to a more cynical boss, but Greenberg warns against that thinking: “If you work when you’re not fully effective, things can go wrong – particularly in safety-critical roles.” Presenteeism actually cost UK employers up to £29bn in 2020, according to Deloitte. “If someone’s mind isn’t on the job, things can go badly wrong,” Greenberg adds.

For some, WFH offers a solution to the conflict between the demands of their boss and their family – a conflict which has often been resolved by one partner sacrificing their career, sometimes known as the parenthood penalty.

WFH alleviated that for women in the US, according to a study by Emma Harrington at Virginia University, which found that a 10% increase in WFH led to a 1% increase in the number of mothers in employment.

And a study in Japan, where men have traditionally been far less engaged in domestic work or childcare, found that WFH led to men spending more time on household chores. Chihiro Inoue of Tokyo University showed that a day of home working led to an increase in family time of 5.6%.

However, Hall’s review found conflicting evidence, and some studies suggested conflict between work and family life, for example diary clashes, was in fact a disadvantage to home working.

Closeup of forearm and hand of someone holding a cigarette

3 Health and wellbeing

Another draw of WFH is control over your personal space and food. The Hall review found that people eat more fruit, vegetables, dairy products and home-cooked food, with younger workers and women the most likely to eat more healthily. But that freedom comes with a risk: home working also means more snacking, more cigarettes and more alcohol. In one study, 46.9% of workers who moved to home working gained weight.

“At an individual level, it’s easy to see that home working is good for me because I can look after my children,” Greenberg says. “But at the same time, it’s good to be aware that actually I may get fat, I may drink too much, I may feel isolated. So I have to make efforts to do something differently.”

4 Clothes and decor

Not every home worker will respond to those risks by buying an underdesk treadmill to do 10,000 steps a day while on mute, although some have . A wardrobe change is an easier option. “Loungewear and sportswear are increasingly everyday attire, and have essentially become workwear for many,” says Francesca Smith, a senior research analyst at Mintel. “Consumers are seeking clothes that are functional, comfortable, and stylish, that are suitable for video calls, errand-running, and for their lunchtime workouts on the days they work from home.”

Working from home is also behind a rise in sales of paint, homeware and bedroom furniture, according to Helen Collins at market researcher GfK. Air fryers are selling well too. “Not only did the air fryer benefit from the lockdown boost where people were forced to cook at home, but also from the desire to save energy,” Collins says.

Even headphone and headset sales have continued to grow, despite a “saturated” marketplace, she says.

5 Conspicuous consumption

The richest home workers – those with the lion’s share of the £190bn that households s aved during the lockdowns – have developed luxurious tastes. “We’ve seen lots of the luxury brands that maybe didn’t have a big presence in soft furnishings now doing homeware,” says Fflur Roberts at Euromonitor. “So people can literally dress their home head to toe in Dior or Gucci. Harrods has a whole section now.”

And that extends across the home. Diptyque, best known for its £100 candles, now sells lavender-scented multisurface cleaner and orange-blossom washing-up liquid.

6 Personal care

Not everyone has splashed their cash; some cannot see the point in dressing up to stay in. Mintel data shows less interest in makeup and perfume – and deodorant. “Research finds that 88% of adults who work mainly or entirely out of the home wear deodorant or antiperspirant every day, compared to 81% who work mainly or entirely at home,” Smith says.

View of modern office blocks and flats in a city centre, with the sun illuminating the ones in the background

7 Commuting

Transport for London (TfL) data demonstrates that hybrid workers in London tend to pick Mondays and Fridays as WFH days. Figures for Monday 5 February show about 700,000 fewer tube journeys than Thursday 8 February, the busiest day that week. Overall, journeys on London Underground are about 20% lower than in 2019.

Wednesdays and Thursdays are now the busy days, when people can be fairly certain that colleagues and friends will also be in the office. “There is a trade-off between a long commute time and the fact that you get to interact with other interesting people when you go into the centre of town,” says Ben Etheridge, senior economics lecturer at the University of Essex. “If no one else is in town, there’s no point in commuting.”

after newsletter promotion

8 Cities and offices

In spite of the strong appetite for some form of hybrid working, many chief executives believe their staff will be back five days a week within a few years. For now, bosses are reducing their property bills, choosing smaller but more modern and energy-efficient office space. That means swathes of older buildings are becoming redundant – and one reason why the UK’s housing secretary, Michael Gove, wants to allow commercial properties to be turned into homes without planning permission.

It also means a boom in office refurbishment. Deloitte, which tracks construction in major cities through surveys, says that London refurbs are at record levels, with 306,000 sq metres of space being worked on. In Manchester, refurbs have overtaken construction of new office spaces for the first time. Philip Parnell, a partner at Deloitte, says: “There are several reasons for the shift to refurbishments, but one is to align with occupiers’ clear desire for their offices to be more appealing to their existing and future workforce. There is a recognition that employees now expect better facilities to ‘earn the commute’.”

That means rooftop gardens with beehives, better canteens, gyms, bike parking and changing rooms – “essential” items for top-quality London offices, Parnell says.

9 Gen Z careers

One of the findings of the Hall review was that WFH was perceived to be impeding career progression. Recruiters say executives believe that the twentysomethings in their workplace lack the people skills and experience that comes from working alongside colleagues.

Professor Bobby Duffy, director of the Policy Institute at King’s College London, disputes this. “People in their 50s feel that younger people are going to miss out on formative experiences, that we learned how to do our work by osmosis. But young people in London are much more confident about their ability to not just do the job, but to do the things you would associate with growth.”

Duffy and his colleagues found that 40% of 16- to 24-year-olds felt it was easier to put themselves forward for important tasks when working remotely.

“They are more comfortable with the tech,” Duffy said. “And there is something democratising about a Zoom or Teams call – the hierarchy is a lot less clear, and if you put your hand up people don’t tend to ignore you. People control physical space just by body language – that’s much harder in this environment.”

Euston station concourse with travellers looking up at the departure board

10 Crime fighting

Another practical effect of home working is that an occupied home is less vulnerable. Researchers at Sheffield University found that a 9.5 percentage point rise in home working led to a 4% fall in burglaries.

Professor Jesse Matheson and his colleagues examined street-level crime data and compared it with the number of people working from home. It found a 30% drop in burglaries was due to burglars avoiding homes which were occupied, and also because more people at home meant more “eyes on the street”.

11 The high street

Matheson also found separately that remote working moved more economic activity to the suburbs , leading to the rise of the midweek manicure and sneaky afternoon round of golf.

“Thanks to more flexible work patterns, since Covid we have seen a rise in the midweek mani,” says Claire Aggarwal, an advisory member to the British Beauty Council.

And sports analysts the Revenue Club discovered golfers have found new times to play. Until 2019, there was no difference between the numbers of players teeing off in the morning or afternoon. But afternoons rose to constitute more than 60% of tee-offs in 2020 and have remained higher than mornings.

12 Environment

People who work from home full-time have a carbon footprint 54% smaller than those in offices in the US, although the difference is much less pronounced for hybrid workers, according to Cornell University. This is mostly due to not commuting, but also because offices use a lot of energy – enough that TfL’s commuting numbers appear to show a slight rise during cold weather, as workers avoid heating their own homes.

  • Social trends
  • The Observer
  • Coronavirus
  • Infectious diseases
  • Work & careers

Most viewed

CDC plans to drop five-day covid isolation guidelines

working from home uk lockdown

Americans who test positive for the coronavirus no longer need to routinely stay home from work and school for five days under new guidance planned by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The agency is loosening its covid isolation recommendations for the first time since 2021 to align it with guidance on how to avoid transmitting flu and RSV, according to four agency officials and an expert familiar with the discussions.

CDC officials acknowledged in internal discussions and in a briefing last week with state health officials how much the covid-19 landscape has changed since the virus emerged four years ago, killing nearly 1.2 million people in the United States and shuttering businesses and schools. The new reality — with most people having developed a level of immunity to the virus because of prior infection or vaccination — warrants a shift to a more practical approach, experts and health officials say.

“Public health has to be realistic,” said Michael T. Osterholm, an infectious-disease expert at the University of Minnesota. “In making recommendations to the public today, we have to try to get the most out of what people are willing to do. … You can be absolutely right in the science and yet accomplish nothing because no one will listen to you.”

The CDC plans to recommend that people who test positive for the coronavirus use clinical symptoms to determine when to end isolation. Under the new approach, people would no longer need to stay home if they have been fever-free for at least 24 hours without the aid of medication and their symptoms are mild and improving, according to three agency officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share internal discussions.

Here is the current CDC guidance on isolation and precautions for people with covid-19

The federal recommendations follow similar moves by Oregon and California . The White House has yet to sign off on the guidance that the agency is expected to release in April for public feedback, officials said. One agency official said the timing could “move around a bit” until the guidance is finalized.

Work on revising isolation guidance has been underway since last August but was paused in the fall as covid cases rose. CDC director Mandy Cohen sent staff a memo in January that listed “Pan-resp guidance-April” as a bullet point for the agency’s 2024 priorities.

Officials said they recognized the need to give the public more practical guidelines for covid-19, acknowledging that few people are following isolation guidance that hasn’t been updated since December 2021. Back then, health officials cut the recommended isolation period for people with asymptomatic coronavirus from 10 days to five because they worried essential services would be hobbled as the highly transmissible omicron variant sent infections surging. The decision was hailed by business groups and slammed by some union leaders and health experts.

Covid is here to stay. How will we know when it stops being special?

The plan to further loosen isolation guidance when the science around infectiousness has not changed is likely to prompt strong negative reaction from vulnerable groups, including people older than 65, those with weak immune systems and long-covid patients, CDC officials and experts said.

Doing so “sweeps this serious illness under the rug,” said Lara Jirmanus, a clinical instructor at Harvard Medical School and a member of the People’s CDC, a coalition of health-care workers, scientists and advocates focused on reducing the harmful effects of covid-19.

Public health officials should treat covid differently from other respiratory viruses, she said, because it’s deadlier than the flu and increases the risk of developing long-term complications . As many as 7 percent of Americans report having suffered from a slew of lingering covid symptoms, including fatigue, difficulty breathing, brain fog, joint pain and ongoing loss of taste and smell, according to the CDC.

The new isolation recommendations would not apply to hospitals and other health-care settings with more vulnerable populations, CDC officials said.

While the coronavirus continues to cause serious illness, especially among the most vulnerable people, vaccines and effective treatments such as Paxlovid are available. The latest versions of coronavirus vaccines were 54 percent effective at preventing symptomatic infection in adults, according to data released Feb. 1, the first U.S. study to assess how well the shots work against the most recent coronavirus variant. But CDC data shows only 22 percent of adults and 12 percent of children had received the updated vaccine as of Feb. 9, despite data showing the vaccines provide robust protection against serious illness .

Coronavirus levels in wastewater i ndicate that symptomatic and asymptomatic infections remain high. About 20,000 people are still hospitalized — and about 2,300 are dying — every week, CDC data show. But the numbers are falling and are much lower than when deaths peaked in January 2021 when almost 26,000 people died of covid each week and about 115,000 were hospitalized.

The lower rates of hospitalizations were among the reasons California shortened its five-day isolation recommendation last month , urging people to stay home until they are fever-free for 24 hours and their symptoms are mild and improving. Oregon made a similar move last May.

California’s state epidemiologist Erica Pan said the societal disruptions that resulted from strict isolation guidelines also helped spur the change. Workers without sick leave and those who can’t work from home if they or their children test positive and are required to isolate bore a disproportionate burden. Strict isolation requirements can act as a disincentive to test when testing should be encouraged so people at risk for serious illness can get treatment, she said.

Giving people symptom-based guidance, similar to what is already recommended for flu, is a better way to prioritize those most at risk and balance the potential for disruptive impacts on schools and workplaces, Pan said. After Oregon made its change, the state has not experienced any disproportionate increases in community transmission or severity, according to data shared last month with the national association representing state health officials.

California still recommends people with covid wear masks indoors when they are around others for 10 days after testing positive — even if they have no symptoms — or becoming sick. “You may remove your mask sooner than 10 days if you have two sequential negative tests at least one day apart,” the California guidance states.

It’s not clear whether the updated CDC guidance will continue to recommend masking for 10 days.

Health officials from other states told the CDC last week that they are already moving toward isolation guidelines that would treat the coronavirus the same as flu and RSV, with additional precautions for people at high risk, said Anne Zink, an emergency room physician and Alaska’s chief medical officer.

Many other countries, including the United Kingdom, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Australia, made changes to isolation recommendations in 2022. Of 16 countries whose policies California officials reviewed, only Germany and Ireland still recommend isolation for five days, according to a presentation the California public health department gave health officials from other states in January. The Singapore ministry of health, in updated guidance late last year, said residents could “return to normal activities” once coronavirus symptoms resolve.

Even before the Biden administration ended the public health emergency last May, much of the public had moved on from covid-19, with many people having long given up testing and masking, much less isolating when they come down with covid symptoms.

Doctors say the best way for sick people to protect their communities is to mask or avoid unnecessary trips outside the home.

“You see a lot of people with symptoms — you don’t know if they have covid or influenza or RSV — but in all three of those cases, they probably shouldn’t be at Target, coughing, and looking sick,” said Eli Perencevich, an internal medicine professor at the University of Iowa.

Coronavirus: What you need to know

Covid isolation guidelines: Americans who test positive for the coronavirus no longer need to routinely stay home from work and school for five days under new guidance planned by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The change has raised concerns among medically vulnerable people .

New coronavirus variant: The United States is in the throes of another covid-19 uptick and coronavirus samples detected in wastewater suggests infections could be as rampant as they were last winter. JN.1, the new dominant variant , appears to be especially adept at infecting those who have been vaccinated or previously infected. Here’s how this covid surge compares with earlier spikes .

Latest coronavirus booster: The CDC recommends that anyone 6 months or older gets an updated coronavirus shot , but the vaccine rollout has seen some hiccups , especially for children . Here’s what you need to know about the latest coronavirus vaccines , including when you should get it.

  • High-risk patients alarmed by CDC’s plan to ease covid isolation guidance February 17, 2024 High-risk patients alarmed by CDC’s plan to ease covid isolation guidance February 17, 2024
  • CDC plans to drop five-day covid isolation guidelines February 13, 2024 CDC plans to drop five-day covid isolation guidelines February 13, 2024
  • How long covid takes a toll on relationships and intimacy February 13, 2024 How long covid takes a toll on relationships and intimacy February 13, 2024

working from home uk lockdown

NEWS... BUT NOT AS YOU KNOW IT

Feeling frazzled? This is the UK’s most stressful industry to work in

author image

Share this with

Half of workers in Britain have reported feeling stressed (Picture: Getty)

If you’re feeling the stress at work, you’re not alone.

YouGov research found that half of workers in Britain (52%) reported feeling ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ stressed at work, and 39% noted that they experienced stress when thinking about work outside of work hours.

But spare a thought for those who work in health and social work, as it’s been ranked the most stressful industry to work in.

New research analysed HSE data to assess the number of stress-related illnesses causes or worsened by employment, per 100,000 workers between March 2022 and March 2023.

With 3,530 stress-related illnesses per 100,000 workers, those employed by the human health and social work industry – which includes doctors, therapists and nursing home assistants – ranked the highest.

This is perhaps not the most surprising news, given in recent years, they’ve endured staff shortages, stagnating pay and a global pandemic.

The industry also recorded one of the largest average salary ranges , which while tops at £63,000, can be as little as £17,000 for some workers – that’s about half of the average UK salary of £34,963.

In second place ranked public defence, with job titles including security guards and prison officers.

How to tackle workplace stress

Dr Julia Dabrowski, a psychologist at  Companion , previously shared her tips with Metro.co.uk:

  • Identify the triggers. Try noticing the situations that typically trigger your anxiety. ‘What do you notice going on around you? What expectations are you faced with?Consider what may be going through your mind in these moments, what anxious thoughts are you having?’ Journaling  can be a great way of taking note of these day-to-day experiences, to recognise patterns of feelings or behaviours. 
  • Identify and seek out the resources you need . Once you have an understanding of what is triggering the stress, it’s crucial to identify what resources you need to meet these needs or expectations. It could be that you need more time for deadlines or training in specific areas. ‘If you think this problem is solvable, identify ways of seeking out the resources needed. You may need to speak to your manager if you feel consistently under-resourced,’ adds Dr Julia.
  • Chat to a manager . If you’re feeling stressed or overwhelmed, it can be a good idea to chat to your manager, to see if anything can be done to help. They also might be able to recognise if this is a common feeling within the team and take action if so.
  • Practice anxiety and stress management techniques . Various stress and anxiety management techniques can help when things beyond your control get a bit much in the office. Relaxation exercises, deep breathing and mindfulness are just a few things to try – and various mental health apps offer these resources.  
  • Continue to engage with areas of your life outside of work . The more time we spend working, the more we close ourselves off to other activities and opportunities, and consequently the more focused we become on work. As a result, when something goes wrong at work, we feel a more intense levels of stress. It’s therefore a good idea to keep these external things up when you’re feeling a bit stressed at work, as they can help you to keep a sense of perspective and be more objective about the worries you’re facing. Dr Julia adds: ‘Next time you feel inclined to cancel social plans due to feeling tired from work, try taking the opposite action and engage with this activity. You may notice that after the initial effort, it provides you with much needed support, stimulation or distraction, and an opportunity for you to regain some perspective.’

Meanwhile, the education industry unsurprisingly ranked third. With an average pay range of between £28,000 and £40,000, 2,720 people were impacted by stress-related illnesses.

In fourth was the professional, scientific and technical industry, which includes vocations such as solicitors and barristers. The numbers for this category rested at 2,310.

Stressed male doctor sat at his desk

And in fifth place, the study, conducted by the personal injury experts at Claims.co.uk, ranked the finance industry, where stress-related illnesses impacted 2,140 workers. Spanning from accountants to bankers, the salary range in this industry is relatively high, averaging between £28,000 and £54,000.

The top 10 most stressful workplaces

  • Human health and social work activities: 3,530
  • Public defence: 3,260
  • Education: 2,720
  • Professional, scientific and technical activities: 2,310
  • Finance: 2,140
  • Real estate: 2,070
  • Information and communication: 1,870
  • Arts and entertainment: 1,820
  • Wholesale and retail trade: 1,530
  • Accommodation and food service activities: 1,430.

Source: Claims.co.uk

At the other end of the spectrum, a 2022 study by Workwear Giant analysed earnings, unpaid overtime and stress to uncover the least stressful industries to work in across the UK, identifying the areas of skilled tradesperson, process, plant and machine operatives, cleaners and labourers, admin and secretarial and managers, directors and senior officials. 

Do you have a story to share?

Get in touch by emailing [email protected] .

MORE : Hybrid workers have found the ultimate way to destress. Just don’t tell your boss

MORE : 9 expert-approved tips for leaving work stress at your desk this weekend

MORE : Feeling worked up? How to use sex as an effective stress reliever

Sign up to our guide to what’s on in London, trusted reviews, brilliant offers and competitions. London’s best bits in your inbox

By ticking this box, you confirm you are over the age of 18*. Privacy Policy »

working from home uk lockdown

You were wearing a black coat and a black top and had a umbrella on the…
You had dark hair and were wearing white corduroys and a navy jumper. You…

Get us in your feed

IMAGES

  1. Working from home during coronavirus lockdown

    working from home uk lockdown

  2. Walk Past the Washing

    working from home uk lockdown

  3. Risks of home working during coronavirus lockdown revealed

    working from home uk lockdown

  4. Working From Home Top Tips During Coronavirus Lockdown

    working from home uk lockdown

  5. Working from home during Coronavirus lockdown

    working from home uk lockdown

  6. Coronavirus: These are 11 things that will happen while working from

    working from home uk lockdown

VIDEO

  1. If uk schools had lockdown😂

COMMENTS

  1. Enforced home-working under lockdown and its impact on employee

    Nearly half the British workforce (47%) reported to be working at home under lockdown in April 2020. This study investigated the impact of enforced home-working under lockdown on employee wellbeing via markers of stress, burnout, depressive symptoms, and sleep.

  2. Working from home? Customers may be eligible to claim tax ...

    13 May 2021 HM Revenue and Customs ( HMRC) is accepting tax relief claims for working from home due to coronavirus during 2021 to 2022. More than 550,000 employed workers have already claimed...

  3. Covid: New Plan B rules on working from home and masks announced for

    People in England are being asked to work from home again if possible and face masks will be compulsory in most public places, as part of new rules to limit the spread of Omicron. Covid passes...

  4. Working from home: comparing the data

    The weekly OPN data showed us that as the country emerged from the spring 2020 lockdown and restrictions were gradually eased over the summer, the proportion of people working from home gradually declined towards a low point at the end of August of 27% before the reintroduction of restrictions in the autumn saw this number rebound to reach 47% ...

  5. Working from home: assessing the research evidence

    The COVID-19-induced lockdown offered unprecedented opportunities for UK employers to trial working from home at scale. This prompted the CIPD to conduct research into the lessons that employers can take from the period of enforced homeworking to improve their flexible working offering in the future.

  6. Covid: Work-from-home guidance reintroduced in England

    People in England should now work from home if they can, as part of the government's Plan B guidance to curb the spread of Omicron. The change brings England in line with Scotland, Wales and...

  7. Homeworking and spending during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic

    1. Main points Between 19 and 30 January 2022, 36% of working adults reported having worked from home at least once in the last seven days because of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Almost...

  8. Covid: New Plan B rules on working from home and masks announced ...

    People in England are being asked to work from home again if possible and face masks will be compulsory in most public places, as part of new rules to limit the spread of Omicron. Covid passes...

  9. PDF Working From Home

    The lockdown resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic has offered unprecedented opportunities for UK employers to trial working from home (WFH) at scale. While it is important to note that many occupations are unable to work from home - health and care workers, delivery drivers, construction staff and supermarket checkout operators, to

  10. Homeworking in the UK: Before and During the 2020 Lockdown

    In this report, Alan Felstead of Cardiff University and Darja Reuschke of the University of Southampton present new and up-to-date evidence on the scale of the shift of paid work into the home in the UK during lockdown, its impact on the mental well-being and productivity of homeworkers, and the likely prevalence of homeworking after social distancing restrictions are fully lifted.

  11. Homeworking in the UK

    Overview During the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic there was an unprecedented increase in the number of individuals working from home. Recent analysis shows that this increased homeworking is...

  12. Working from home: 'People have forgotten how to be sociable'

    Professional photographer Barbara Evripidou said she lost a year's worth of work "in 48 hours" at the start of lockdown. "We all thought it would be over fairly quickly," she recalls.

  13. Coronavirus: Why some people want to keep working from home

    According to the ONS, 30% of adults in the UK were exclusively working from home at the start of July. ... Jon Williams had turned down the opportunity to work from home before lockdown.

  14. Research shows working from home during lockdown may have impacted

    The study, published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, explored people's experiences of working from home during the first UK COVID-19 lockdown.Following remote interviews with 27 employees, researchers identified four themes which categorised the impact of working from home during lockdown: changes to the work interface; adaptations to a new workspace; changes to ...

  15. 7.5 million UK workers hoping to work from home permanently once

    Deloitte's survey estimates that 7.5 million workers in the UK are hoping to do their jobs from home permanently post-lockdown, up from 3.6 million that were based from home all of the time pre-lockdown*; ... Only 28% of workers don't ever plan on working from home once lockdown restrictions have lifted, down from 50% who said the same in ...

  16. Coronavirus and homeworking in the UK: April 2020

    1. Main points In April 2020, 46.6% of people in employment did some work at home. Of those who did some work from home, 86.0% did so as a result of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Of...

  17. PDF Homeworking in the UK before and during the 2020 lockdown

    like to continue working at home in some capacity with around one in two employees (47.3%) wanting to work at home often or all of the time. Furthermore, employees with little previous experience of homeworking had not been put off by the experience of working at home - half ( 50.0%) of new homeworkers would like to work at home often

  18. (Pdf) Homeworking in The Uk: Before and During the 2020 Lockdown

    Net Annu al Pay. % making no use of home as workplace. % of 16+ employe. shift towards. homeworking was particularly pronounced amo. 8.0% before lockdown to 62.4% in the first month of lockdown ...

  19. Working from home has a troubled history. Coronavirus is exposing its

    During the UK lockdown, home working has soared. But struggles with childcare, pay and conditions aren't new . Sun 12 Apr 2020 09.00 EDT Last modified on Sun 12 Apr 2020 14.50 EDT.

  20. Claim tax relief for your job expenses: Working from home

    you work from home because of coronavirus (COVID-19) your employer has an office, but you cannot go there sometimes because it's full What you can claim for You can only claim for things to do...

  21. PDF Timeline of UK coronavirus lockdowns, March 2020 to March 2021

    16 March PM says "now is the time for everyone to stop non-essential contact and travel" 19 March PM says the UK can "turn tide of coronavirus" in 12 weeks 10 May PM announces a conditional plan for lifting lockdown, and says that people who cannot work from home should return to the workplace but avoid public transport 23 March

  22. Working from home can bring big health benefits, study finds

    A review of 1,930 papers into home working found major pluses, but also downsides such as antisocial hours and being overlooked for promotion Working from home allows people to eat more healthily ...

  23. Should I be working from home now?

    Offices no longer need to take reasonable measures for 2m (6ft) social distancing, although risk assessments should still be carried out. In Wales, the government says it remains important to work ...

  24. The UK is the work-from-home capital of Europe. Now let's work on

    M ore than two years on from the end of the last Covid lockdown, the UK has embraced working from home - to the extent it is now the work-from-home capital of Europe.A recent survey showed UK ...

  25. Civil servants told to work from home as bedbugs infest offices

    Civil servants have been told to work from home after offices used by government departments including a health agency became infested with bedbugs. Staff at 10 South Colonnade, home to the UK ...

  26. Swansea: Bishopston Comprehensive shuts due to ground movement

    Swansea council said work was ongoing to identify the cause, but it expected the school to "reopen soon". ... The 14-year-old began painting in lockdown and is now exhibiting at London's Royal ...

  27. From beating burglary to weight gain: 12 ways that working from home

    Academics around the world have focused on the subject and their work has been examined in a major piece of research - a review of almost 2,000 papers by Charlotte Hall of the UK Health Security ...

  28. CDC plans to drop five-day covid isolation guidelines

    Covid-19 antigen home tests indicating a positive result. (Patrick Sison/AP) Americans who test positive for the coronavirus no longer need to routinely stay home from work and school for five ...

  29. Feeling frazzled? This is the UK's most stressful industry to work in

    With 3,530 stress-related illnesses per 100,000 workers, those employed by the human health and social work industry - which includes doctors, therapists and nursing home assistants - ranked ...