Remote working and experiential wellbeing: A latent lifestyle perspective using UK Time Use Survey before and during COVID-19

Jerry Chen; Li Wan

doi:10.1101/2022.04.27.22273297

ABSTRACT

Mental health in the UK had deteriorated compared with pre-pandemic trends. Existing studies on heterogenous wellbeing impacts of COVID-19 tend to segment population based on isolated socio-economic and demographic indicators, typically gender, income and ethnicity, while a more holistic understanding of such heterogeneity among the workforce seems lacking. This study addresses this gap by 1) combining UK time use surveys collected before and during COVID-19, 2) identifying nuanced lifestyles within three working mode groups (commuters, homeworkers and hybrid workers) using latent class model, and 3) quantifying heterogeneous experiential wellbeing (ExWB) impacts across workers of distinct lifestyles. It was found that the direction and magnitude of ExWB impact were not uniform across activity types, time of day and lifestyles. ExWB impact outside of usual working hours (before 6am and after 6pm) was consistently negative for all lifestyles. In contrast, the direction of ExWB impact during usual working hours (6am-6pm) varied in accordance with lifestyle classifications. Specifically, ExWB decreased for all homeworkers but increased significantly for certain hybrid workers. Magnitude of ExWB impact correlated strongly with lifestyle: the optionality of choosing one’s place of work and the associated ability to travel during the pandemic seemed to improve ExWB. To understand the significant heterogeneity in ExWB outcomes, a spatial-temporal conceptualisation of working flexibility is developed to explicate the strong yet complex correlations between wellbeing and lifestyles. Whilst greater spatio-temporal flexibility is generally linked to increase in workers’ ExWB, there is preliminary evidence of a flexibility threshold – above which the marginal ExWB increase would diminish and even become negative. The implications to post-pandemic “back-to-work” policies are 1) shifting policy focus from simplistic workplace choice to spatial-temporal optionality (i.e. lifestyle choice), and 2) providing wider support for lifestyle adaptation and transitions.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This study did not receive any external funding.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The study used ONLY openly available human data that were originally located at UK Data Service, study DOI found here: http://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-8128-1 http://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-8741-3

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes