Working from home and subsequent work outcomes: Pre-pandemic evidence.

Frequent working from home (WFH) may stay as a new work norm after the COVID-19 pandemic. Prior observational studies on WFH and work outcomes under non-pandemic circumstances are mostly cross-sectional and often studied employees who worked from home in limited capacity. To provide additional insights that might inform post-pandemic work policies, using longitudinal data collected before the COVID-19 pandemic (June 2018 to July 2019), this study aims to examine the associations between WFH and multiple subsequent work-related outcomes, as well as potential modifiers of these associations, in a sample of employees among whom frequent or even full-time WFH was common (N = 1,123, Meanage = 43.37 years). In linear regression models, each subsequent work outcome (standardized score was used) was regressed on frequencies of WFH, adjusting for baseline values of the outcome variables and other covariates. The results suggested that WFH for 5 days/week versus never WFH was associated with subsequently less work distraction (ß = -0.24, 95% CI = -0.38, -0.11), greater perceived productivity/engagement (ß = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.11, 0.36), and greater job satisfaction (ß = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.02, 0.27), and was associated with subsequent work-family conflicts to a lesser extent (ß = -0.13, 95% CI = -0.26, 0.004). There was also evidence suggesting that long work hours, caregiving responsibilities, and a greater sense of meaningful work can all potentially attenuate the benefits of WFH. As we move towards the post-pandemic era, further research will be needed to understand the impacts of WFH and resources for supporting employees who work from home.

Timing and severity of COVID-19 during pregnancy and risk of preterm birth in the International Registry of Coronavirus Exposure in Pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Studies of preterm delivery after COVID-19 are often subject to selection bias and do not distinguish between early vs. late infection in pregnancy, nor between spontaneous vs. medically indicated preterm delivery. This study aimed to estimate the risk of preterm birth (overall, spontaneous, and indicated) after COVID-19 during pregnancy, while considering different levels of disease severity and timing. METHODS: Pregnant and recently pregnant people who were tested for or clinically diagnosed with COVID-19 during pregnancy enrolled in an international internet-based cohort study between June 2020 and July 2021. We used several analytic approaches to minimize confounding and immortal time bias, including multivariable regression, time-to-delivery models, and a case-time-control design. RESULTS: Among 14,264 eligible participants from 70 countries who did not report a pregnancy loss before 20 gestational weeks, 5893 had completed their pregnancies and reported delivery information; others were censored at time of their last follow-up. Participants with symptomatic COVID-19 before 20 weeks' gestation had no increased risk of preterm delivery compared to those testing negative, with adjusted risks of 10.0% (95% CI 7.8, 12.0) vs. 9.8% (9.1, 10.5). Mild COVID-19 later in pregnancy was not clearly associated with preterm delivery. In contrast, severe COVID-19 after 20 weeks' gestation led to an increase in preterm delivery compared to milder disease. For example, the risk ratio for preterm delivery comparing severe to mild/moderate COVID-19 at 35 weeks was 2.8 (2.0, 4.0); corresponding risk ratios for indicated and spontaneous preterm delivery were 3.7 (2.0, 7.0) and 2.3 (1.2, 3.9), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Severe COVID-19 late in pregnancy sharply increased the risk of preterm delivery compared to no COVID-19. This elevated risk was primarily due to an increase in medically indicated preterm deliveries, included preterm cesarean sections, although an increase in spontaneous preterm delivery was also observed. In contrast, mild or moderate COVID-19 conferred minimal risk, as did severe disease early in pregnancy.

Associations of home confinement during COVID-19 lockdown with subsequent health and well-being among UK adults

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the United Kingdom (UK) government introduced public health safety measures to mitigate the spikes in infection rates. This included stay-at-home orders that prevented people from leaving their homes for work or study, except for urgent medical care or buying essential items. This practice could have both short and long-term implications for health and wellbeing of people in the UK. Using longitudinal data of 10,630 UK adults, this study prospectively examined the association between home confinement status during the stringent lockdown in the UK (March 23-May 13, 2020) and 20 indicators of subjective well-being, social well-being, pro-social/altruistic behaviors, psychological distress, and health behaviors assessed approximately one month after the stringent lockdown ended. All analyses adjusted for socio-demographic characteristics and social isolation status in the beginning of the pandemic. Home confinement during the lockdown was associated with greater subsequent compliance with COVID-19 rules, more perceived major stressors, and a lower prevalence of physical activity. There was modest evidence of associations with lower life satisfaction, greater loneliness, greater depressive symptoms, greater anxiety symptoms, and more perceived minor stressors post-lockdown. However, there was little evidence that home confinement was associated with other indices of subsequent health and well-being. While our study shows that home confinement impacts some indices of subsequent health and wellbeing outcomes even after lockdown, the degree of the psychological adaptation to the difficult confinement behavior remains unclear and should be further studied. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-022-03001-5.

Associations of online religious participation during COVID-19 lockdown with subsequent health and well-being among UK adults.

BACKGROUND: In-person religious service attendance has been linked to favorable health and well-being outcomes. However, little research has examined whether online religious participation improves these outcomes, especially when in-person attendance is suspended. METHODS: Using longitudinal data of 8951 UK adults, this study prospectively examined the association between frequency of online religious participation during the stringent lockdown in the UK (23 March -13 May 2020) and 21 indicators of psychological well-being, social well-being, pro-social/altruistic behaviors, psychological distress, and health behaviors. All analyses adjusted for baseline socio-demographic characteristics, pre-pandemic in-person religious service attendance, and prior values of the outcome variables whenever data were available. Bonferroni correction was used to correct for multiple testing. RESULTS: Individuals with online religious participation of ≥1/week (v. those with no participation at all) during the lockdown had a lower prevalence of thoughts of self-harm in week 20 (odds ratio 0.24; 95% CI 0.09-0.62). Online religious participation of <1/week (v. no participation) was associated with higher life satisfaction (standardized ß = 0.25; 0.11-0.39) and happiness (standardized ß = 0.25; 0.08-0.42). However, there was little evidence for the associations between online religious participation and all other outcomes (e.g. depressive symptoms and anxiety). CONCLUSIONS: There was evidence that online religious participation during the lockdown was associated with some subsequent health and well-being outcomes. Future studies should examine mechanisms underlying the inconsistent results for online v. in-person religious service attendance and also use data from non-pandemic situations.

Mental Health During the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Review and Recommendations for Moving Forward.

COVID-19 has infected millions of people and upended the lives of most humans on the planet. Researchers from across the psychological sciences have sought to document and investigate the impact of COVID-19 in myriad ways, causing an explosion of research that is broad in scope, varied in methods, and challenging to consolidate. Because policy and practice aimed at helping people live healthier and happier lives requires insight from robust patterns of evidence, this article provides a rapid and thorough summary of high-quality studies available through early 2021 examining the mental-health consequences of living through the COVID-19 pandemic. Our review of the evidence indicates that anxiety, depression, and distress increased in the early months of the pandemic. Meanwhile, suicide rates, life satisfaction, and loneliness remained largely stable throughout the first year of the pandemic. In response to these insights, we present seven recommendations (one urgent, two short-term, and four ongoing) to support mental health during the pandemic and beyond.

Psychological and spiritual outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: A prospective longitudinal study of adults with chronic disease.

OBJECTIVE: This prospective longitudinal study examined whether coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has led to changes in psychological and spiritual outcomes among adults with chronic disease. METHOD: Participants (N = 302) were a stratified, nonrandom sample of adults (Mage = 64.46, SD = 10.86, 45.7% female). The sample was representative of the chronically ill, U.S. adult population in gender, race/ethnicity, region, and religious affiliation but older in age and higher in socioeconomic status. Participants completed online-administered measures 1 month before the March 11 pandemic declaration (T1) and then 1 and 3 months after it (T2 and T3). At T1 through T3, they completed measures of depression, anxiety, personal suffering, psychological well-being, trait resilience, optimism, hope, grit, spiritual struggles, spiritual fortitude, and positive religious coping. At T2 and T3, they also completed measures of social support, physical health, resource loss, perceived stress, and COVID-19 fears and exposure. RESULTS: Overall, people did not change substantially in psychological or spiritual outcomes over time. However, trait resilience increased and personal suffering declined. People highest in prepandemic suffering increased in spiritual fortitude. Racial/ethnic minorities increased in religious importance. Roughly half (48.9%) of participants exhibited psychological resilience (no/minimal depression or anxiety symptoms) at both T2 and T3. Perceived stress and psychological resource loss were associated with adverse mental health outcomes, but social support and physical health were not. COVID-19 fears contributed more to mental health than COVID-19 exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Even among vulnerable populations such as adults with chronic disease, during pandemic conditions like COVID-19, many people may exhibit-or even increase slightly in-psychological and spiritual resilience. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Suffering, Mental Health, and Psychological Well-being During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Longitudinal Study of U.S. Adults With Chronic Health Conditions.

Suffering has been a topic of considerable discussion in the fields of medicine and palliative care, yet few studies have reported causal evidence linking the experience of suffering to health and well-being. In this three-wave prospective cohort study, we explore the potential psychological implications of suffering during the COVID-19 pandemic by examining relations among suffering, mental health, and psychological well-being in a sample of U.S. adults living with chronic health conditions. We analyzed data from n = 184 participants who completed assessments one month before the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (February 2020) and then two months (April 2020) and four months later (May/June 2020). Analyses controlled for a range of factors, including sociodemographic characteristics, physical health, religious/spiritual factors, psychological characteristics, and prior values of the predictor and each of the outcomes assessed one month before the COVID-19 pandemic. Results of the primary analysis indicated that greater overall suffering assessed one month into the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with lower psychological well-being (ß = -.17, 95% CI: -.29, -.05) and higher levels of anxiety (ß = .27, 95% CI: .13, .41) and depression (ß = .16, 95% CI: .03, .29) two months later. In a secondary analysis that explored anxiety, depression, and psychological well-being as candidate antecedents of suffering, depression assessed one month into the COVID-19 pandemic was most strongly associated with worse overall suffering two months later. We highlight the implications of the findings for high-risk populations who are suffering amidst the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. Potential benefits of both integrating assessments of suffering into screening procedures and addressing experiences of suffering in mental health service settings are discussed.