Joyce Kerry, Pabayo Roman, Critchley Julia A, Bambra Clare
Department of Geography, Durham University, Wolfson Research Institute, Queen's Campus, Stockton-on-Tees, Teesside, UK, TS17 6BH.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Feb 17;2010(2):CD008009. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008009.pub2.
Flexible working conditions are increasingly popular in developed countries but the effects on employee health and wellbeing are largely unknown.
To evaluate the effects (benefits and harms) of flexible working interventions on the physical, mental and general health and wellbeing of employees and their families.
Our searches (July 2009) covered 12 databases including the Cochrane Public Health Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL; MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; PsycINFO; Social Science Citation Index; ASSIA; IBSS; Sociological Abstracts; and ABI/Inform. We also searched relevant websites, handsearched key journals, searched bibliographies and contacted study authors and key experts.
Randomised controlled trials (RCT), interrupted time series and controlled before and after studies (CBA), which examined the effects of flexible working interventions on employee health and wellbeing. We excluded studies assessing outcomes for less than six months and extracted outcomes relating to physical, mental and general health/ill health measured using a validated instrument. We also extracted secondary outcomes (including sickness absence, health service usage, behavioural changes, accidents, work-life balance, quality of life, health and wellbeing of children, family members and co-workers) if reported alongside at least one primary outcome.
Two experienced review authors conducted data extraction and quality appraisal. We undertook a narrative synthesis as there was substantial heterogeneity between studies.
Ten studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Six CBA studies reported on interventions relating to temporal flexibility: self-scheduling of shift work (n = 4), flexitime (n = 1) and overtime (n = 1). The remaining four CBA studies evaluated a form of contractual flexibility: partial/gradual retirement (n = 2), involuntary part-time work (n = 1) and fixed-term contract (n = 1). The studies retrieved had a number of methodological limitations including short follow-up periods, risk of selection bias and reliance on largely self-reported outcome data. Four CBA studies on self-scheduling of shifts and one CBA study on gradual/partial retirement reported statistically significant improvements in either primary outcomes (including systolic blood pressure and heart rate; tiredness; mental health, sleep duration, sleep quality and alertness; self-rated health status) or secondary health outcomes (co-workers social support and sense of community) and no ill health effects were reported. Flexitime was shown not to have significant effects on self-reported physiological and psychological health outcomes. Similarly, when comparing individuals working overtime with those who did not the odds of ill health effects were not significantly higher in the intervention group at follow up. The effects of contractual flexibility on self-reported health (with the exception of gradual/partial retirement, which when controlled by employees improved health outcomes) were either equivocal or negative. No studies differentiated results by socio-economic status, although one study did compare findings by gender but found no differential effect on self-reported health outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review tentatively suggest that flexible working interventions that increase worker control and choice (such as self-scheduling or gradual/partial retirement) are likely to have a positive effect on health outcomes. In contrast, interventions that were motivated or dictated by organisational interests, such as fixed-term contract and involuntary part-time employment, found equivocal or negative health effects. Given the partial and methodologically limited evidence base these findings should be interpreted with caution. Moreover, there is a clear need for well-designed intervention studies to delineate the impact of flexible working conditions on health, wellbeing and health inequalities.
灵活的工作条件在发达国家越来越普遍,但对员工健康和幸福的影响在很大程度上尚不清楚。
评估灵活工作干预措施对员工及其家庭的身体、心理和总体健康及幸福的影响(益处和危害)。
我们的检索(2009年7月)涵盖了12个数据库,包括Cochrane公共卫生小组专业注册库、CENTRAL;MEDLINE;EMBASE;CINAHL;PsycINFO;社会科学引文索引;ASSIA;IBSS;社会学文摘;以及ABI/Inform。我们还搜索了相关网站,手工检索了关键期刊,搜索了参考文献,并联系了研究作者和关键专家。
随机对照试验(RCT)、中断时间序列和前后对照研究(CBA),这些研究考察了灵活工作干预措施对员工健康和幸福的影响。我们排除了评估时间少于六个月的研究,并提取了使用经过验证的工具测量的与身体、心理和总体健康/不健康相关的结果。如果至少有一个主要结果同时报告了次要结果(包括病假、医疗服务使用、行为改变、事故、工作与生活平衡、生活质量、儿童、家庭成员和同事的健康与幸福),我们也会提取这些次要结果。
两位经验丰富的综述作者进行了数据提取和质量评估。由于研究之间存在很大的异质性,我们进行了叙述性综合分析。
十项研究符合纳入标准。六项CBA研究报告了与时间灵活性相关的干预措施:轮班工作的自我排班(n = 4)、弹性工作时间制(n = 1)和加班(n = 1)。其余四项CBA研究评估了一种合同灵活性形式:部分/渐进式退休(n = 2)、非自愿兼职工作(n = 1)和固定期限合同(n = 1)。检索到的研究存在一些方法学上的局限性,包括随访期短、选择偏倚风险以及很大程度上依赖自我报告的结果数据。四项关于轮班自我排班的CBA研究和一项关于渐进式/部分退休的CBA研究报告称,主要结果(包括收缩压和心率;疲劳;心理健康、睡眠时间、睡眠质量和警觉性;自评健康状况)或次要健康结果(同事的社会支持和社区感)有统计学上的显著改善,且未报告有害健康的影响。弹性工作时间制对自我报告的生理和心理健康结果没有显著影响。同样,在随访时,将加班的个体与未加班的个体进行比较,干预组中有害健康影响的几率没有显著更高。合同灵活性对自我报告健康的影响(渐进式/部分退休除外,由员工控制时可改善健康结果)要么不明确,要么是负面的。没有研究按社会经济地位区分结果,尽管有一项研究按性别比较了结果,但发现对自我报告的健康结果没有差异影响。
本综述的结果初步表明,增加员工控制权和选择权的灵活工作干预措施(如自我排班或渐进式/部分退休)可能对健康结果有积极影响。相比之下,由组织利益驱动或规定的干预措施,如固定期限合同和非自愿兼职工作,对健康的影响不明确或为负面。鉴于证据有限且在方法学上存在局限性,这些结果应谨慎解释。此外,显然需要精心设计的干预研究来阐明灵活工作条件对健康、幸福和健康不平等的影响。