Kruk Kai
Department of Economics, Myongji University, S1425 Main Building, 34 Geobukgol-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, University of Applied Sciences Worms, Erenburger str. 19, D-67549 Worms, Germany,
J Ment Health Policy Econ. 2025 Jun 1;28(2):67-72.
The COVID-19 pandemic triggered widespread lockdown measures, including a sudden and substantial increase in working from home arrangements. While intended to reduce virus transmission, these measures may have had unintended consequences for mental health. Remote work limits in-person interactions and alters work-life boundaries, potentially influencing psychological well-being. However, empirical research on the mental health effects of working from home -especially under involuntary conditions- is still limited.
This study investigates the impact of working from home on mental health during the first lockdown in Germany. Specifically, it aims to differentiate between selection effects (i.e., individuals who choose working from home based on their circumstances) and causal effects (i.e., the mental health consequences of working from home itself). The goal is to understand whether working from home, when imposed rather than voluntarily chosen, negatively affects mental well-being.
We use data from the Mannheim Corona Study (MCS), which collected high-frequency panel data from a representative sample of the German population during the first lockdown (March-July 2020). The analysis focuses on employed individuals and excludes those not working. We create a binary working from home indicator and analyze its association with four mental health measures: two indicators of depressive symptoms, one of loneliness, and one of social interaction frequency. Both pooled linear regressions and fixed effects models are employed to estimate associations while accounting for confounders and unobserved heterogeneity.
Descriptive statistics reveal that working from home was more common among individuals with higher income and education, reflecting a socioeconomic selection effect. Pooled regression results show a significant association between working from home and increased loneliness, depressive symptoms, and reduced social interaction. These associations persist even after controlling for sociodemographic characteristics. Fixed effects panel regressions-focusing on within-individual changes-confirm a significant, though smaller, negative effect of working from home on mental health, particularly regarding loneliness and loss of interest. This strengthens the evidence for a causal link between working from home and reduced psychological well-being, independent of pre-existing personal characteristics.
The findings suggest that even privileged individuals working from home experienced a decline in mental health, highlighting the psychological costs of reduced social interaction during the lockdown. Limitations include the lack of pre-pandemic mental health data and the inability to distinguish between voluntary and enforced working from home beyond the lockdown context. Also, the relatively short observation period limits insights into long-term adaptation.
Health professionals should consider the mental health risks associated with remote work settings, especially in times of enforced isolation. Early identification of at-risk individuals and targeted support strategies may help prevent deterioration in mental well-being among remote workers.
Policy makers should balance infection control measures with their broader psychosocial impacts. If remote work becomes a long-term strategy, accompanying mental health support mechanisms should be institutionalized. Flexibility in workplace options may help mitigate adverse psychological effects.
Future studies should explore how specific home-working conditions (e.g., workspace quality, household composition) moderate mental health outcomes. Longitudinal research beyond the lockdown period is necessary to assess the persistence and reversibility of these effects. Evaluating interventions that support mental health in remote work settings is also crucial.
新冠疫情引发了广泛的封锁措施,包括居家办公安排突然大幅增加。虽然这些措施旨在减少病毒传播,但可能对心理健康产生了意想不到的后果。远程工作限制了面对面互动,改变了工作与生活的界限,可能影响心理健康。然而,关于居家办公对心理健康影响的实证研究——尤其是在非自愿情况下——仍然有限。
本研究调查德国首次封锁期间居家办公对心理健康的影响。具体而言,旨在区分选择效应(即根据自身情况选择居家办公的个体)和因果效应(即居家办公本身对心理健康的影响)。目标是了解被迫而非自愿选择居家办公是否会对心理健康产生负面影响。
我们使用了曼海姆新冠研究(MCS)的数据,该研究在首次封锁期间(2020年3月至7月)从德国人口的代表性样本中收集了高频面板数据。分析聚焦于就业个体,排除未工作的个体。我们创建了一个居家办公二元指标,并分析其与四项心理健康指标的关联:两项抑郁症状指标、一项孤独感指标和一项社交互动频率指标。在考虑混杂因素和未观察到的异质性的同时,采用混合线性回归和固定效应模型来估计关联。
描述性统计显示,高收入和高学历个体中居家办公更为普遍,这反映了社会经济选择效应。混合回归结果表明,居家办公与孤独感增加、抑郁症状以及社交互动减少之间存在显著关联。即使在控制了社会人口特征之后,这些关联仍然存在。固定效应面板回归——关注个体内部变化——证实居家办公对心理健康有显著的负面影响,尽管影响较小,特别是在孤独感和兴趣丧失方面。这加强了居家办公与心理健康下降之间因果关系的证据,且独立于个体先前的个人特征。
研究结果表明,即使是享有特权的居家办公个体,心理健康也出现了下降,凸显了封锁期间社交互动减少的心理成本。局限性包括缺乏疫情前的心理健康数据,以及无法在封锁背景之外区分自愿和被迫居家办公。此外较短的观察期限制了对长期适应情况的洞察。
卫生专业人员应考虑与远程工作环境相关的心理健康风险,尤其是在强制隔离期间。早期识别高危个体并制定有针对性的支持策略,可能有助于预防远程工作者心理健康恶化。
政策制定者应在感染控制措施与其更广泛的社会心理影响之间取得平衡。如果远程工作成为一项长期战略,应将配套的心理健康支持机制制度化。工作场所选择的灵活性可能有助于减轻不良心理影响。
未来研究应探讨特定的居家工作条件(如工作空间质量、家庭构成)如何调节心理健康结果。有必要进行封锁期之后的纵向研究,以评估这些影响的持续性和可逆性。评估支持远程工作环境中心理健康的干预措施也至关重要。