What This Means
This research suggests that working from home (WFH) does not have a simple, universal effect on mental health — instead, whether it helps or hurts depends on a person's gender, type of job, and the broader social and institutional context. Using data from nearly 40,000 UK residents tracked over more than a decade (2009–2023), the researchers found that before the COVID-19 pandemic, WFH was associated with better mental health for men and for women in lower-skilled routine jobs, but was actually linked to worse mental health for women in professional occupations. This suggests that for professional women before the pandemic, working from home may have added to domestic burdens or reinforced workplace disadvantages rather than relieving stress.
Since the pandemic began in March 2020, however, the picture flipped for professional women: WFH became associated with improved mental health for them — potentially because remote work became normalized, stigma around it decreased, or accompanying workplace flexibility policies changed their experience. Meanwhile, men and women in routine jobs no longer showed the mental health benefits from WFH seen before the pandemic, possibly because pandemic-era WFH for these groups came with new stressors or because many routine jobs are harder to perform effectively at home.
This research matters because WFH is increasingly promoted as a family-friendly and worker-supportive policy. These findings suggest that its benefits are not equally distributed — who gains and who loses depends heavily on social position and the conditions under which WFH occurs. Policymakers and employers should be cautious about assuming WFH universally improves wellbeing, and should consider how job type, gender dynamics at home and work, and broader institutional supports shape whether remote work is truly an advantage or a hidden strain.