This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details.

Objective This study examined the differences in child and adolescent time use across the following three countries with distinct policy and cultural regimes: Finland, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Background Studying children's time use cross‐nationally is urgent to better understand how societal contexts influence children's daily lives in ways that affect their future lifestyles, development, and identity formation. Yet previous studies have largely omitted this important question. Method The study used 2009 to 015 time‐diary data on children aged 10 to 17 from Finland, Spain, and the United Kingdom (N = 3,491). Multivariate linear regression models examined (a) between‐country and (b) within‐country variations. Results Finnish children spent 153 daily minutes less with parents, 128 more with “others” and 54 daily minutes more alone when compared with Spanish children. The United Kingdom fell between Finland and Spain in children's time allocated with parents and time with “others.” In family‐oriented Spain, children spent more time eating; in individualistic Finland and United Kingdom, child screen‐based time was highest. Parental education generally led to more time in educational activities, but with minor country variations. Maternal employment was generally not associated with child time use, except in Spain, where it led to less parent–child time. Conclusion The strong cross‐national differences in child and adolescent time use seem only partly driven by sociostructural factors. Cross‐cultural variations in family values and parenting ideologies seem to critically influence children's daily activities.

There is considerable evidence showing that night work is associated with increased morbidity, but only a few studies have focused on its relation to mortality. This study investigates the relationship between the type of working-time arrangement (weekly night work/daytime work) and total and cause-specific mortality among men and women. The data consist of a representative working conditions survey of Finnish employees conducted in 1984 (2286 men/2216 women), which has been combined with register-based follow-up data from Statistics Finland covering the years 1985-2008. In the 1984 survey, the employees were asked if they worked during the night (23:00-06:00 h) and if so, how often. In this study, the authors compare employees who worked at night (121 men/89 women) to daytime employees who did not do night work (1325 men/1560 women). The relative risk of death was examined by Cox proportional hazards analyses adjusted for background (age, level of education, family situation, and county), health (longstanding illness, pain symptoms, smoking status, and psychological symptoms), and work-related factors (weekly working hours, physical and psychological demands, demands of learning at work, and perceived job insecurity). Female employees working at night had a 2.25-fold higher risk of mortality than female dayworkers (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-4.20) after adjustment for background and health- and work-related factors. In addition to total mortality, night work was also associated with tumor mortality. Female night workers had a 2.82-fold higher risk of tumor mortality than female dayworkers (95% CI 1.20-6.65) in the adjusted model. Among men, no such significant association was observed. The present study indicated that female night workers had a higher risk of both total and tumor mortality compared to female daytime employees. Additional research on the potential factors and mechanisms behind the association between night work and mortality is required.

Establishments that use working time control as a human resource instrument may benefit from reduced absenteeism. However, following the 'strain' hypothesis it is insufficient to focus solely on working time control as high time pressure maintains its detrimental effect on employees' health.

The aim of this study was to compare the possibilities of experiencing positive well-being in call centers and other service sector work. The article focuses on the prevalence of working conditions (job demands, autonomy, and social support)