UK economic outlook: Brexit Britain in Covid recovery ward

Küçük, Hande; Lenoel, Cyrille; Macqueen, Rory

doi:10.1017/nie.2021.6

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Understanding the impacts of furlough is important because it was a key policy measure implemented to mitigate the economic disruption of the pandemic. Due to the UK CJRS furlough scheme, unemployment only rose moderately compared to other countries (Küçük et al, 2021), which is confirmed in our studies, as the number of furloughed workers was more than three times higher than the number of employees who lost their job. Unlike traditional forms of unemployment, the relationship between specific labour market policy interventions, such as furlough, and health is less well-understood (Korpi, 1997).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…Understanding the impacts of furlough is important because this policy was a key measure implemented to mitigate the economic disruption of the pandemic. Due to the UK CJRS furlough scheme, unemployment only rose moderately compared to other countries (Küçük et al, 2021). By December 2020, 9.9 million UK employees (about 36% of the employed workforce) had been furloughed (Hensher, 2020) and the number of people claiming unemployment-related benefits increased by 1.4 million.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mental and social wellbeing and the UK Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme: evidence from nine longitudinal studies

Wels

Booth

Wielgoszewska

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has led to major economic disruptions. In March 2020, the UK implemented the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme – known as furlough – to minimize the impact of job losses. We investigate associations between change in employment status and mental and social wellbeing during the early stages of the pandemic.MethodsData from 25,670 respondents, aged 16 to 66, from nine UK longitudinal studies were analysed. Changes in employment (including being furloughed) were defined by comparing employment status pre-pandemic and during the first lockdown. Mental and social wellbeing outcomes included psychological distress, life satisfaction, self-rated health, social contact, and loneliness. Study-specific modified Poisson regression estimates, adjusting for socio-demographic characteristics and pre-pandemic outcome measures, were pooled using meta-analysis.ResultsCompared to those who remained working, furloughed workers were at greater risk of psychological distress (adjusted risk ratio, ARR=1.12; 95% CI: 0.97, 1.29), low life satisfaction (ARR=1.14; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.22), loneliness (ARR=1.12; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.23), and fair/poor self-rated health (ARR=1.26; 95% CI: 1.05, 1.50), but risk ratios appear less pronounced compared to those no longer employed (e.g., psychological distress, ARR=1.39; 95% CI: 1.21, 1.59) or stable unemployed (e.g., psychological distress, ARR=1.33; 95% CI: 1.09, 1.62).ConclusionsDuring the early stages of the pandemic those furloughed had increased risk for poor mental and social wellbeing. However, their excess risk was lower in magnitude than those who became or remained unemployed, suggesting that furlough partly mitigated poorer outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mental and social wellbeing and the UK Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme: evidence from nine longitudinal studies

Wels

Booth

Wielgoszewska

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Workers have experienced tremendous disruptions due to the pandemic [ 25 , 26 ], with many losing their job, being furloughed [ 27 ], experiencing changes in working hours [ 28 ], or shifting to working from home [ 29 , 30 ]. The impact of employment disruptions on mental and social wellbeing has been investigated [ 27 ], but little was known about the role of home working.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Home working and social and mental wellbeing at different stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: Evidence from 7 longitudinal population surveys

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Home working has increased since the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic’s onset with concerns that it may have adverse health implications. We assessed the association between home working and social and mental wellbeing among the employed population aged 16 to 66 through harmonised analyses of 7 UK longitudinal studies. Methods and findings We estimated associations between home working and measures of psychological distress, low life satisfaction, poor self-rated health, low social contact, and loneliness across 3 different stages of the pandemic (T1 = April to June 2020 –first lockdown, T2 = July to October 2020 –eased restrictions, T3 = November 2020 to March 2021 –second lockdown) using modified Poisson regression and meta-analyses to pool results across studies. We successively adjusted the model for sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., age, sex), job characteristics (e.g., sector of activity, pre-pandemic home working propensities), and pre-pandemic health. Among respectively 10,367, 11,585, and 12,179 participants at T1, T2, and T3, we found higher rates of home working at T1 and T3 compared with T2, reflecting lockdown periods. Home working was not associated with psychological distress at T1 (RR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.79 to 1.08) or T2 (RR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.88 to 1.11), but a detrimental association was found with psychological distress at T3 (RR = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.30). Study limitations include the fact that pre-pandemic home working propensities were derived from external sources, no information was collected on home working dosage and possible reverse association between change in wellbeing and home working likelihood. Conclusions No clear evidence of an association between home working and mental wellbeing was found, apart from greater risk of psychological distress during the second lockdown, but differences across subgroups (e.g., by sex or level of education) may exist. Longer term shifts to home working might not have adverse impacts on population wellbeing in the absence of pandemic restrictions but further monitoring of health inequalities is required.

show abstract

“…Workers have experienced tremendous disruptions due to the pandemic 18,19 , with many losing their job, being furloughed 20 , experiencing changes in working hours 21 , or shifting to working from home 22,23 . The impact of employment disruptions on mental and social wellbeing during the pandemic has been investigated 20 , but little is known about the role of home working.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Home working and its association with social and mental wellbeing at different stages of the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from seven UK longitudinal population surveys

Wels

Wielgoszewska

Moltrecht

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Home working rates have increased since the COVID-19 pandemic's onset, but the health implications of this transformation are unclear. We assessed the association between home working and social and mental wellbeing through harmonised analyses of seven UK longitudinal studies. Methods: We estimated associations between home working and measures of psychological distress, low life satisfaction, poor self-rated health, low social contact, and loneliness across three different stages of the COVID-19 pandemic (T1= Apr-Jun 2020 - first lockdown, T2=Jul-Oct 2020 - eased restrictions, T3=Nov 2020-Mar 2021 - second lockdown), in seven population-based cohort studies using modified Poisson regression and meta-analyses to pool results across studies. Findings: Among 34,131 observations spread over three time points, we found higher rates of home working at T1 and T3 compared with T2, reflecting lockdown periods. Home working was not associated with psychological distress at T1 (RR=0.92, 95%CI=0.79-1.08) or T2 (RR=0.99, 95%CI=0.88-1.11), but a detrimental association was found with psychological distress at T3 (RR=1.17, 95%CI=1.05-1.30). Poorer psychological distress associated with home working was observed for those educated to below degree level at T2 and T3. Men working from home reported poorer self-reported health at T2. Interpretation: No clear evidence of an association between home working and mental wellbeing was found, apart from greater risk of psychological distress associated with home working during the second lockdown, but differences across sub-groups may exist. Longer term shifts to home working might not have adverse impacts on population wellbeing in the absence of pandemic restrictions but further monitoring of health inequalities is required.

show abstract

UK economic outlook: Brexit Britain in Covid recovery ward

Cited by 4 publications

References 6 publications

Mental and social wellbeing and the UK Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme: evidence from nine longitudinal studies

Mental and social wellbeing and the UK Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme: evidence from nine longitudinal studies

Home working and social and mental wellbeing at different stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: Evidence from 7 longitudinal population surveys

Home working and its association with social and mental wellbeing at different stages of the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from seven UK longitudinal population surveys

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About