PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Chen, Jerry AU - Wan, Li TI - Workplace and lifestyle heterogeneity in subjective wellbeing: Latent Class Analysis of UK Time Use Survey before and during COVID-19 AID - 10.1101/2022.04.27.22273297 DP - 2022 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2022.04.27.22273297 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/04/27/2022.04.27.22273297.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/04/27/2022.04.27.22273297.full AB - Background Mental health in the UK had deteriorated compared with pre-pandemic trends. The impact of COVID-19 on the subjective wellbeing of working populations with distinct lifestyles is not yet studied.Methods Combining time use surveys collected pre- and during COVID-19, latent class analysis was used to identify distinct lifestyles based on aggregated daily activity patterns and reported working modes. We provide qualitative pen portraits alongside pre-versus-during pandemic comparisons of intraday time use and wellbeing patterns. Lifestyle heterogeneity in wellbeing was quantified in relation to aggregated activity types.Results COVID-19 impact on wellbeing varied significantly between usual working hours (6am-6pm) and rest of the day. The decline in wellbeing outside of usual working hours was significant and consistent across lifestyles. During usual working hours, the direction of impact varied in line with working modes: wellbeing of homeworkers decreased, remained relatively stable for commuters, and increased for certain hybrid workers. Magnitude of impact correlates strongly with lifestyle: those working long and dispersed hours are more sensitive, whereas non-work dominated lifestyles are more resilient.Conclusion The direction and magnitude of impact from COVID-19 were not uniformly manifested across activity types, time of day, and latent lifestyles. Blurring work-life boundaries and general anxiety about the pandemic may be key determinants of the decline outside of usual working hours. During usual working hours, strong yet complex correlations between wellbeing and time-use changes suggested that policies aiming to enhance wellbeing of workers need to consider not only spatial flexibility but also provide wider support for temporal flexibility.What is already known In the UK, mental health deteriorated compared with pre-pandemic trends. It is presumed that not everyone was affected equally, but there has been little evidence distinguishing population groups with distinct working modes and lifestyles.What are the new findings Direction of COVID-19 impact strongly correlates with working mode and extent of spatial flexibility: wellbeing decreased for homeworkers, but increased for some hybrid workers. Magnitude of COVID-19 impact strongly correlates with lifestyle and extent of temporal flexibility: those working long and dispersed hours more were sensitive, whereas non-work dominated lifestyles were more resilient.How might this impact policy Policymakers and employers need to consider the important function workplace has on mental health. As homeworking arrangements become permanent, the psychosocial function of traditional workplaces will become more pertinent. Flexibility around the established work-time regime will also benefit workers’ mental health, and give them greater control to choose and transition between lifestyles.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any external funding.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study used ONLY openly available human data that were originally located at UK Data Service, study DOI found here: http://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-8128-1 http://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-8741-3 I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data produced are available online at UK Data Service safeguarded depository. https://beta.ukdataservice.ac.uk/datacatalogue/studies/study?id=8128