Good work in the COVID-19 recovery: priorities and changes for the future

  1. Melda Lois Griffiths
  2. Benjamin J Gray
  3. Richard G Kyle
  4. Alisha R Davies

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Employment is a wider determinant of health, and the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted working lives, with individuals having to adapt to new ways of working. These new experiences may shape what kind of work people want in future. This research used a sample of working adults in Wales to identify the workforce’s priorities for future work, and the employment changes that they have considered making since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Data was collected at two time-points (May-June 2020; December 2020-January 2021) in a nationally-representative longitudinal household survey across Wales.

Work priorities remained largely stable throughout the pandemic, however the desire to work close to home increased as the pandemic progressed. Those in poorer health prioritised flexibility, and were more likely to consider retiring than their healthier counterparts. Becoming self-employed was more likely to be considered by those with limiting pre-existing conditions or low mental well-being. Over 20% of the total sample had considered retraining, with those with low mental well-being, younger individuals and those experiencing financial insecurity being more likely to consider doing so. Furloughed individuals were more likely to consider retraining, becoming self-employed, securing permanent employment and compressing their working hours.

Those prone to facing insecurity within their working lives (those that were furloughed, those experiencing financial insecurity, and those in ill-health) were all more likely to consider changing their employment conditions – these groups may require additional support in accessing secure and flexible work. Action is needed to ensure that good work, that is good for health, is equally accessible for all.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.01.31.22270163: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Statistical approach: Statistical analysis was undertaken in IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 24).
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Strengths, limitations and recommendations for future work: Our study is limited by its cross-sectional nature, whereby only associations could be calculated as opposed to causality. For example, we cannot determine whether our respondents’ were experiencing wage precariousness as a result of the pandemic, or whether it was pre-existing. However, we were able to identify changes across time within our longitudinal analyses. Second, while our study provides valuable insights about COVID-19 related changes in perspectives towards employment, they may not be reflective of individuals’ viewpoints after the removal of COVID-19 response measures (e.g. cessation of furlough, returning to the office). However, with the digital transformation of the workforce that the pandemic spurred, and the Welsh Government indicating a desire to have 30% of the Welsh workforce working remotely regularly (Welsh Government 2020a, b), many of the COVID-19 related employment impacts may remain relevant for quite some time. Thirdly, we did not account for differences across sectors in our analysis. Individuals working in certain sectors faced greater financial insecurity or increased health risks at work during the pandemic (Dyakova et al. 2021). For example, the vast majority (75%) of residential care workers reported not being able to socially distance, along with 67% of health care employees – COVID-19 related mortality was highest for social and health care workers (Office for National Statistics 2...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2022.01.31.22270163 on medRxiv