Social connections at work and mental health during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from employees in Germany

  1. Jonas Breetzke
  2. Eva-Maria Wild

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Empirical evidence on the social and psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the workplace and the resulting consequences for the mental health of employees is lacking. As a result, research on this subject is urgently needed to develop appropriate countermeasures. This study builds on Person-Environment fit theory to investigate social connections at work and mental health during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. It analyses employees’ needs for social connections and how social connections affect different mental health measures. Data were collected in May 2020 in an online survey of employees across Germany and analysed using response surface analysis. Mental health was measured as positive mental health and mental health disorders. Social connections were measured as social support and social interactions. 507 employees participated in the survey and more than one third reported having less social support and social interaction at work than they desired (p < .001). This was associated with a decrease in mental health. In contrast, having more than the desired amount of social support was associated with a decrease, and having more than the desired amount of social interaction with an increase, in mental health. This study provides important early evidence on the impact of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the workplace. With it, we aim to stimulate further research in the field and provide early evidence on the potential mental health consequences of social distancing–while also opening avenues to combat them.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1371/journal.pone.0264602
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.03.04.22270966: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: Informed consent was not required because the questionnaires were answered anonymously.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Although our study makes a number of important contributions, our results should be considered in light of certain limitations, each of which provides an avenue for future research. First, our study investigates only the impact of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the workplace. At the time of our study, containment measures and changes to work environments, such as remote working and video conferencing, were still new and unfamiliar to many employees. During later waves of the pandemic, however, employees may have become accustomed to these new conditions and changed their perceptions of social support and social interaction at the workplace. As a result, findings from different time points during the pandemic might vary due to habituation effects, as well as changes in the length and severity of restrictions. Further research of a longitudinal nature, ideally with various data points before, during and after the pandemic would allow more reliable statements to be made on causality, habituation, and changes in social connections at work and mental health during the pandemic. Second, the cross-sectional design does not allow conclusions to be drawn about causality. A third limitation concerns our setting and sample. Our data are from an online survey, which allowed us to recruit a large number of participants efficiently in a short period. However, online surveys are likely to miss participants that are vulnerable to the pandemic, including people with no internet ac...

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2022.03.04.22270966v1 on medRxiv