Introduction
Higher stress levels have been associated with adverse physical and mental health outcomes1, including cardiovascular disease, depression2, and several unhealthy behaviours3 and work hours have been linked to such health and stress outcomes4. Besides long and unsociable work hours, which have been associated with higher stress levels and burnout risks5, higher stress levels have mostly been reported by full-time workers6. Part-time work may be used to manage work and care responsibilities, thus reducing stress, although it may have negative long-term consequences, such as career penalties and increased economic dependency7,8.
Paradoxically, while women in most industrialized countries are more likely than men to work part-time, they are more likely to report higher stress levels1,9,10. These gender differences in stress may relate to parenthood and other care responsibilities, which are key contributing factors to stress11. The association between parenthood or other care responsibilities and stress varies for women and men9. For example, motherhood is more strongly associated with difficulties in combining paid work and care than fatherhood, and also with higher stress levels12.
Stress levels were significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and measures taken to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-213. For example, higher stress levels have been reported by adults who stopped working during the pandemic compared to those who continued working14. Perceived stress also increased for many individuals who worked from home, due to a blurring of the boundaries between their work and private life15. Other studies also suggested higher stress levels for individuals combining work and care during the early months of the pandemic16,17.
Yet stress levels experienced by men and women during the pandemic differed. These gender differences in stress levels are potentially mediated by differences in work-care responsibilities, which the pandemic may have amplified18. For example, mothers in the Netherlands experienced higher levels of work pressure and greater difficulty in balancing work and care than fathers18. Amongst highly educated mothers, perceived work-life balance was worse for those without a partner than for those with a partner19. Although some men started to spend more time on childcare and household tasks during the pandemic compared to before20, women continued doing more21,22.
Working reduced hours has the potential to buffer the effects of stress, during the pandemic or otherwise. Yet consideration is needed for gender differences as part-time work is a decidedly female phenomenon. There is significant variation in working hours among women8,23 and much less variation in working hours among men. Studying this relationship in the Netherlands, with the highest levels of part-time work in industrialized countries24, allows us to analyse in more detail the relationship between short and long part-time hours and stress levels than what can be studied in most other countries with lower part-time work rates.
We use representative, cross-sectional survey data to study differences in perceived stress levels related to gender and work hours in the Netherlands in June 2020, as COVID-19 pandemic containment measures were relaxed. We further examine whether perceived work-life balance mediates the relationship between work hours and perceived stress. In extant studies on work-life balance, the focus is often on parents with children rather than individuals with other caring responsibilities (e.g., for sick family members)25. These individuals experience more stress than individuals who do not have such care responsibilities26, and caregivers often work reduced hours as a means of combining work and care27. We include this group in our study to provide a more nuanced understanding of work hours, gender and stress in relation to caregiving.
As the work-care situation of many individuals may have changed due to the pandemic, it provides a unique setting to study the mediating effect of work-life balance in relation to care. Much extant literature focuses on women’s reconciliation of work and care in relation to the number of weekly worked hours8,28. Our study contributes to the literature by decomposing the effects of weekly working hours, as well as analysing these relationships for men and women separately, while accounting for differences between short and long part-time working hours. These empirical insights can be used to develop effective public health interventions targeting the reduction of stress during societal upheavals, such as pandemics.
Methods
Data
Data were collected within the Longitudinal Internet studies for the Social Sciences (LISS) panel29. The full LISS panel consists of approximately 7,500 individuals from 5,000 households based on a probability sample of Dutch households using register data. We used data collected in the second wave of the project “COVID Gender Inequality Survey Netherlands” (COGIS-NL; retrospective data for June 2020 collected in July 2020). Wave 2 sampled 1,602 respondents, of which 1,229 responded (response rate: 76.7%). Respondents who were either in paid employment themselves or cohabited with an employed partner were included. This criteria resulted in the exclusion of 9 respondents as they were either unemployed (not due to the COVID-19 pandemic) and did not have a have a partner or cohabited with a unemployed partner (not due to the COVID-19 pandemic). This study additionally used LISS data on work hours prior to the pandemic from the ‘Effects of the outbreak of COVID-19’ module30, and the core module ‘Background variables’ for data on gender, age, educational level, living arrangement, number of children, and economic activity. The final analytic sample was 920 respondents, 466 women and 454 men, following the exclusion of respondents with missing data (e.g. 163 women and 86 men dropped due to missing information on work hours). More detailed information on sample selection is provided in the Extended Data, S1.
Variables
Our dependent variable was perceived stress, measured using the question: “All in all, how much stress did you experience in daily life, in the month of June?”. Responses were measured on a scale from 0 (no stress at all) to 10 (a lot of stress).
The main exposure, actual weekly work hours, was calculated by aggregating two questions on work hours. The first asked for hours worked per week in early March (pre-pandemic). The second question asked how many hours more or less the respondent worked per week during June compared to before the pandemic. Using the combined measure, we distinguished working patterns of less than 20 hours, 20–34 hours, and 35 or more hours per week. This classification is commonly applied in analyses of Dutch data to distinguish between short-hours part-time work, long-hours part-time work, and full-time work, respectively28.
Several covariates were included in the analyses: age (linear), educational level, and several covariates capturing the family and employment situation. We distinguished three levels of completed education: low (primary, lower and upper secondary), mid (intermediate vocational) and high (higher vocational and tertiary). Respondents’ family situation was measured by whether they lived with a partner (yes/no) and/or co-resided with minor children (<18 years, yes/no). With respect to the respondent’s and their partner’s employment situation, we differentiated between working as an employee and other (working in a family business, self-employed or other).
Finally, our mediator variable, perceived work-life balance, was measured with the following item: “How easy or difficult was it to combine your paid work with [care and support for people around you/your care responsibilities] in the month of June?” The five answer categories ranged from very easy to very difficult, but the respondents could also opt for the answer ‘not applicable’. Whereas a question about combining work and care responsibilities is often only asked to those caring for children, the question here was also asked to respondents without children and their answers could therefore reflect other care responsibilities, such as informal caregiving. Detailed information on the variables used is available in S2.
Analysis
Our analysis proceeded in six steps. We first studied to what extent the difference in perceived stress for men and women could be attributed to differences in part-time versus full-time work hours, using a Kitagawa-Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition31–34. Here, we combined the two part-time categories into one general part-time category, due to the small sample of men who work less than 20 hours a week. In a second step, we used ordinary least squares regression (OLS) to estimate the difference in perceived stress by weekly working hours, controlled for background variables, family situation, and employment situation. Whether to use OLS or ordered logit models for an ordinal outcome variable has been debated. However, as the differences between the two were minimal for our models (results available upon request), we relied on OLS for the ease of interpretation. Third, we examined whether perceived work-life balance mediated the relationship between work hours and perceived stress levels following a Baron and Kenny35 approach to mediation analysis. Fourth, we repeated the main analysis for respondents with and without co-resident minor children as the type of care responsibilities can differ greatly depending on the presence of children. Fifth, we used a Kitagawa-Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition again, but now to decompose the difference in stress across the two work hours categories (i.e., part-time and full-time) to study the attribution of the other factors to differences in stress. Finally, in a sixth step, we conducted several sensitivity analyses to examine the robustness of the results. These sensitivity analyses included different specifications of the outcome variable, a different source for pre-pandemic work hours, and a different cut-off for part-time work hours. These sensitivity analyses did not change the interpretation of our results (S3). Data were analysed using Stata/SE version 16.1 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, US). The R Project for Statistical Computing would offer an open source software alternative,
Results
On average, the perceived stress levels reported by women (4.65, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.42, 4.87) were higher than those reported by men (4.18, 95% CI: 3.94, 4.42). On the other hand, average working hours per week were higher among men than among women (39.3 and 32.1, respectively).
The majority of women in our sample worked part-time (Table 1): 45% worked 20-34 hours and 14% less than 20 hours a week. The remaining 41% worked full-time (i.e., 35 hours or more). Approximately 38 percent of women found it easy to combine work and care, in contrast to 18 percent of women who reported it was difficult. Perceived stress levels were lowest for women working 20–34 hours.
Table 1. Distributions of stress, number of work hours and perceived work-life balance.
| | Women (n=466) | Men (n=454) |
|---|
| | % | Average stress level (95% CI)b | % | Average stress level (95% CI)b |
|---|
| Perceived stress | 0 – No stress at all | 6.4 | | 9.3 | |
| 1 | 7.3 | | 8.2 | |
| 2 | 10.5 | | 15.4 | |
| 3 | 9.4 | | 10.8 | |
| 4 | 8.4 | | 8.8 | |
| 5 | 14.0 | | 9.7 | |
| 6 | 15.2 | | 16.5 | |
| 7 | 19.7 | | 11.9 | |
| 8 | 6.9 | | 6.8 | |
| 9 | 1.3 | | 0.7 | |
| 10 – A lot of stress | 0.9 | | 2.0 | |
| Average (standard deviation) | 4.65 (2.46) | 4.65 (4.42, 4.87) | 4.18 (2.59) | 4.18 (3.94, 4.42) |
Number of hours worked per weeka | Less than 20 hours | 13.7 | 4.80 (4.23, 5.36) | 6.0 | 4.19 (3.17, 5.20) |
| 20 to 34 hours | 45.1 | 4.16 (3.83, 4.48) | 18.1 | 3.99 (3.40, 4.58) |
| 35 or more hours | 41.2 | 5.13 (4.78, 5.48) | 76.0 | 4.22 (3.95, 4.49) |
| Average (standard deviation) | 32.1 (13.1) | | 39.3 (12.5) | |
Perceived work-life balance | Very/Quite easy | 37.8 | 3.73 (3.38, 4.08) | 42.1 | 3.27 (2.93, 3.62) |
| Neither easy nor difficult | 33.1 | 4.76 (4.41, 5.11) | 24.5 | 4.55 (4.09, 5.01) |
| Very/Quite difficult | 17.6 | 6.37 (5.95, 6.78) | 17.4 | 6.11 (5.67, 6.56) |
| Not applicable | 11.6 | 4.70 (3.99, 5.42) | 16.1 | 3.89 (3.30, 4.48) |
Among men, working part-time was less common (Table 1): 18% worked 20–34 hours and 6% less than 20 hours a week. Most men (76%) worked full-time. More than 40 percent of men found it easy to combine work and care and 17 percent of men reported it was difficult. Perceived stress levels were fairly similar for men regardless of their weekly working hours.
Kitagawa-Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition: part-time/full-time employment and gender differences in stress
This first decomposition analysis examined whether the observed gender difference in stress comes from 1) differences in the distribution of part-time/full-time employment between men and women; 2) differences in the effect of part-time/full-time employment on stress; or 3) a combination of the two. The gender difference in average stress levels was 0.47 (4.65 minus 4.18, with a 95% CI: 0.14, 0.80, Table 2); women experienced higher stress levels than men. However, the difference in men and women’s stress levels was not attributable to differences in the distribution of part-time/full-time employment (the endowment is not statistically significant; -0.06, 95% CI: -0.26, 0.13). Rather, the difference in stress is likely to be influenced by the differential effect of part-time/full-time employment on men and women’s perceived stress levels (0.48, 95% CI: -0.06, 1.03, p=0.082).
Table 2. Kitagawa-Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition for gender differences in stress by part-time employment.
| | Average stress levels |
|---|
| Men | | 4.18 (3.94, 4.42) |
| Women | | 4.65 (4.42, 4.87) |
| Difference | | 0.47 (0.14, 0.80)
|
| | Decomposition results |
|---|
| Endowments (difference in distribution) | | -0.06 (-0.26, 0.13) |
| Coefficients (difference in effect) | Part-time/full-time employment | 0.48 (-0.06, 1.03) |
| Constant (unknown factors) | 0.27 (-0.30, 0.84) |
| Total | 0.75 (0.39, 1.12) |
| Interaction | | -0.22 (-0.47, 0.03) |
Work hours and stress
Given the differential effect of part-time employment on men and women’s perceived stress levels, the following models analysing the association between part-time employment and stress are shown for men and women separately. This additionally allows for more detail in part-time work hours among women.
Multivariate regressions confirmed that perceived stress was lower among women working 20–34 hours (Table 3, Model 1) than full-time working women. However, stress levels of women working less than 20 hours did not differ from those working 20–34 hours or from those working full-time (Wald test: F(1, 463)=3.42, Prob>F=0.07). Accounting for age, educational level, family situation, and employment situation only marginally affected observed differences in perceived stress between women working 20–34 hours and those working full-time, but strengthened observed differences in stress levels for those working less than 20 hours and those working 20–34 hours (Wald test: F(1, 456)=4.50, Prob>F=0.03).
Table 3. Perceived stress levels and work hours and all other exposures.
| | Women (n=466) | Men (n=454) |
|---|
| Model | | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 |
|---|
| _cons | | 5.13 (4.79, 5.47) | 6.02 (4.74, 7.29) | 6.11 (4.88, 7.34) | 4.22 (3.95, 4.50) | 4.21 (2.75, 5.67) | 4.94 (3.56, 6.32) |
| Number of hours worked per week | Less than 20 hoursa | -0.33 (-1.02, 0.35) | -0.25 (-0.96, 0.46) | -0.23 (-0.89, 0.43) | -0.04 (-1.06, 0.98) | 0.07 (-0.96, 1.10) | -0.03 (-0.98, 0.91) |
| 20 to 34 hours | -0.97 (-1.45, -0.50) | -0.99 (-1.46, -0.51) | -0.87 (-1.31, -0.43) | -0.24 (-0.86, 0.39) | -0.25 (-0.89, 0.38) | -0.34 (-0.92, 0.25) |
| 35 or more hours | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| Wald test: <20 vs. 20 to 34 hoursb | F(1,463)=3.42, p=0.07 | F(1,456)=4.50, P=0.03 | F(1,453)=3.90, p=0.049 | F(1,451)=0.12, p=0.73 | F(1,444)=0.30, P=0.58 | F(1,441)=0.32, p=0.57 |
| Age | | | -0.01 (-0.04, 0.02) | -0.01 (-0.04, 0.01) | | -0.00 (-0.03, 0.03) | -0.01 (-0.04, 0.02) |
| Educational level | Low | | -1.34 (-2.02, -0.65) | -1.12 (-1.76, -0.48) | | -0.27 (-0.99, 0.44) | -0.18 (-0.84, 0.48) |
| Mid | | Ref. | Ref. | | Ref. | Ref. |
| High | | -0.00 (-0.49, 0.48) | 0.01 (-0.45, 0.47) | | 0.18 (-0.37, 0.72) | 0.22 (-0.32, 0.75) |
| Living with partner | No | | -0.02 (-0.97, 0.94) | 0.25 (-0.64, 1.15) | | -0.34 (-1.20, 0.51) | -0.56 (-1.35, 0.23) |
| Yes | | Ref. | Ref. | | Ref. | Ref. |
| Children | No | | -0.33 (-0.82, 0.15) | -0.38 (-0.85, 0.09) | | 0.21 (-0.34, 0.77) | 0.22 (-0.32, 0.75) |
| Yes | | Ref. | Ref. | | Ref. | Ref. |
| Employment status | Employee | | Ref. | Ref. | | Ref. | Ref. |
| Family business / Self-employed / Other | | -0.32 (-0.91, 0.28) | -0.33 (-0.88, 0.23) | | -0.36 (-1.22, 0.49) | -0.37 (-1.16, 0.41) |
| Partner’s main activity | In paid employment | | Ref. | Ref. | | Ref. | Ref. |
| Not in paid employment | | 0.05 (-0.84, 0.93) | -0.10 (-0.93, 0.73) | | -0.36 (-1.22, 0.49) | 0.64 (0.02, 1.26) |
| Perceived work-life balance | Very / Quite easy | | | -1.02 (-1.51, -0.53) | | | -1.33 (-1.89, -0.76) |
| Neither easy nor difficult | | | Ref. | | | Ref. |
| Quite / Very difficult | | | 1.46 (0.86, 2.06) | | | 1.57 (0.87, 2.27) |
| Not applicable | | | -0.01 (-0.72, 0.70) | | | -0.78 (-1.53, -0.04) |
For men, the multivariate regressions confirmed that perceived stress did not vary depending upon working hours (Model 1). Accounting for age, educational level, family situation and employment situation (Model 2) did not change these associations.
Perceived work-life balance and its possible mediating effect
Average stress was lowest for women perceiving work-life balance as easy and highest for those finding it difficult (Table 1). For men, stress levels also varied by perceived work-life balance: they were lowest for those perceiving work-life balance as easy and highest for those finding it difficult, similar to the results for women. Perceived work-life balance had an independent association with stress, but no association was found between work hours and perceived work-life balance (S6). As a result, for both men and women, including perceived work-life balance only marginally changed the differences in perceived stress by work hours (Table 3). These results confirm that perceived work-life balance does not mediate the association of weekly work hours and perceived stress; rather it is independently associated with stress.
Variation in stress by the presence of co-resident minor children
As type of care responsibilities may greatly depend on the presence of minor children in the household, we repeated the analysis for men and for women with and without co-resident minor children (Table 4). Working 20–34 hours was associated with lower stress levels for women with co-resident minor children, but not for women without. No association between work hours and perceived stress was found for men, irrespective of the presence of children in the household.
Table 4. Perceived stress levels and all exposures by presence of children in the household.
| | Women | Men |
|---|
| | With children in the HH (n=264) | Without children in the HH (n=202) | With children in the HH (n=255) | Without children in the HH (n=199) |
|---|
| _cons | | 7.26 (5.54, 8.98) | 4.31 (2.53, 6.08) | 5.96 (4.06, 7.85) | 4.35 (2.27, 6.42) |
| Number of hours worked per weeka | Less than 20 hours | -0.36 (-1.17, 0.45) | -0.40 (-1.61, 0.82) | 0.55 (-0.59, 1.69) | -1.00 (-2.68. 0.68) |
| 20 to 34 hours | -1.20 (-1.80, -0.61) | -0.53 (-1.21, 0.14) | -0.67 (-1.48, 0.15) | -0.07 (-0.94, 0.80) |
| 35 or more hours | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| Wald test: <20 vs. 20 to 34 hoursb | F(1, 252)=4.78, p=0.03 | F(1, 190)=0.05, p=0.82 | F(1, 243)=3.22, p=0.07 | F(1, 187)=1.03, p=0.31 |
| Age | | -0.03 (-0.06, 0.01) | 0.00 (-0.03, 0.04) | -0.04 (-0.08, 0.01) | 0.01 (-0.04, 0.05) |
| Educational level | Low | -0.63 (-1.46, 0.20) | -1.57 (-2.57, -0.58) | 0.40 (-0.48, 1.28) | -0.77 (-1.76, 0.23) |
| Mid | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| High | -0.24 (-0.82, 0.35) | 0.28 (-0.47, 1.03) | 0.54 (-0.12, 1.19) | 0.02 (-0.80. 0.83) |
| Living with partner | Yes | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| No | -0.23 (-1.55, 1.08) | 0.38 (-0.91, 1.67) | -1.06 (-2.48, 0.36) | -0.47 (-1.71, 0.77) |
| Employment status | Employee | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| Family business / Self-employed / Otherc | -0.66 (-1.30, -0.02) | 0.18 (-0.93, 1.29) | -0.96 (-1.97, 0.05) | 0.13 (-1.14, 1.40) |
| Partner’s main activity | In paid employment | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| Not in paid employment | -0.15 (-1.23, 0.94) | 0.09 (-1.19, 1.37) | 0.49 (-0.22, 1.20) | 0.75 (-0.51, 2.01) |
| Perceived work-life balance | Very / Quite easy | -1.34 (-1.96, -0.73) | -0.66 (-1.45, 0.14) | -1.61 (-2.31, -0.92) | -0.93 (-1.92, 0.05) |
| Neither easy nor difficult | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| Quite / Very difficult | 1.41 (0.67, 2.16) | 1.49 (0.49, 2.50) | 1.45 (0.56, 2.34) | 1.69 (0.54, 2.85) |
| Not applicable | -1.67 (-3.06, -0.28) | 0.61 (-0.26, 1.48) | 0.32 (-1.11, 1.75) | -0.96 (-1.95, 0.04) |
Perceived stress was higher when work-life balance was perceived as difficult for all men and women, thus irrespectively of having co-resident minor children. When work-life balance was perceived as easy or when it was not applicable, it was associated with lower stress levels for men and women with children but not for those without co-resident minor children.
Kitagawa-Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition of stress by part-time/full-time employment
Lastly, to determine how much of the difference in stress levels experienced by working part-time/full-time can be attributed to the explanatory variables, including work-life balance, we estimated separate Kitagawa-Oaxaca-Blinder decompositions for men and women (Table 5). For men, the difference in average stress levels between those working part-time (4.04, 95% CI: 3.51, 4.56) and full-time (4.22, 95% CI: 3.95, 4.50) was small and statistically insignificant (-0.19, 95% CI: -0.75, 0.41). Their decomposition results therefore provide few insights, and their results are therefore included in S8. For women, a large difference in stress levels was observed between women who work part-time and women who work full-time: -0.82 (95% CI: -1.28, -0.36). This means that the average stress level was 0.82 points higher for women working full-time compared to those working part-time. The differences in the distributions of the explanatory variables (‘endowments’) did not explain the difference in stress by part-time/full-time employment, neither independently nor all together. However, the difference in stress levels was largely explained by the differential effects of the explanatory variables as well as the unknown factors (-0.70/-0.82=85%). Considering the specific explanatory variables separately, we note that only education had a statistically significant effect.
Table 5. Kitagawa-Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition for differences in stress by part-time employment for women.
| | Average stress levels |
|---|
| Part-time emp. | | 4.31 (4.02, 4.59) |
| Full-time emp. | | 5.13 (4.77, 5.49) |
|
Difference
| |
-0.82 (-1.28, -0.36)
|
| | Decomposition results |
|---|
| Endowments | Age | -0.003 (-0.03, 0.02) |
| Educational level: low | -0.03 (-0.13, 0.07) |
| Educational level: mid | 0.03 (-0.03, 0.10) |
| Educational level: high | -0.05 (-0.13, 0.03) |
| Living with partner | -0.06 (-0.24, 0.12) |
| Co-resident minor child | 0.12 (-0.02, 0.26) |
| Employee | 0.05 (-0.07, 0.16) |
| Partner is employed | 0.02 (-0.08, 0.13) |
| Perceived work-life balance: (Very) Easy | -0.06 (-0.16, 0.04) |
| Perceived work-life balance: Neutral | -0.00 (-0.03, 0.02) |
| Perceived work-life balance: (Very) Difficult | -0.03 (-0.12, 0.07) |
| Perceived work-life balance: Unknown | 0.001 (-0.03, 0.04) |
|
Total
|
-0.012 (-0.30, 0.30)
|
| Coefficients | Age | -0.91 (-3.11, 1.30) |
| Educational level: low | 0.18 (0.05, 0.31) |
| Educational level: mid | -0.17 (-0.37, 0.03) |
| Educational level: high | -0.41 (-0.74, -0.08) |
| Living with partner | 0.46 (-0.87, 1.79) |
| Co-resident minor child | -0.23 (-0.67, 0.21) |
| Employee | 0.82 (-0.26, 1.91) |
| Partner is employed | -0.21 (-1.37, 0.94) |
| Perceived work-life balance: (Very) Easy | -0.04 (-0.28, 0.20) |
| Perceived work-life balance: Neutral | 0.07 (-0.16, 0.29) |
| Perceived work-life balance: (Very) Difficult | 0.03 (-0.13, 0.19) |
| Perceived work-life balance: Unknown | -0.03 (-0.18, 0.11) |
| Constant | -0.26 (-2.97, 2.45) |
|
Total
|
-0.70 (-1.15, -0.26)
|
| Interaction | Age | -0.01 (-0.06, 0.03) |
| Educational level: low | 0.03 (-0.06, 0.11) |
| Educational level: mid | -0.02 (-0.08, 0.03) |
| Educational level: high | 0.05 (-0.03, 0.12) |
| Living with partner | 0.07 (-0.14, 0.28) |
| Co-resident minor child | -0.09 (-0.27, 0.09) |
| Employee | -0.10 (-0.25, 0.05) |
| Partner is employed | -0.02 (-0.15, 0.03) |
| Perceived work-life balance: (Very) Easy | -0.01 (-0.05, 0.02) |
| Perceived work-life balance: Neutral | 0.003 (-0.02, 0.02) |
| Perceived work-life balance: (Very) Difficult | -0.003 (-0.02, 0.02) |
| Perceived work-life balance: Unknown | 0.01 (-0.04, 0.06) |
|
Total
|
-0.11 (-0.37, 0.16)
|
Discussion
Men and women experienced different levels of stress during the COVID-19 pandemic, with women experiencing higher stress levels than men. This gender difference in stress is not attributable to gender differences in the gender distribution of part-time/full-time employment. Rather, the gender difference in stress is partially attributable to the differential effect part-time employment has on men and women’s stress levels. Looking at men and women separately, the difference in stress observed between women working part-time versus full-time can be largely explained by the differential effects of our explanatory variables as well as unknown factors.
Work-life balance does not mediate the relationship between work hours and stress, neither for men or women, but it is directly associated with their stress levels. For both men and women, perceiving work-life balance as easy was associated with less stress only if there were minor children living in the household, but perceiving it as difficult was associated with higher stress levels for all men and women.
Lastly, the relationship between perceived stress and work hours differs by care responsibilities, but only for women. Working fewer weekly hours can buffer perceived stress for mothers, but variation in working hours does not matter for women without co-resident minor children. Variation in weekly work hours was not related to perceived stress for men with or without co-resident minor children, however we interpret this finding with caution due to the overlapping confidence intervals.
Methodological considerations
A key strength of this study was the detailed analysis of the relationship between weekly work hours and perceived stress for men and women. Using probability-based data for the Netherlands, a country with the highest level of part-time work36, we were able to decompose gender differences in perceived stress in relation to part-time/full-time employment. We could also decompose differences in perceived stress according to work hours, thereby assessing the potential for part-time work as a coping strategy for men and women balancing work and care responsibilities during the COVID-19 pandemic. The high variation in part-time work hours in the Netherlands allowed for a nuanced understanding of weekly work hours in relationship to perceived stress. Finally, a strength of this study is that it also included individuals with care responsibilities outside of childcare for co-resident minor children. As such, it extends existing research focused on work-life balance of parents alone.
Our study design is cross-sectional and as a result does not account for potential changes in work hours or care situations throughout the pandemic, nor does it allow for estimations of the causal direction of the relationships studied. Future research could focus on the extent to which work hours fluctuated throughout the pandemic, or throughout time in general, to better understand the longitudinal relationship between work hours and perceived stress. A further advancement would be to account for couple-level dynamics in working hours, which could be an important buffer or stressor for individuals37, allowing for greater analysis into the gendered dynamics of the relationship between work hours and stress. We also rely on self-reported measures of weekly working hours, perceived work-life balance and perceived stress levels, which can be susceptible to respondent bias.
Discussion of main findings
Women had higher perceived stress levels than men, which is likely attributable to differential effects of part-time employment on men and women’s perceived stress levels. For women, perceived stress was lower among those working 20–34 hours a week than full-time employed women. However, perceived stress levels were not different for women working less than 20 hours. The often precarious nature of short part-time work hours8 could explain the similarities in perceived stress levels between this group and other women. An alternative explanation is potential selection effects or the voluntary nature of part-time work, which differs across and within countries8.
The absence of an association between weekly work hours and perceived stress levels for men may reflect a power issue. Part-time working men remain a small group, also in the Netherlands. Additionally, some men may have worked fewer hours than usual due to the pandemic, therefore those working part-time may have done this involuntary8. This means there could be a null-relationship, in which more stress due to employment and wage insecurity counteracts the lower stress due to a better work-life balance.
The models stratified by the presence of minor children in the household demonstrate that the protective association between working 20–34 hours and perceived stress levels was only observed for women with co-resident minor children, and thus not for women without co-resident minor children. Working part-time may particularly offer mothers a means of reconciling work and care responsibilities28. For women without co-resident minor children, working less than full-time may be the result of other factors that could influence their stress or mental health, e.g., providing informal care38,39. Working part-time hours did not result in lower stress levels for men, irrespective of the presence of children in the household. It is well-established that women spend more time than men providing care for children and others (e.g., elderly family members)40. The pandemic has strengthened these gender differences in care provision in many countries41, including the Netherlands42.
Our results further showed that perceived work-life balance did not mediate the relationship between work hours and perceived stress, but was rather independently associated with stress. This suggests the presence of a behavioural-based mechanism (weekly work hours) and a perception-based mechanism (perceived work-life balance). On the one hand, perceiving work-life balance as easy was associated with lower stress levels, but only when there were minor children present in the household. This could be because employers found it easier to lower their expectations for parents than for people with other care tasks, which are often less visible. Conversely, perceiving work-life balance as difficult was associated with higher stress levels, irrespective of whether children were present in the household.
Conclusions
Women report higher perceived stress than men in the Netherlands, a difference likely attributable to the differential effect of part-time employment on men and women’s stress levels. Part-time employment appears to primarily buffer perceived stress for mothers, but not for women without minor co-resident children or men. Perceiving work-life balance as easy is directly associated with lower stress levels but work-life balance did not mediate the relationship between work hours and perceived stress. These results offer robust, nuanced empirical results on the relationship between perceived stress levels and weekly working hours for men and women both with and without caregiving responsibilities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Hence, our study offers insights to policymakers interested in mitigating the negative effects of a pandemic. It suggests that attention is needed for variation in caregiving responsibilities and people’s capability to (temporarily) manage these responsibilities through reduced working hours. Interventions may be needed to mitigate the stress experienced by those workers with caregiving responsibilities who are unable to adjust working hours as well as interventions aimed at mitigating the long-term effects of work hour reductions7,8. Our study also provides avenues for future research into potential differences in behavioural and perception-based mechanisms and the differential impact on perceived stress, a strong risk factor for poor (mental) health.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The work presented here has been approved by the Faculty Ethics Review Committee, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Utrecht University on 11 May 2020, approval number: 20-269. Ethical approval for data collection rests with CentERdata, the LISS-panel administrator, who conducts an internal review process for LISS questionnaires and requires all respondents to sign a written, online informed consent form before participating in the panel. The minimum age of our respondents is 24 years. We provide the age range of our respondents (24 to 64 years) in the abstract, the manuscript and in S2 (Age). For a possible sensitivity analysis, we decided to construct 10-year age groups using a common classification, which would mean that our youngest respondents would fall in the category “15 to 24 years”, and therefore this age group was mentioned in the Appendix. However, there are no minors included in the analysis. Additionally, all methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Availability of data and materials
The authors do not own the data, which remain with the Dutch Longitudinal Internet Studies for the Social Sciences. These data are publicly available free of charge for scientific or policy relevant (non-commercial) research through the LISS archive (www.lissarchive.nl); https://doi.org/10.57990/qn3k-as78. Persons interested in using the datasets used and/or analysed during the current study can request access to the LISS archive by signing a statement confirming that they agree to the rules and conditions, outlined here.
All code required for data preparation and replication of the analysis can be found on the project page of the Open Science Framework (OSF) repository (see Extended Data).
Authors’ contributions
KH and MY conceptualized the research idea. KH prepared the data analysis. All authors discussed the results, contributed to, read and approved the final manuscript.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Faculty Opinions recommendedReferences
- 1.
Gehring TM, Aubert L, Padlina O, et al.:
Perceived stress and health-related outcomes in a Swiss population sample.
Swiss J Psychol.
2001; 60(1): 27–34. Publisher Full Text
- 2.
Cohen S, Janicki-Deverts D, Miller GE:
Psychological stress and disease.
JAMA.
2007; 298(14): 1685–1687. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 3.
Ng DM, Jeffery RW:
Relationships between perceived stress and health behaviors in a sample of working adults.
Health Psychol.
2003; 22(6): 638–642. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 4.
Härmä M:
Workhours in relation to work stress, recovery and health.
Scand J Work Environ Health.
2006; 32(6): 502–514. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 5.
Huang SL, Li RH, Fang SY, et al.:
Work hours and difficulty in leaving work on time in relation to Work-to-Family Conflict and burnout among female workers in Taiwan.
Int J Environ Res Public Health.
2020; 17(2): 605. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
- 6.
Benach J, Gimeno D, Benavides FG, et al.:
Types of employment and health in the European Union: changes from 1995 to 2000.
Eur J Public Health.
2004; 14(3): 314–321. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 7.
Lyonette C:
Part-time work, work–life balance and gender equality.
J Soc Welfare Family Law.
2015; 37(3): 321–333. Publisher Full Text
- 8.
Nicolaisen H, Kavli HC, Jensen RS, Eds.:
Dualisation of part-time work: the development of labour market insiders and outsiders. In: Research in comparative & global social policy. Bristol, UK: Policy Press, 2019. Publisher Full Text
- 9.
Muhammad A, Gagnon A:
Why should men and women marry and have children?: Parenthood, marital status and self-perceived stress among Canadians.
J Health Psychol.
2010; 15(3): 315–325. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 10.
Jatrana S:
Gender differences in Self-Reported Health and Psychological Distress among New Zealand adults.
Demogr Res.
2021; 45: 693–726. Publisher Full Text
- 11.
Hewitt B, Yerkes MA, Cooklin A, et al.:
Reciprocal relationships between time pressure and mental or physical health in Australian mothers of preschool aged children.
Soc Sci Med.
2022; 301: 114937. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 12.
Widarsson M, Engström G, Rosenblad A, et al.:
Parental stress in early parenthood among mothers and fathers in Sweden.
Scand J Caring Sci.
2013; 27(4): 839–847. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 13.
Lakhan R, Agrawal A, Sharma M:
Prevalence of depression, anxiety, and stress during COVID-19 pandemic.
J Neurosci Rural Pract.
2020; 11(4): 519–525. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
- 14.
Zhang SX, Wang Y, Rauch A, et al.:
Unprecedented disruption of lives and work: health, distress and life satisfaction of working adults in China one month into the COVID-19 outbreak.
Psychiatry Res.
2020; 288: 112958. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
- 15.
Schieman S, Badawy PJ, Milkie MA, et al.:
Work-Life conflict during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Socius.
2021; 7: 237802312098285. Publisher Full Text
- 16.
Xue B, McMunn A:
Gender differences in unpaid care work and psychological distress in the UK Covid-19 lockdown.
PLoS One.
2021; 16(3): e0247959. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
- 17.
Zoch G, Bächmann AC, Vicari B:
Gender differences in reduced well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic – the role of working conditions. Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg, Discussion Paper No. 4/2021, 2021. Reference Source
- 18.
Yerkes MA, André SCH, Besamusca JW, et al.:
‘Intelligent’ lockdown, intelligent effects? Results from a survey on gender (in)equality in paid work, the division of childcare and household work, and quality of life among parents in the Netherlands during the Covid-19 lockdown.
PLoS One.
2020; 15(11): e0242249. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
- 19.
Yerkes M, André S, Remery C, et al.:
Unequal but balanced: highly educated mothers’ perceptions of work-life balance during the COVID-19 lockdown in Finland and the Netherlands.
SocArXiv.
2020. Publisher Full Text
- 20.
Carlson DL, Petts RJ, Pepin JR:
Changes in US parents’ domestic labor during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Sociol Inq.
2021; 92(3): 1217–1244. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
- 21.
Zamarro G, Prados MJ: Gender differences in couples’ division of childcare, work and mental health during COVID-19.
Rev Econ Househ.
2021; 19(1): 11–40. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
- 22.
Sevilla A, Smith S: Baby Steps: The Gender Division of Childcare during the COVID-19 Pandemic. IZA - Institute of Labor Economics, Bonn, Germany, 13302, 2020. Accessed: Feb. 19, 2021. Reference Source
- 23.
O’Reilly J, Fagan C: Part-time prospects: an international comparison of part-time work in Europe, North America and the Pacific Rim. Routledge, 1998. Publisher Full Text
- 24.
Eurostat: Part-time employment and temporary contracts - annual data. Reference Source
- 25.
León M: The Transformation of Care in European Societies. Bristol: Palgrave Macmillan. Publisher Full Text
- 26.
Pinquart M, Sörensen S: Differences between caregivers and noncaregivers in psychological health and physical health: a meta-analysis.
Psychol Aging.
2003; 18(2): 250–267. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 27.
Carmichael F, Hulme C, Sheppard S, et al.: Work - life imbalance: informal care and paid employment in the UK.
Fem Econ.
2008; 14(2): 3–35. Publisher Full Text
- 28.
Yerkes MA, Hewitt B: Part-time strategies of women and men of childbearing age in the Netherlands and Australia. In: Dualisation of Part-Time Work. 1st ed., H. Nicolaisen, H. C. Kavli, and R. S. Jensen, Eds., The Development of Labour Market Insiders and Outsiders, Bristol University Press, 2019; 265–288. Publisher Full Text
- 29.
CentERdata (Tilburg University, The Netherlands): About the Panel LISS Panel Data. Accessed: Feb. 18, 2021. Reference Source
- 30.
Gaudecker HMV; Centerdata: LISS panel - Effects of the outbreak of COVID-19 - Part 6. DANS/KNAW, 2021. Publisher Full Text
- 31.
Kitagawa EM: Components of a difference between two rates.
J Am Stat Assoc.
1955; 50(272): 1168–1194. Publisher Full Text
- 32.
Oaxaca R: Male-female wage differentials in urban labor markets.
Int Econ Rev.
1973; 14(3): 693–709. Publisher Full Text
- 33.
Blinder AS: Wage discrimination: reduced form and structural estimates.
J Hum Resour.
1973; 8(4): 436–455. Publisher Full Text
- 34.
Rahimi E, Hashemi Nazari SS: A detailed explanation and graphical representation of the Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition method with its application in health inequalities.
Emerg Themes Epidemiol.
2021; 18(1): 12. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
- 35.
Baron RM, Kenny DA: The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
J Pers Soc Psychol.
1986; 51(6): 1173–1182. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 36.
OECD: Part-time employment rate (indicator). Reference Source
- 37.
Craig L, Churchill B: Labor force status, transitions, and mothers’ and fathers’ parenting stress: direct and cross-spousal influences.
J Marriage Fam.
2019; 81(2): 345–360. Publisher Full Text
- 38.
O’Loughlin K, Loh V, Kendig H: Carer characteristics and health, wellbeing and employment outcomes of older Australian baby boomers.
J Cross Cult Gerontol.
2017; 32(3): 339–356. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 39.
Dorant E, Boumans N: Positive and negative consequences of balancing paid work and informal family care: a survey in two different sectors.
International Journal of Health and Psychology Research.
2016; 4(1): 16–33. Reference Source
- 40.
Patterson SE, Margolis R: The demography of multigenerational caregiving: a critical aspect of the gendered life course.
Socius.
2019; 5: 237802311986273. Publisher Full Text
- 41.
Hjálmsdóttir A, Bjarnadóttir VS: ‘I have turned into a foreman here at home’: Families and work-life balance in times of COVID-19 in a gender equality paradise.
Gend Work Organ.
2021; 28(1): 268–283. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
- 42.
Remery C, André S, Besamusca J, et al.: De coronapandemie en de verdeling van huishoudelijke zorgtaken in Nederland. In: Ongelijk Nederland. Een drieluik over migratie, onderwijs en de coronacrisis: Preadviezen van de KVS. A. Gielen, D. Webbink, and B. ter Weel, Eds., in Preadviezen van de Koninklijke Vereniging voor de Staathuishoudkunde, Amsterdam, 2021; 87–92. Reference Source
- 43.
Perceived stress in relation to working hours and caring responsibilities: A cross-sectional study during the COVID-19 pandemic. [Dataset].
Open Science Framework (OSF) repository. http://www.doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/K8U6B