BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented global public health crisis that continues to exert immense pressure on healthcare and related professional staff and services. The impact on staff wellbeing is likely to be influenced by a combination of modifiable and non-modifiable factors.ObjectivesThe aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the self-reported wellbeing, resilience, and job satisfaction of National Health Service (NHS) and university staff working in the field of healthcare and medical research.MethodsWe conducted a cross sectional survey of NHS and UK university staff throughout the COVID-19 pandemic between May-November 2020. The anonymous and voluntary survey was disseminated through social media platforms, and via e-mail to members of professional and medical bodies. The data was analyzed using descriptive and regression (R) statistics.ResultsThe enjoyment of work and satisfaction outside of work was significantly negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic for all of staff groups independent of other variables. Furthermore, married women reporting significantly lower wellbeing than married men (P = 0.028). Additionally, the wellbeing of single females was significantly lower than both married women and men (P = 0.017 and P < 0.0001, respectively). Gender differences were also found in satisfaction outside of work, with women reporting higher satisfaction than men before the COVID-19 pandemic (P = 0.0002).ConclusionOur study confirms that the enjoyment of work and general satisfaction of staff members has been significantly affected by the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Interestingly, being married appears to be a protective factor for wellbeing and resilience but the effect may be reversed for life satisfaction outside work. Our survey highlights the critical need for further research to examine gender differences using a wider range of methods.

An influential body of work has identified a ‘welfare-state paradox’: work–family policies that bring women into the workforce also undermine women’s access to the top jobs. Missing from this literature is a consideration of how welfare-state interventions impact on women’s representation at the board-level specifically, rather than managerial and lucrative positions more generally. This database includes data that contribute to addressing this ‘gap’. It compiles existing secondary data from various sources into a single dataset. Both the raw and 'fuzzy' data used in a fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis of 22 industrialised countries are available. Based on these data, analyses reveal how welfare-state interventions combine with gender boardroom quotas and targets in (not) bringing a ‘critical mass’ of women onto private-sector corporate boards. Overall, there is limited evidence in support of a welfare-state paradox; in fact, countries are unlikely to achieve a critical mass of women on boards in the absence of adequate childcare services. Furthermore, ‘hard’, mandatory gender boardroom quotas do not appear necessary for achieving more women on boards; ‘soft’, voluntary recommendations can also work under certain family policy constellations. The deposit additionally includes other data from the project that provide more context on work-family policy constellations, as they show how countries performance across multiple gendered employment outcomes spanning segregation and inequalities in employment participation, intensity and pay, with further differences by class.

While policymakers in the UK and elsewhere have sought to increase women's employment rates by expanding childcare services and other work/family policies, research suggests these measures have the unintentional consequence of reinforcing the segregation of men and women into different 'types' of jobs and sectors (Mandel & Semyonov, 2006). Studies have shown that generous family policies lead employers to discriminate against women when it comes to hiring, training, and promotions, as employers assume that women are more likely to make use of statutory leaves and flexible working. Furthermore, state provision of health, education, and care draws women into stereotypically female service jobs in the public sector and away from (better-paid) jobs in the private sector. Accordingly, research suggests that the more 'women-friendly' a welfare state is, the harder it will be for women - especially if they are highly skilled - to break into male-dominated jobs and sectors, including the most lucrative managerial positions (Mandel, 2012).

Yet, more recent evidence indicates that women's disadvantaged access to better jobs is not inevitable under generous welfare policies. For instance, women's share of senior management positions in Sweden, where women-friendly policies are most developed, now stands at 36%; this compares to a figure of 28% in the UK, where gender employment segregation has historically been lower (Eurostat, 2018). Thus, the aim of this project is to provide a clearer and fuller understanding of how welfare states impact on gender employment segregation by using innovative methods and approaches that have not been used to examine this research puzzle before.

To this aim, the project is organised into three 'work packages' (WPs). WP1 examines how conditions at the country-level mediate the relationship between welfare states and gender segregation in employment across 21 advanced economies. This includes Central and Eastern European countries, which prior research has tended to overlook. The country-level conditions included are cultural norms, regulations regarding women's representation on corporate boards, and labour-market characteristics. Data will be compiled from the International Social Survey Programme, OECD, Eurostat, the Global Media Monitoring Project, the World Bank, and Deloitte's Women in the Boardroom project. WP2 then investigates how the impact of welfare-state policies on a woman's career progression varies according to her socioeconomic position and the specific economic and social context in which she lives, using regional and individual-level data from the European Social Survey. Subsequently, WP3 carries out systematic comparative case studies to explore in depth the underlying mechanisms that explain why certain welfare states and regions exhibit high levels of gender inequality but low levels of class inequality, while in other places, the opposite is true. Data are drawn from the same sources as for WP1 and WP2, as well as academic literature and other relevant sources (e.g. government websites).

The project is important because its findings will inform policymakers about how their policies affect different groups of women and how to overcome the 'inclusion-inequality' dilemma (Pettit & Hook, 2009), i.e. bring more women into the workforce by providing adequate family policies and...

According to a survey carried out in 2022, almost half of NHS employees stated patients' inability to use and access digital services without assistance was a significant challenge in delivering remote health or care services. Further challenges included difficulty connecting with remote locations, the ability to access critical systems in real-time, costs, and colleagues’ inability to use technology.

Background: The Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has emphasised the critical need to investigate the mental well-being of healthcare professionals working during the pandemic. It has been highlighted that healthcare professionals display a higher prevalence of mental distress and research has largely focused on frontline professions. Social restrictions were enforced during the pandemic that caused rapid changes to the working environment (both clinically and remotely). The present study aims to examine the mental health of a variety of healthcare professionals, comparing overall mental wellbeing in both frontline and non-frontline professionals and the effect of the working environment on mental health outcomes.

Method: A cross-sectional mixed methods design, conducted through an online questionnaire. Demographic information was optional but participants were required to complete: (a) Patient Health Questionnaire, (b) Generalised Anxiety Disorder, (c) Perceived Stress Scale, and (d) Copenhagen Burnout Inventory. The questionnaire included one open-ended question regarding challenges experienced working during the pandemic.

Procedure:
Upon ethical approval the online questionnaire was advertised for six weeks from 1st May 2021 to 12th June 2021 to maximise the total number of respondents able to partake. The survey was hosted on the survey platform “Online Surveys”. It was not possible to determine a response rate because identifying how many people had received the link was unattainable information. The advert for the study was placed on social media platforms (WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook and Twitter) and shared through emails.

Participants were recruited through the researchers’ existing professional networks and they shared the advertisement and link to questionnaire with colleagues. The information page explained the purpose of the study, eligibility criteria, procedure, costs and benefits of partaking and data storage. Participants were made aware on the information page that completing and submitting the questionnaire indicated their informed consent. It was not possible to submit complete questionnaires unless blank responses were optional demographic data. Participants were informed that completed questionnaires could not be withdrawn due to anonymity.

The questionnaire consisted of four sections: demographic data, mental health information and the four psychometric tools, PHQ-9, GAD-7, PSS-10 and CBI. Due to the sensitive nature of this research, only the psychometric measures required an answer for each question, thus all demographic information was optional to encourage participant contentment. Once participants had completed the questionnaire and submitted, they were automatically taken to a debrief page. This revealed the hypothesis of the questionnaire and rationalised why it was necessary to conceal this prior to completion. Participants were signposted to mental health charities and a self-referral form for psychological support. Participants could contact the researcher via email to express an interest in the results. It was explained that findings would be analysed using descriptive statistics to investigate any correlations or patterns in the responses. Data collected was stored electronically, on a password protected laptop. It will be kept for three years and then destroyed.

Instruments: PHQ-9, GAD-7, PSS-10 and CBI.

Other questions included:

Thank you for considering taking part in the questionnaire! Please remember by completing and submitting the questionnaire you are giving your informed consent to participate in this study.

Demographic:

Gender: please select one of the following:

Male Female Non-binary Prefer not to answer

Age: what is your age?

Open question: Prefer not to answer

What is your current region in the UK?

South West, East of England, South East, East Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber, North West, West Midlands, North East, London, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland Prefer not to answer

Ethnicity: please select one of the following:

White English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or British Irish Gypsy or Irish Traveller Any other White background Mixed or Multiple ethnic groups White and Black Caribbean White and Black African White and Asian Any other Mixed or Multiple ethnic background Asian or Asian British Indian Pakistani Bangladeshi Chinese Any other Asian background Black, African, Caribbean or Black British African Caribbean Any other Black, African or Caribbean background Other ethnic group Arab Option for other please specify Prefer not to answer

Employment/environment:

What was your employment status in 2020 prior to COVID-19 pandemic?

Please select the option that best applies. Employed Self-employed Unpaid work (homemaker/carer) Out of work and looking for work Out of work but not currently looking for work Student Volunteer Retired Unable to work Prefer not to answer Option for other please specify

What is your current employment status?

Please tick the option that best applies. Employed Self-employed Unpaid work (homemaker/carer) Out of work and looking for work Out of work but not currently looking for work Student Volunteer Retired Unable to work Prefer not to answer Option for other please specify

What is your healthcare profession/helping profession?

Please state your job title. Open question

How often did you work from home before the COVID-19 pandemic?

Not at all, rarely, some, most, everyday Option for N/A

How often did you work from home during the first UK national lockdown for COVID-19?

Not at all, rarely, some, most, everyday Option for N/A

How often did you work from home during the second UK national lockdown during COVID-19?

Not at all, rarely, some, most, everyday Option for N/A

How often have you worked from home during the third UK national lockdown during COVID-19?

Not at all, rarely, some, most, everyday Option for N/A

How often are you currently working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic?

Not at all, rarely, some, most, everyday Option for N/A

Mental health:

How would you describe your mental health leading up to the COVID-19 pandemic?

Excellent, Very good, Good, Fair, Poor

How would you describe your mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic?

Excellent, Very good, Good, Fair, Poor

What have been the main challenges working as a healthcare professional/helping profession during COVID-19 pandemic? Open question

Data analysis: Firstly, any missing data was checked by the researcher and noted in the results section. The data was then analysed using a statistical software package called Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 28 (SPSS-28). Descriptive statistics were collected to organise and summarise the data, and a correlation coefficient describes the strength and direction of the relationship between two variables. Inferential statistics were used to determine whether the effects were statistically significant. Responses to the open-ended question were coded and examined for key themes and patterns utilising the Braun and Clarke (2006) thematic analysis approach.

Ethical considerations: The study was approved by the Health Science, Engineering and Technology Ethical Committee with Delegated Authority at the University of Hertfordshire.

The potential benefits and risks of partaking in the research were contemplated and presented on the information page to promote informed consent. Precautions to prevent harm to participants included eligibility criteria, excluding those under eighteen years older or experiencing mental health distress. As the questionnaire was based around employment and the working environment, another exclusion involved experiencing a recent job change which caused upset.

An anonymous questionnaire and optional input of demographic data fostered the participants’ right to autonomy, privacy and respect. Specific employment and organisation or company information were not collected to protect confidentiality. Although participants were initially deceived regarding the hypotheses, they were provided with accurate information about the purpose of the study. Deceit was appropriate to collect unbiased information and participants were subsequently informed of the hypotheses on the debrief page.

National teams developed bespoke surveys for each nation. The findings were summarised in national reports. The data tables from the surveys in England, Northern Ireland, and Wales (English and Welsh) are available in this record, as are the national reports

The overarching aim of this four nation comparative study is to critically evaluate social welfare voluntary action responses to the pandemic, to help guide the UK volunteer effort to support the national recovery and prepardeness for future crises, and indoing so inform UKRI research questions on inequality and national recovery (1).

The four nation study will be delivered by a UK-wide team (academics, the four key sector infrastructure bodies for each nation), supported by a Project Partner advisory panel (from professional networks, organisations and related ESRC investments).

It has been co-designed, and will be co-delivered practising the principles of co-production. The analytical framework is a theory-based evaluation technique (2) with refinements from process evaluation of complex systems (3).

A desk-based collection of evidence will be undertaken across the four nations facilitated by CoIs (Q 2.2) from the infrastructure bodies and supported by Project Partners (2.3). Key evidence: national voluntary action policy documents; virtual interviews with policy makers; rapid evidence gathering via voluntary action pro-forma (CoI and Project Partner networks) and anonymised data from matching apps/ platforms.

A common coding frame will be employed for data analysis, within country analysis preceding integrated analysis, linking the four nations to identify similarities and differences. Critical feedback and validation will be provided by Project Partners (second Advisory Panel meeting).

Emerging findings will be shared via an interactive website; regular webinars; mid review briefings to inform recovery, end of review briefing informing future planning, presented at virtual end of award events (one per nation).