http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8500-8121
![Sample our Behavioral Sciences journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110801/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Behavioral-Sciences.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The practice of remote e-working, which involves work conducted at anyplace, anytime, using technology, is on the increase. The aim of this systematic literature review is to gain a deeper understanding of the association between remote e-working, within knowledge workers, and the five dimensions of well-being at work: affective, cognitive, social, professional, and psychosomatic. Sixty-three studies employing quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method designs have been included in the review. Findings indicate that we know more about remote e-workers’ affective state and their social and professional life than we know about their cognitive functioning and psychosomatic conditions. Whilst the research indicates a positive focus there are some negative aspects of this way of working which are highlighted within this review; such as social and professional isolation, and perceived threats in professional advancement. This review may be of great importance for academics, to continue the theoretical advancement of research into remote e-working, and practitioners, to implement and manage remote e-working attitudes and policies more effectively.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1. As some studies looked into a couple of well-being dimensions (and sub-dimensions), the number does not add up to 63, which is the final number of included studies. and provide detail on the aspects examined by each study.
2. Relevant studies should include at least one keyword from each set of keywords.
3. ICT use is not mentioned in any of the definitions provided, since it was an essential requirement for a study to be included.
4. The three meta-analyses received no MMAT scores, as the MMAT tool criteria have only the ability to assess the quality of primary quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method studies.