homework health effects

• Second Opinion
• Research & Innovation
• Patients & Families
• Health Professionals
• Recently Visited
• Segunda opinión
• Refer a patient
• MyChart Login

Healthier, Happy Lives Blog

Sort articles by..., sort by category.

• Celebrating Volunteers
• Community Outreach
• Construction Updates
• Family-Centered Care
• Healthy Eating
• Heart Center
• Interesting Things
• Mental Health
• Patient Stories
• Research and Innovation
• Safety Tips
• Sustainability
• World-Class Care

About Our Blog

• Back-to-School
• Pediatric Technology

Latest Posts

• Healing with Heart: Monica Patino’s Mission in Support of Latinx Families
• A Visit From the 49ers Scores Smiles at Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford
• Beat the Heat: Keep Kids Safe in the Autumn Sun
• Wildfires: Health Risks and How to Keep Children Safe
• Cause for Celebration—and Concern

Health Hazards of Homework

March 18, 2014 | Julie Greicius Pediatrics .

A new study by the Stanford Graduate School of Education and colleagues found that students in high-performing schools who did excessive hours of homework “experienced greater behavioral engagement in school but also more academic stress, physical health problems, and lack of balance in their lives.”

Those health problems ranged from stress, headaches, exhaustion, sleep deprivation, weight loss and stomach problems, to psycho-social effects like dropping activities, not seeing friends or family, and not pursuing hobbies they enjoy.

In the Stanford Report story about the research, Denise Pope , a senior lecturer at the Stanford Graduate School of Education and a co-author of the  study published in the  Journal of Experimental Education , says, “Our findings on the effects of homework challenge the traditional assumption that homework is inherently good.”

The study was based on survey data from a sample of 4,317 students from 10 high-performing high schools in California communities in which median household income exceeded $90,000. Of the students surveyed, homework volume averaged about 3.1 hours each night.

“It is time to re-evaluate how the school environment is preparing our high school student for today’s workplace,” says Neville Golden, MD , chief of adolescent medicine at Stanford Medicine Children’s Health and a professor at the School of Medicine. “This landmark study shows that excessive homework is counterproductive, leading to sleep deprivation, school stress and other health problems. Parents can best support their children in these demanding academic environments by advocating for them through direct communication with teachers and school administrators about homework load.”

Related Posts

Top-ranked group group in Los Gatos, Calif., is now a part of one of the…

The Stanford Medicine Children’s Health network continues to grow with our newest addition, Town and…

• Julie Greicius
• more by this author...

Connect with us:

Download our App:

ABOUT STANFORD MEDICINE CHILDREN'S HEALTH

• Leadership Team
• Vision, Mission & Values
• The Stanford Advantage
• Government and Community Relations

LUCILE PACKARD FOUNDATION FOR CHILDREN'S HEALTH

• Get Involved
• Volunteering Services
• Auxiliaries & Affiliates
• Our Hospital
• Send a Greeting Card
• New Hospital
• Refer a Patient
• Pay Your Bill

Also Find Us on:

• Notice of Nondiscrimination
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Code of Conduct
• Price Transparency
• Stanford School of Medicine
• Stanford Health Care
• Stanford University

Along with Stanford news and stories, show me:

• Student information
• Faculty/Staff information

We want to provide announcements, events, leadership messages and resources that are relevant to you. Your selection is stored in a browser cookie which you can remove at any time using “Clear all personalization” below.

Education scholar Denise Pope has found that too much homework has negative effects on student well-being and behavioral engagement. (Image credit: L.A. Cicero)

A Stanford researcher found that too much homework can negatively affect kids, especially their lives away from school, where family, friends and activities matter.

“Our findings on the effects of homework challenge the traditional assumption that homework is inherently good,” wrote Denise Pope , a senior lecturer at the Stanford Graduate School of Education and a co-author of a study published in the Journal of Experimental Education .

The researchers used survey data to examine perceptions about homework, student well-being and behavioral engagement in a sample of 4,317 students from 10 high-performing high schools in upper-middle-class California communities. Along with the survey data, Pope and her colleagues used open-ended answers to explore the students’ views on homework.

Median household income exceeded $90,000 in these communities, and 93 percent of the students went on to college, either two-year or four-year.

Students in these schools average about 3.1 hours of homework each night.

“The findings address how current homework practices in privileged, high-performing schools sustain students’ advantage in competitive climates yet hinder learning, full engagement and well-being,” Pope wrote.

Pope and her colleagues found that too much homework can diminish its effectiveness and even be counterproductive. They cite prior research indicating that homework benefits plateau at about two hours per night, and that 90 minutes to two and a half hours is optimal for high school.

Their study found that too much homework is associated with:

* Greater stress: 56 percent of the students considered homework a primary source of stress, according to the survey data. Forty-three percent viewed tests as a primary stressor, while 33 percent put the pressure to get good grades in that category. Less than 1 percent of the students said homework was not a stressor.

* Reductions in health: In their open-ended answers, many students said their homework load led to sleep deprivation and other health problems. The researchers asked students whether they experienced health issues such as headaches, exhaustion, sleep deprivation, weight loss and stomach problems.

* Less time for friends, family and extracurricular pursuits: Both the survey data and student responses indicate that spending too much time on homework meant that students were “not meeting their developmental needs or cultivating other critical life skills,” according to the researchers. Students were more likely to drop activities, not see friends or family, and not pursue hobbies they enjoy.

A balancing act

The results offer empirical evidence that many students struggle to find balance between homework, extracurricular activities and social time, the researchers said. Many students felt forced or obligated to choose homework over developing other talents or skills.

Also, there was no relationship between the time spent on homework and how much the student enjoyed it. The research quoted students as saying they often do homework they see as “pointless” or “mindless” in order to keep their grades up.

“This kind of busy work, by its very nature, discourages learning and instead promotes doing homework simply to get points,” Pope said.

She said the research calls into question the value of assigning large amounts of homework in high-performing schools. Homework should not be simply assigned as a routine practice, she said.

“Rather, any homework assigned should have a purpose and benefit, and it should be designed to cultivate learning and development,” wrote Pope.

High-performing paradox

In places where students attend high-performing schools, too much homework can reduce their time to foster skills in the area of personal responsibility, the researchers concluded. “Young people are spending more time alone,” they wrote, “which means less time for family and fewer opportunities to engage in their communities.”

Student perspectives

The researchers say that while their open-ended or “self-reporting” methodology to gauge student concerns about homework may have limitations – some might regard it as an opportunity for “typical adolescent complaining” – it was important to learn firsthand what the students believe.

The paper was co-authored by Mollie Galloway from Lewis and Clark College and Jerusha Conner from Villanova University.

Media Contacts

Denise Pope, Stanford Graduate School of Education: (650) 725-7412, [email protected] Clifton B. Parker, Stanford News Service: (650) 725-0224, [email protected]

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Your Health

• Treatments & Tests
• Health Inc.
• Public Health

School Stress Takes A Toll On Health, Teens And Parents Say

Patti Neighmond

Colleen Frainey, 16, of Tualatin, Ore., cut back on advanced placement classes in her junior year because the stress was making her physically ill. Toni Greaves for NPR hide caption

Colleen Frainey, 16, of Tualatin, Ore., cut back on advanced placement classes in her junior year because the stress was making her physically ill.

When high school junior Nora Huynh got her report card, she was devastated to see that she didn't get a perfect 4.0.

Nora "had a total meltdown, cried for hours," her mother, Jennie Huynh of Alameda, Calif., says. "I couldn't believe her reaction."

Nora is doing college-level work, her mother says, but many of her friends are taking enough advanced classes to boost their grade-point averages above 4.0. "It breaks my heart to see her upset when she's doing so awesome and going above and beyond."

And the pressure is taking a physical toll, too. At age 16, Nora is tired, is increasingly irritated with her siblings and often suffers headaches, her mother says.

Teens Talk Stress

When NPR asked on Facebook if stress is an issue for teenagers, they spoke loud and clear:

• "Academic stress has been a part of my life ever since I can remember," wrote Bretta McCall, 16, of Seattle. "This year I spend about 12 hours a day on schoolwork. I'm home right now because I was feeling so sick from stress I couldn't be at school. So as you can tell, it's a big part of my life!"
• "At the time of writing this, my weekend assignments include two papers, a PowerPoint to go with a 10-minute presentation, studying for a test and two quizzes, and an entire chapter (approximately 40 pages) of notes in a college textbook," wrote Connor West of New Jersey.
• "It's a problem that's basically brushed off by most people," wrote Kelly Farrell in Delaware. "There's this mentality of, 'You're doing well, so why are you complaining?' " She says she started experiencing symptoms of stress in middle school, and was diagnosed with panic disorder and generalized anxiety disorder in high school.
• "Parents are the worst about all of this," writes Colin Hughes of Illinois. "All I hear is, 'Work harder, you're a smart kid, I know you have it in you, and if you want to go to college you need to work harder.' It's a pain."

Parents are right to be worried about stress and their children's health, says Mary Alvord , a clinical psychologist in Maryland and public education coordinator for the American Psychological Association.

"A little stress is a good thing," Alvord says. "It can motivate students to be organized. But too much stress can backfire."

Almost 40 percent of parents say their high-schooler is experiencing a lot of stress from school, according to a new NPR poll conducted with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Harvard School of Public Health. In most cases, that stress is from academics, not social issues or bullying, the poll found. (See the full results here .)

Homework was a leading cause of stress, with 24 percent of parents saying it's an issue.

Teenagers say they're suffering, too. A survey by the American Psychological Association found that nearly half of all teens — 45 percent — said they were stressed by school pressures.

Chronic stress can cause a sense of panic and paralysis, Alvord says. The child feels stuck, which only adds to the feeling of stress.

Parents can help put the child's distress in perspective, particularly when they get into what Alvord calls catastrophic "what if" thinking: "What if I get a bad grade, then what if that means I fail the course, then I'll never get into college."

Then move beyond talking and do something about it.

Colleen pets her horse, Bishop. They had been missing out on rides together because of homework. Toni Greaves for NPR hide caption

Colleen pets her horse, Bishop. They had been missing out on rides together because of homework.

That's what 16-year-old Colleen Frainey of Tualatin, Ore., did. As a sophomore last year, she was taking all advanced courses. The pressure was making her sick. "I didn't feel good, and when I didn't feel good I felt like I couldn't do my work, which would stress me out more," she says.

Mom Abigail Frainey says, "It was more than we could handle as a family."

With encouragement from her parents, Colleen dropped one of her advanced courses. The family's decision generated disbelief from other parents. "Why would I let her take the easy way out?" Abigail Frainey heard.

But she says dialing down on academics was absolutely the right decision for her child. Colleen no longer suffers headaches or stomachaches. She's still in honors courses, but the workload this year is manageable.

Even better, Colleen now has time to do things she never would have considered last year, like going out to dinner with the family on a weeknight, or going to the barn to ride her horse, Bishop.

Psychologist Alvord says a balanced life should be the goal for all families. If a child is having trouble getting things done, parents can help plan the week, deciding what's important and what's optional. "Just basic time management — that will help reduce the stress."

• Children's Health

Request More Info

Fill out the form below and a member of our team will reach out right away!

" * " indicates required fields

Is Homework Necessary? Education Inequity and Its Impact on Students

The Problem with Homework: It Highlights Inequalities

How much homework is too much homework, when does homework actually help, negative effects of homework for students, how teachers can help.

Schools are getting rid of homework from Essex, Mass., to Los Angeles, Calif. Although the no-homework trend may sound alarming, especially to parents dreaming of their child’s acceptance to Harvard, Stanford or Yale, there is mounting evidence that eliminating homework in grade school may actually have great benefits , especially with regard to educational equity.

In fact, while the push to eliminate homework may come as a surprise to many adults, the debate is not new . Parents and educators have been talking about this subject for the last century, so that the educational pendulum continues to swing back and forth between the need for homework and the need to eliminate homework.

One of the most pressing talking points around homework is how it disproportionately affects students from less affluent families. The American Psychological Association (APA) explained:

“Kids from wealthier homes are more likely to have resources such as computers, internet connections, dedicated areas to do schoolwork and parents who tend to be more educated and more available to help them with tricky assignments. Kids from disadvantaged homes are more likely to work at afterschool jobs, or to be home without supervision in the evenings while their parents work multiple jobs.”

[RELATED] How to Advance Your Career: A Guide for Educators >> 

While students growing up in more affluent areas are likely playing sports, participating in other recreational activities after school, or receiving additional tutoring, children in disadvantaged areas are more likely headed to work after school, taking care of siblings while their parents work or dealing with an unstable home life. Adding homework into the mix is one more thing to deal with — and if the student is struggling, the task of completing homework can be too much to consider at the end of an already long school day.

While all students may groan at the mention of homework, it may be more than just a nuisance for poor and disadvantaged children, instead becoming another burden to carry and contend with.

Beyond the logistical issues, homework can negatively impact physical health and stress — and once again this may be a more significant problem among economically disadvantaged youth who typically already have a higher stress level than peers from more financially stable families .

Yet, today, it is not just the disadvantaged who suffer from the stressors that homework inflicts. A 2014 CNN article, “Is Homework Making Your Child Sick?” , covered the issue of extreme pressure placed on children of the affluent. The article looked at the results of a study surveying more than 4,300 students from 10 high-performing public and private high schools in upper-middle-class California communities.

“Their findings were troubling: Research showed that excessive homework is associated with high stress levels, physical health problems and lack of balance in children’s lives; 56% of the students in the study cited homework as a primary stressor in their lives,” according to the CNN story. “That children growing up in poverty are at-risk for a number of ailments is both intuitive and well-supported by research. More difficult to believe is the growing consensus that children on the other end of the spectrum, children raised in affluence, may also be at risk.”

When it comes to health and stress it is clear that excessive homework, for children at both ends of the spectrum, can be damaging. Which begs the question, how much homework is too much?

The National Education Association and the National Parent Teacher Association recommend that students spend 10 minutes per grade level per night on homework . That means that first graders should spend 10 minutes on homework, second graders 20 minutes and so on. But a study published by The American Journal of Family Therapy found that students are getting much more than that.

While 10 minutes per day doesn’t sound like much, that quickly adds up to an hour per night by sixth grade. The National Center for Education Statistics found that high school students get an average of 6.8 hours of homework per week, a figure that is much too high according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). It is also to be noted that this figure does not take into consideration the needs of underprivileged student populations.

In a study conducted by the OECD it was found that “after around four hours of homework per week, the additional time invested in homework has a negligible impact on performance .” That means that by asking our children to put in an hour or more per day of dedicated homework time, we are not only not helping them, but — according to the aforementioned studies — we are hurting them, both physically and emotionally.

What’s more is that homework is, as the name implies, to be completed at home, after a full day of learning that is typically six to seven hours long with breaks and lunch included. However, a study by the APA on how people develop expertise found that elite musicians, scientists and athletes do their most productive work for about only four hours per day. Similarly, companies like Tower Paddle Boards are experimenting with a five-hour workday, under the assumption that people are not able to be truly productive for much longer than that. CEO Stephan Aarstol told CNBC that he believes most Americans only get about two to three hours of work done in an eight-hour day.

In the scope of world history, homework is a fairly new construct in the U.S. Students of all ages have been receiving work to complete at home for centuries, but it was educational reformer Horace Mann who first brought the concept to America from Prussia. 

Since then, homework’s popularity has ebbed and flowed in the court of public opinion. In the 1930s, it was considered child labor (as, ironically, it compromised children’s ability to do chores at home). Then, in the 1950s, implementing mandatory homework was hailed as a way to ensure America’s youth were always one step ahead of Soviet children during the Cold War. Homework was formally mandated as a tool for boosting educational quality in 1986 by the U.S. Department of Education, and has remained in common practice ever since.  

School work assigned and completed outside of school hours is not without its benefits. Numerous studies have shown that regular homework has a hand in improving student performance and connecting students to their learning. When reviewing these studies, take them with a grain of salt; there are strong arguments for both sides, and only you will know which solution is best for your students or school. 

Homework improves student achievement.

• Source: The High School Journal, “ When is Homework Worth the Time?: Evaluating the Association between Homework and Achievement in High School Science and Math ,” 2012. 
• Source: IZA.org, “ Does High School Homework Increase Academic Achievement? ,” 2014. **Note: Study sample comprised only high school boys. 

Homework helps reinforce classroom learning.

• Source: “ Debunk This: People Remember 10 Percent of What They Read ,” 2015.

Homework helps students develop good study habits and life skills.

• Sources: The Repository @ St. Cloud State, “ Types of Homework and Their Effect on Student Achievement ,” 2017; Journal of Advanced Academics, “ Developing Self-Regulation Skills: The Important Role of Homework ,” 2011.
• Source: Journal of Advanced Academics, “ Developing Self-Regulation Skills: The Important Role of Homework ,” 2011.

Homework allows parents to be involved with their children’s learning.

• Parents can see what their children are learning and working on in school every day. 
• Parents can participate in their children’s learning by guiding them through homework assignments and reinforcing positive study and research habits.
• Homework observation and participation can help parents understand their children’s academic strengths and weaknesses, and even identify possible learning difficulties.
• Source: Phys.org, “ Sociologist Upends Notions about Parental Help with Homework ,” 2018.

While some amount of homework may help students connect to their learning and enhance their in-class performance, too much homework can have damaging effects. 

Students with too much homework have elevated stress levels. 

• Source: USA Today, “ Is It Time to Get Rid of Homework? Mental Health Experts Weigh In ,” 2021.
• Source: Stanford University, “ Stanford Research Shows Pitfalls of Homework ,” 2014.

Students with too much homework may be tempted to cheat. 

• Source: The Chronicle of Higher Education, “ High-Tech Cheating Abounds, and Professors Bear Some Blame ,” 2010.
• Source: The American Journal of Family Therapy, “ Homework and Family Stress: With Consideration of Parents’ Self Confidence, Educational Level, and Cultural Background ,” 2015.

Homework highlights digital inequity. 

• Sources: NEAToday.org, “ The Homework Gap: The ‘Cruelest Part of the Digital Divide’ ,” 2016; CNET.com, “ The Digital Divide Has Left Millions of School Kids Behind ,” 2021.
• Source: Investopedia, “ Digital Divide ,” 2022; International Journal of Education and Social Science, “ Getting the Homework Done: Social Class and Parents’ Relationship to Homework ,” 2015.
• Source: World Economic Forum, “ COVID-19 exposed the digital divide. Here’s how we can close it ,” 2021.

Homework does not help younger students.

• Source: Review of Educational Research, “ Does Homework Improve Academic Achievement? A Synthesis of Researcher, 1987-2003 ,” 2006.

To help students find the right balance and succeed, teachers and educators must start the homework conversation, both internally at their school and with parents. But in order to successfully advocate on behalf of students, teachers must be well educated on the subject, fully understanding the research and the outcomes that can be achieved by eliminating or reducing the homework burden. There is a plethora of research and writing on the subject for those interested in self-study.

For teachers looking for a more in-depth approach or for educators with a keen interest in educational equity, formal education may be the best route. If this latter option sounds appealing, there are now many reputable schools offering online master of education degree programs to help educators balance the demands of work and family life while furthering their education in the quest to help others.

YOU’RE INVITED! Watch Free Webinar on USD’s Online MEd Program >>

Be Sure To Share This Article

• Share on Twitter
• Share on Facebook
• Share on LinkedIn

Top 11 Reasons to get Your Master of Education Degree

Free 22-page Book

• Master of Education

Related Posts

Homework could have an impact on kids’ health. Should schools ban it?

Professor of Education, Penn State

Disclosure statement

Gerald K. LeTendre has received funding from the National Science Foundation and the Spencer Foundation.

Penn State provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation US.

View all partners

Reformers in the Progressive Era (from the 1890s to 1920s) depicted homework as a “sin” that deprived children of their playtime . Many critics voice similar concerns today.

Yet there are many parents who feel that from early on, children need to do homework if they are to succeed in an increasingly competitive academic culture. School administrators and policy makers have also weighed in, proposing various policies on homework .

So, does homework help or hinder kids?

For the last 10 years, my colleagues and I have been investigating international patterns in homework using databases like the Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) . If we step back from the heated debates about homework and look at how homework is used around the world, we find the highest homework loads are associated with countries that have lower incomes and higher social inequality.

Does homework result in academic success?

Let’s first look at the global trends on homework.

Undoubtedly, homework is a global phenomenon ; students from all 59 countries that participated in the 2007 Trends in Math and Science Study (TIMSS) reported getting homework. Worldwide, only less than 7% of fourth graders said they did no homework.

TIMSS is one of the few data sets that allow us to compare many nations on how much homework is given (and done). And the data show extreme variation.

For example, in some nations, like Algeria, Kuwait and Morocco, more than one in five fourth graders reported high levels of homework. In Japan, less than 3% of students indicated they did more than four hours of homework on a normal school night.

TIMSS data can also help to dispel some common stereotypes. For instance, in East Asia, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Japan – countries that had the top rankings on TIMSS average math achievement – reported rates of heavy homework that were below the international mean.

In the Netherlands, nearly one out of five fourth graders reported doing no homework on an average school night, even though Dutch fourth graders put their country in the top 10 in terms of average math scores in 2007.

Going by TIMSS data, the US is neither “ A Nation at Rest” as some have claimed, nor a nation straining under excessive homework load . Fourth and eighth grade US students fall in the middle of the 59 countries in the TIMSS data set, although only 12% of US fourth graders reported high math homework loads compared to an international average of 21%.

So, is homework related to high academic success?

At a national level, the answer is clearly no. Worldwide, homework is not associated with high national levels of academic achievement .

But, the TIMSS can’t be used to determine if homework is actually helping or hurting academic performance overall , it can help us see how much homework students are doing, and what conditions are associated with higher national levels of homework.

We have typically found that the highest homework loads are associated with countries that have lower incomes and higher levels of social inequality – not hallmarks that most countries would want to emulate.

Impact of homework on kids

TIMSS data also show us how even elementary school kids are being burdened with large amounts of homework.

Almost 10% of fourth graders worldwide (one in 10 children) reported spending multiple hours on homework each night. Globally, one in five fourth graders report 30 minutes or more of homework in math three to four times a week.

These reports of large homework loads should worry parents, teachers and policymakers alike.

Empirical studies have linked excessive homework to sleep disruption , indicating a negative relationship between the amount of homework, perceived stress and physical health.

What constitutes excessive amounts of homework varies by age, and may also be affected by cultural or family expectations. Young adolescents in middle school, or teenagers in high school, can study for longer duration than elementary school children.

But for elementary school students, even 30 minutes of homework a night, if combined with other sources of academic stress, can have a negative impact . Researchers in China have linked homework of two or more hours per night with sleep disruption .

Even though some cultures may normalize long periods of studying for elementary age children, there is no evidence to support that this level of homework has clear academic benefits . Also, when parents and children conflict over homework, and strong negative emotions are created, homework can actually have a negative association with academic achievement.

Should there be “no homework” policies?

Administrators and policymakers have not been reluctant to wade into the debates on homework and to formulate policies . France’s president, Francois Hollande, even proposed that homework be banned because it may have inegaliatarian effects.

However, “zero-tolerance” homework policies for schools, or nations, are likely to create as many problems as they solve because of the wide variation of homework effects. Contrary to what Hollande said, research suggests that homework is not a likely source of social class differences in academic achievement .

Homework, in fact, is an important component of education for students in the middle and upper grades of schooling.

Policymakers and researchers should look more closely at the connection between poverty, inequality and higher levels of homework. Rather than seeing homework as a “solution,” policymakers should question what facets of their educational system might impel students, teachers and parents to increase homework loads.

At the classroom level, in setting homework, teachers need to communicate with their peers and with parents to assure that the homework assigned overall for a grade is not burdensome, and that it is indeed having a positive effect.

Perhaps, teachers can opt for a more individualized approach to homework. If teachers are careful in selecting their assignments – weighing the student’s age, family situation and need for skill development – then homework can be tailored in ways that improve the chance of maximum positive impact for any given student.

I strongly suspect that when teachers face conditions such as pressure to meet arbitrary achievement goals, lack of planning time or little autonomy over curriculum, homework becomes an easy option to make up what could not be covered in class.

Whatever the reason, the fact is a significant percentage of elementary school children around the world are struggling with large homework loads. That alone could have long-term negative consequences for their academic success.

• Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)
• Elementary school
• Academic success

Editorial Internship

Research Fellow in Dark Matter Particle Phenomenology

Integrated Management of Invasive Pampas Grass for Enhanced Land Rehabilitation

Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Indigenous Strategy and Services)

• Future Students
• Current Students
• Faculty/Staff

News and Media

• News & Media Home
• Research Stories
• School’s In
• In the Media

You are here

More than two hours of homework may be counterproductive, research suggests.

A Stanford education researcher found that too much homework can negatively affect kids, especially their lives away from school, where family, friends and activities matter.   "Our findings on the effects of homework challenge the traditional assumption that homework is inherently good," wrote Denise Pope , a senior lecturer at the Stanford Graduate School of Education and a co-author of a study published in the Journal of Experimental Education .   The researchers used survey data to examine perceptions about homework, student well-being and behavioral engagement in a sample of 4,317 students from 10 high-performing high schools in upper-middle-class California communities. Along with the survey data, Pope and her colleagues used open-ended answers to explore the students' views on homework.   Median household income exceeded $90,000 in these communities, and 93 percent of the students went on to college, either two-year or four-year.   Students in these schools average about 3.1 hours of homework each night.   "The findings address how current homework practices in privileged, high-performing schools sustain students' advantage in competitive climates yet hinder learning, full engagement and well-being," Pope wrote.   Pope and her colleagues found that too much homework can diminish its effectiveness and even be counterproductive. They cite prior research indicating that homework benefits plateau at about two hours per night, and that 90 minutes to two and a half hours is optimal for high school.   Their study found that too much homework is associated with:   • Greater stress : 56 percent of the students considered homework a primary source of stress, according to the survey data. Forty-three percent viewed tests as a primary stressor, while 33 percent put the pressure to get good grades in that category. Less than 1 percent of the students said homework was not a stressor.   • Reductions in health : In their open-ended answers, many students said their homework load led to sleep deprivation and other health problems. The researchers asked students whether they experienced health issues such as headaches, exhaustion, sleep deprivation, weight loss and stomach problems.   • Less time for friends, family and extracurricular pursuits : Both the survey data and student responses indicate that spending too much time on homework meant that students were "not meeting their developmental needs or cultivating other critical life skills," according to the researchers. Students were more likely to drop activities, not see friends or family, and not pursue hobbies they enjoy.   A balancing act   The results offer empirical evidence that many students struggle to find balance between homework, extracurricular activities and social time, the researchers said. Many students felt forced or obligated to choose homework over developing other talents or skills.   Also, there was no relationship between the time spent on homework and how much the student enjoyed it. The research quoted students as saying they often do homework they see as "pointless" or "mindless" in order to keep their grades up.   "This kind of busy work, by its very nature, discourages learning and instead promotes doing homework simply to get points," said Pope, who is also a co-founder of Challenge Success , a nonprofit organization affiliated with the GSE that conducts research and works with schools and parents to improve students' educational experiences..   Pope said the research calls into question the value of assigning large amounts of homework in high-performing schools. Homework should not be simply assigned as a routine practice, she said.   "Rather, any homework assigned should have a purpose and benefit, and it should be designed to cultivate learning and development," wrote Pope.   High-performing paradox   In places where students attend high-performing schools, too much homework can reduce their time to foster skills in the area of personal responsibility, the researchers concluded. "Young people are spending more time alone," they wrote, "which means less time for family and fewer opportunities to engage in their communities."   Student perspectives   The researchers say that while their open-ended or "self-reporting" methodology to gauge student concerns about homework may have limitations – some might regard it as an opportunity for "typical adolescent complaining" – it was important to learn firsthand what the students believe.   The paper was co-authored by Mollie Galloway from Lewis and Clark College and Jerusha Conner from Villanova University.

Clifton B. Parker is a writer at the Stanford News Service .

More Stories

⟵ Go to all Research Stories

Get the Educator

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter.

Stanford Graduate School of Education

482 Galvez Mall Stanford, CA 94305-3096 Tel: (650) 723-2109

• Contact Admissions
• GSE Leadership
• Site Feedback
• Web Accessibility
• Career Resources
• Faculty Open Positions
• Explore Courses
• Academic Calendar
• Office of the Registrar
• Cubberley Library
• StanfordWho
• StanfordYou

Improving lives through learning

• Stanford Home
• Maps & Directions
• Search Stanford
• Emergency Info
• Terms of Use
• Non-Discrimination
• Accessibility

© Stanford University , Stanford , California 94305 .

• NeuroLaunch

The Dark Side of Homework: Why It’s Harmful and What the Statistics Say

• Stress in Education
• NeuroLaunch editorial team
• August 18, 2024
• Leave a Comment

Table of Contents

Pencils down, backpacks zipped—the after-school battle that’s eroding our children’s well-being and widening educational gaps has a name: homework. This seemingly innocuous academic tradition has become a contentious issue in recent years, sparking debates among educators, parents, and policymakers alike. As we delve into the dark side of homework, we’ll explore its history, examine its impact on students, and consider alternatives that could reshape the future of education.

The practice of assigning homework has been a cornerstone of education for centuries, with its roots tracing back to the early days of formal schooling. Initially conceived as a way to reinforce classroom learning and instill discipline, homework has evolved into a complex and often controversial aspect of modern education. Today, the homework debate rages on, with proponents arguing for its necessity in academic achievement and critics pointing to its detrimental effects on student well-being and family life.

The importance of examining homework’s impact on students cannot be overstated. As our understanding of child development and learning processes advances, it’s crucial to reevaluate long-standing educational practices. The homework question touches on fundamental issues of equity, mental health, and the very purpose of education itself. By critically analyzing the role of homework in our educational system, we can work towards creating more effective and supportive learning environments for all students.

The Negative Effects of Homework on Student Well-being

One of the most significant concerns surrounding homework is its impact on student well-being. The Alarming Reality: What Percent of Students Are Stressed by Homework? reveals that a staggering number of students experience stress and anxiety related to their after-school assignments. This stress can manifest in various ways, from physical symptoms like headaches and stomach aches to emotional distress and feelings of overwhelm.

The pressure to complete homework often comes at the expense of valuable family time and social interactions. As students struggle to balance their academic responsibilities with extracurricular activities and personal interests, family dinners become rushed affairs, and quality time with loved ones becomes a luxury. This erosion of family connections can have long-lasting effects on a child’s emotional development and sense of security.

Moreover, the time-consuming nature of homework can significantly impact students’ sleep patterns and physical health. Late nights spent completing assignments lead to sleep deprivation, which in turn affects cognitive function, mood regulation, and overall well-being. Understanding Homeostatic Imbalance and Stress: A Comprehensive Guide with Worksheet Answers sheds light on how disrupted sleep patterns can contribute to a cascade of health issues.

Perhaps most concerning is the potential for homework to diminish students’ interest in learning and contribute to academic burnout. When learning becomes synonymous with tedious, repetitive tasks, students may lose their natural curiosity and enthusiasm for education. This disengagement can have far-reaching consequences, affecting not only academic performance but also future career aspirations and lifelong learning attitudes.

Homework and Academic Performance: A Surprising Relationship

Contrary to popular belief, the relationship between homework and academic achievement is not as straightforward as one might assume. Numerous studies have shown a limited correlation between homework and improved performance, particularly for younger students. This surprising finding challenges the long-held assumption that more homework inevitably leads to better academic outcomes.

The law of diminishing returns applies to homework as well. While some homework may be beneficial, there comes a point where additional assignments yield little to no academic benefit. This threshold varies depending on the student’s age, with high school students generally able to handle more homework than elementary or middle school students. However, even for older students, excessive homework can lead to burnout and decreased motivation.

It’s important to note that the effectiveness of homework differs across age groups. For younger children, homework has been shown to have minimal impact on academic achievement. As students progress through middle and high school, homework can become more beneficial, but only when it’s carefully designed and appropriately challenging.

The quality of homework assignments is far more important than quantity. Meaningful, engaging tasks that reinforce classroom learning or encourage independent exploration are more likely to yield positive results than rote memorization or busywork. Educators and policymakers must focus on creating homework policies that prioritize quality over quantity, ensuring that out-of-school assignments truly contribute to student learning and growth.

Stress and Homework: What the Statistics Reveal

The statistics surrounding homework-related stress are alarming. Studies have consistently shown that a high percentage of students report experiencing stress and anxiety due to homework demands. In some surveys, as many as 70-80% of students indicate that homework is a significant source of stress in their lives.

When comparing stress levels across different educational systems, it becomes clear that homework practices vary widely. Countries with high-performing education systems, such as Finland, often assign less homework than their counterparts, challenging the notion that more homework equates to better academic outcomes. These international comparisons provide valuable insights into alternative approaches to education that prioritize student well-being alongside academic achievement.

The long-term effects of academic stress on mental health are a growing concern among researchers and mental health professionals. Chronic stress during childhood and adolescence can lead to increased risk of anxiety disorders, depression, and other mental health issues later in life. Overcoming Math Stress: Strategies for Confidence and Success in Mathematics explores how subject-specific stress, such as math anxiety, can have lasting impacts on students’ academic and personal lives.

Interestingly, gender differences in homework-related stress have been observed in various studies. Girls often report higher levels of stress and anxiety related to homework compared to boys. This disparity may be attributed to societal expectations, differences in coping strategies, or other factors that require further investigation to fully understand and address.

The Equity Issue: How Homework Perpetuates Inequality

One of the most troubling aspects of homework is its potential to exacerbate existing educational inequalities. Students from different socioeconomic backgrounds often face vastly different circumstances when it comes to completing homework assignments. Disparities in home resources and support can significantly impact a student’s ability to succeed academically.

For students from low-income families, homework can present numerous challenges. Limited access to technology, quiet study spaces, or academic resources can make completing assignments difficult or impossible. Parents working multiple jobs may have less time to assist with homework, putting their children at a disadvantage compared to peers with more available parental support. The Pervasive Daily Stress of Poverty: Unraveling Its Impact on Brain Development highlights how these socioeconomic factors can have far-reaching effects on a child’s cognitive development and academic potential.

Homework’s role in widening the achievement gap is a critical concern. As students from privileged backgrounds benefit from additional resources and support, those from disadvantaged backgrounds may fall further behind. This cycle can perpetuate and even amplify existing inequalities, making it increasingly difficult for students from low-income families to achieve academic success and social mobility.

Cultural biases in homework assignments can further compound these issues. Assignments that assume certain cultural knowledge or experiences may inadvertently disadvantage students from diverse backgrounds. Educators must be mindful of these potential biases and strive to create inclusive, culturally responsive homework practices that support all students’ learning and growth.

Alternatives to Traditional Homework

As the drawbacks of traditional homework become increasingly apparent, educators and researchers are exploring alternative approaches to out-of-school learning. Project-based learning approaches offer one promising alternative, encouraging students to engage in long-term, interdisciplinary projects that foster creativity, critical thinking, and real-world problem-solving skills.

The flipped classroom model is another innovative approach that reimagines the role of homework. In this model, students engage with instructional content at home through videos or readings, while class time is devoted to collaborative problem-solving and hands-on activities. This approach allows for more personalized instruction and support during school hours, potentially reducing the need for extensive homework assignments.

Personalized learning strategies, facilitated by advancements in educational technology, offer yet another alternative to traditional homework. These approaches tailor assignments to individual students’ needs, interests, and learning styles, potentially increasing engagement and reducing unnecessary stress. Gloria’s Study Challenge: The Impact of One More Hour and the Hidden Costs of Interruptions explores how personalized study strategies can impact learning outcomes.

Emphasizing in-class practice and collaboration is another way to reduce the burden of homework while still promoting learning and skill development. By providing more opportunities for guided practice during school hours, teachers can ensure that students receive immediate feedback and support, potentially reducing the need for extensive at-home practice.

Conclusion: Rethinking Homework for a Better Educational Future

As we’ve explored throughout this article, the traditional approach to homework is fraught with challenges. From its negative impact on student well-being to its potential to exacerbate educational inequalities, homework as we know it may be doing more harm than good. The limited correlation between homework and academic achievement, particularly for younger students, further calls into question the value of extensive out-of-school assignments.

A balanced approach to out-of-school learning is crucial. While some form of independent practice and exploration outside of school hours may be beneficial, it’s essential to consider the quality, quantity, and purpose of these assignments. Educators and policymakers must prioritize student well-being, equity, and meaningful learning experiences when developing homework policies.

The need for education reform and policy changes is clear. Is Homework Necessary? Examining the Debate and Its Impact on Student Well-being delves deeper into this question, challenging long-held assumptions about the role of homework in education. As we move forward, it’s crucial to consider alternative approaches that support student learning without sacrificing their mental health, family time, or love of learning.

Encouraging further research and discussion on homework practices is essential for developing evidence-based policies that truly serve students’ best interests. By critically examining our current practices and remaining open to innovative approaches, we can work towards an educational system that nurtures well-rounded, engaged, and lifelong learners.

As we conclude this exploration of the dark side of homework, it’s clear that the time has come to reevaluate our approach to out-of-school learning. By addressing the stress, inequity, and limited benefits associated with traditional homework, we can pave the way for a more effective, equitable, and student-centered education system. The Power of Playtime: How Recess Reduces Stress in Students reminds us of the importance of balance in education, highlighting the need for policies that support both academic growth and overall well-being.

The homework debate is far from over, but by continuing to question, research, and innovate, we can work towards educational practices that truly serve the needs of all students. As parents, educators, and policymakers, it’s our responsibility to ensure that our children’s education nurtures their curiosity, supports their well-being, and prepares them for success in an ever-changing world. Let’s reimagine homework not as a nightly battle, but as an opportunity for meaningful learning, growth, and discovery.

References:

1. Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., & Patall, E. A. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987–2003. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 1-62.

2. Galloway, M., Conner, J., & Pope, D. (2013). Nonacademic effects of homework in privileged, high-performing high schools. The Journal of Experimental Education, 81(4), 490-510.

3. OECD (2014). Does homework perpetuate inequities in education? PISA in Focus, No. 46, OECD Publishing, Paris.

4. Kralovec, E., & Buell, J. (2000). The end of homework: How homework disrupts families, overburdens children, and limits learning. Beacon Press.

5. Marzano, R. J., & Pickering, D. J. (2007). Special topic: The case for and against homework. Educational Leadership, 64(6), 74-79.

6. Vatterott, C. (2018). Rethinking homework: Best practices that support diverse needs. ASCD.

7. Kohn, A. (2006). The homework myth: Why our kids get too much of a bad thing. Da Capo Press.

8. Pressman, R. M., Sugarman, D. B., Nemon, M. L., Desjarlais, J., Owens, J. A., & Schettini-Evans, A. (2015). Homework and family stress: With consideration of parents’ self confidence, educational level, and cultural background. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 43(4), 297-313.

9. Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.

10. Sahlberg, P. (2015). Finnish lessons 2.0: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? Teachers College Press.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Service
• Cookie Policy

About NeuroLaunch

• Copyright Notice
• Accessibility Statement
• Advertise With Us
• Mental Health

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Barriers Associated with the Implementation of Homework in Youth Mental Health Treatment and Potential Mobile Health Solutions

Brian e bunnell, lynne s nemeth, leslie a lenert, nikolaos kazantzis, esther deblinger, kristen a higgins, kenneth j ruggiero.

• Author information
• Article notes
• Copyright and License information

Author Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by [Brian Bunnell], [Lynne Nemeth], [Kenneth Ruggiero], and [Kristen Higgins]. The first draft of the manuscript was written by [Brian Bunnell] and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Correspondence: Brian E. Bunnell, PhD, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, 3515 E. Fletcher Ave Tampa, FL 33613; Phone: (813) 794-8607; [email protected] .

Issue date 2021 Apr.

Background:

Homework, or between-session practice of skills learned during therapy, is integral to effective youth mental health TREATMENTS. However, homework is often under-utilized by providers and patients due to many barriers, which might be mitigated via m Health solutions.

Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with nationally certified trainers in Trauma Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (TF-CBT; n =21) and youth TF-CBT patients ages 8–17 ( n =15) and their caregivers ( n =12) to examine barriers to the successful implementation of homework in youth mental health treatment and potential m Health solutions to those barriers.

The results indicated that many providers struggle to consistently develop, assign, and assess homework exercises with their patients. Patients are often difficult to engage and either avoid or have difficulty remembering to practice exercises, especially given their busy/chaotic home lives. Trainers and families had positive views and useful suggestions for m Health solutions to these barriers in terms of functionality (e.g., reminders, tracking, pre-made homework exercises, rewards) and user interface (e.g., easy navigation, clear instructions, engaging activities).

Conclusions:

This study adds to the literature on homework barriers and potential m Health solutions to those barriers, which is largely based on recommendations from experts in the field. The results aligned well with this literature, providing additional support for existing recommendations, particularly as they relate to treatment with youth and caregivers.

Keywords: Homework, Barriers, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Technology, m Health

Introduction

Homework, or between-session practice of skills learned during therapy, is one of the most integral, yet underutilized components of high-quality, evidence-based mental health care ( Kazantzis & Deane, 1999 ). Homework activities (e.g., self-monitoring, relaxation, exposure, parent behavior management) are assigned by providers in-session and completed by patients between sessions with the goal of “practicing” therapeutic skills in the environment where they will be most needed ( Kazantzis, Deane, Ronan, & L’Abate, 2005 ). There are numerous benefits to the implementation of homework during mental health treatment ( Kazantzis et al., 2016 ; Kazantzis, Deane, & Ronan, 2004 ). Homework enables the generalization of skills and behaviors learned during therapy, facilitates treatment processes, provides continuity between sessions, allows providers to better grasp patients’ learning, and strengthens that learning, leading to improved maintenance of treatment gains ( Hudson & Kendall, 2002 ; Scheel, Hanson, & Razzhavaikina, 2004 ). Meta-analytic and systematic reviews have shown that homework use by providers and adherence by patients predict increased treatment engagement, decreased treatment dropout, and medium-to-large effects on improvements in clinical outcomes for use (Cohen’s d =.48–.77) and adherence ( d =.45–.54) ( Hudson & Kendall, 2002 ; Kazantzis, Deane, & Ronan, 2000 ; Kazantzis & Lampropoulos, 2002 ; Kazantzis, Whittington, & Dattilio, 2010 ; Mausbach, Moore, Roesch, Cardenas, & Patterson, 2010 ; Scheel et al., 2004 ; Sukhodolsky, Kassinove, & Gorman, 2004 ). Simply put, 68% vs . 32% of patients can be expected to improve when therapy involves homework ( Kazantzis et al., 2010 ).

Despite its many benefits, homework is implemented with variable effectiveness in mental health treatment. Only 68% of general mental health providers and ~55% of family providers report using homework “often” to “almost always” ( Dattilio, Kazantzis, Shinkfield, & Carr, 2011 ; Kazantzis, Lampropoulos, & Deane, 2005 ). Further, providers report using homework in an average of 57% of sessions, although this rate is higher for CBT practitioners (66%) vs . non-CBT practitioners (48%). Moreover, only 25% of providers report using expert recommended systematic procedures for recommending homework (i.e., specifying frequency, duration, and location; writing down homework assignments for patients) ( Kazantzis & Deane, 1999 ). A national survey revealed that 93% or general mental health providers estimate rates of patient adherence to homework to be low to moderate ( Kazantzis, Lampropoulos, et al., 2005 ), and research studies report low to moderate rates of youth/caregiver adherence during treatment (i.e., ~39–63%; ( Berkovits, O’Brien, Carter, & Eyberg, 2010 ; Clarke et al., 1992 ; Danko, Brown, Van Schoick, & Budd, 2016 ; Dattilio et al., 2011 ; Gaynor, Lawrence, & Nelson-Gray, 2006 ; Helbig & Fehm, 2004 ; Lyon & Budd, 2010 ; Simons et al., 2012 ).

Numerous barriers to the successful implementation of homework during mental health treatment have largely been suggested by experts in the field, rather than specifically measured ( Dattilio et al., 2011 ), and have generally been classified as occurring on the provider-, patient-, task-, and environmental-level ( Kazantzis & Shinkfield, 2007 ). Provider-level barriers can relate to the therapeutic relationship and the degree to which a collaborative approach is used, provider beliefs about homework and the patient’s adherence, and providers’ ability to effectively design homework tasks ( Callan et al., 2012 ; Coon, Rabinowitz, Thompson, & Gallagher-Thompson, 2005 ; Friedberg & Mcclure, 2005 ; Garland & Scott, 2002 ; Kazantzis & Shinkfield, 2007 ). Patient-level barriers can include patient avoidance and symptomatology, negative beliefs toward the task, not understanding the rationale or how to do the task, forgetting, and beliefs about their ability to complete homework tasks. ( Bru, Solholm, & Idsoe, 2013 ; Callan et al., 2012 ; Dattilio et al., 2011 ; Friedberg & Mcclure, 2005 ; Garland & Scott, 2002 ; Hudson & Kendall, 2005 ; Kazantzis & Shinkfield, 2007 ; Leahy, 2002 ). Relatedly, core beliefs central to the patients’ psychopathology can be activated during homework–thereby triggering withdrawal and avoidance patterns ( Kazantzis & Shinkfield, 2007 ). Task-level barriers include poor match between tasks and therapy goals, tasks that are perceived as vague or unclear, tasks that are perceived as too difficult or demanding in terms of time or effort, tasks being viewed as boring, and general aversiveness of the idea of completing homework ( Bru et al., 2013 ; Callan et al., 2012 ; Dattilio et al., 2011 ; Friedberg & Mcclure, 2005 ; Garland & Scott, 2002 ; Hudson & Kendall, 2005 ). Environmental factors have been noted to include practical obstacles, lack of family/caregiver support, dysfunctional home environments, lack of time due to busy schedules, and lack of reward or reinforcement ( Callan et al., 2012 ; Dattilio et al., 2011 ; Hudson & Kendall, 2005 ).

The advancement and ubiquitousness of technologies such as m Health resources (e.g., mobile- and web-based apps) provide a tremendous opportunity to overcome barriers to homework use and adherence and resultantly, improve the quality of mental health treatment. m Health solutions to improve access and quality of care, have been widely investigated, are effective in facilitating behavior change, practical, desired by patients and providers, and available at low cost ( Amstadter, Broman-Fulks, Zinzow, Ruggiero, & Cercone, 2009 ; Boschen & Casey, 2008 ; Donker et al., 2013 ; Ehrenreich, Righter, Rocke, Dixon, & Himelhoch, 2011 ; Hanson et al., 2014 ; Heron & Smyth, 2010 ; Krebs & Duncan, 2015 ; Luxton, McCann, Bush, Mishkind, & Reger, 2011 ; Ruggiero, Saunders, Davidson, Cook, & Hanson, 2017 ). Existing m Health resources include features that can support homework implementation (e.g., voice and SMS reminders and feedback, self-monitoring and assessment, and modules and activities that can be used to facilitate between-session practice; Bakker, Kazantzis, Rickwood, & Rickard, 2016 ; Tang & Kreindler, 2017 ), but these resources were not designed with the express intention of addressing barriers to homework implementation, particularly for youth and family patient populations.

The extant literature on barriers to homework implementation is limited in that it is largely based on expert recommendations. Therefore, the first aim of this study was to explore provider, youth, and caregiver patient perspectives on barriers to the successful implementation of homework during youth mental health treatment. Further, m Health solutions to those barriers have not been explored, especially for youth and family patients. Thus, the second and third aims of this study were to obtain suggestions for m Health solutions to homework barriers and explore perceptions on the benefits and challenges associated with those m Health solutions.

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained prior to enrolling any participants in the study. The approach for this study was based on the constructivist grounded theory, which acknowledges the researcher’s prior knowledge and influence in the process and supports and guides conceptual framework development to understand interrelations between constructs ( Charmaz, 2006 ). This qualitative study used a thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews in a sample of nationally certified trainers in Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (TFCBT; Cohen, Mannarino, & Deblinger, 2017 ), youth who had engaged in TF-CBT, and their caregivers. The initial goal was to conduct interviews with 15–20 interviewees in each group to achieve theoretical saturation (i.e., no new information was derived), consistent with a prior study by members of the research team which used similar semi-structured interviews with national TF-CBT trainers ( Hanson et al., 2014 ), and recommendations by Morse (2000) given the relatively narrow scope and clear nature of the study. Interviews were conducted until interviewers and the study lead determined that no new pertinent information was being obtained.

Participants

National trainers..

Twenty-one national trainers in TF-CBT were interviewed. National trainers are mental health providers who completed a 15-month TF-CBT Train-the-Trainer program led by the TF-CBT developers. Trainers work extensively with numerous community mental health providers to problem-solve common barriers to clinical practice and thus, provide a unique perspective on the barriers to successful homework implementation and possible m Health solutions to those barriers. An e-mail invitation was sent to a list of approved TF-CBT trainers. Twenty-four trainers responded to this e-mail, 22 of whom agreed to participate in an interview, one of whom was unreachable after initial scheduling. Interviews were completed with a total of 21 trainers, who received a $25 gift card in compensation for their time.

Trainers had been treating children for an average of 23.29 years ( SD =8.80) and had been training providers for an average of 14.95 years ( SD =8.98). In the year prior to the interview, they led an average of 17 provider trainings ( SD =21.67) and trained roughly 345 providers ( SD =339.90). All trainers were licensed, and the majority were Clinical Psychologists (47.6%) and Social Workers (33.3%). The average age of trainers was 47.48 years ( SD =13.63) and the majority were female (71.4%), white (95.2%), and non-Hispanic/Latino (85.7%; see Table 1 ).

Trainer Demographics

Twelve families were interviewed for this study. Families were included if they had one or more youth between the ages of 8 and 17 years-of-age and a caregiver who had engaged in at least four sessions for TF-CBT. These criteria were chosen because TF-CBT is typically recommended for youth between the ages of 8 and 17 years-of-age and it was estimated that four sessions would have likely allowed for adequate time for patients to have received homework assignments, consistent with the authors’ experience and prior TF-CBT literature ( Deblinger, Pollio, & Dorsey, 2016 ; Scheeringa, Weems, Cohen, Amaya-Jackson, & Guthrie, 2011 ). Families were recruited via advertisements online and at local community mental health clinics, and from a participant pool from a prior study ( Davidson et al., 2019 ). Twenty-nine families initially expressed interest in participating in the study. Six families were ineligible because they had not received TF-CBT and contact was lost with six families after their initial contact. Seventeen families were scheduled for an interview, five of which were unreachable after initially being scheduled, and interviews were completed with 12 families. Written informed consent from caregivers and assent from youth above the age of 15 were obtained in-person for four families and via a telemedicine-based teleconsent platform (i.e., https://musc.doxy.me ) for eight families. Families received a $30 gift card in compensation for their time.

A total of 15 youth who had engaged in TF-CBT, and their caregivers ( n =12; three families had two youth who had received treatment) were interviewed. Six youth were still in treatment at the time of their interview and nine had finished treatment an average of 49 weeks ( SD =42.32) prior to the interview. The average age of youth was 13.20 years ( SD =3.19), roughly half were female (53.3%), the majority were white (80%), and all were non-Hispanic/Latino. The average age of caregivers was 44.83 years ( SD =7.90), 66.7% were female, and all were White and non-Hispanic/Latino. Youth and caregivers rated their comfort with technology, in general, on a 10-point Likert scale (i.e., 1–10) with higher scores representing higher levels of comfort. Youth reported being very comfortable with technology (M=9.62, SD =1.12), as did their caregivers (M=7.83, SD =2.63; see Table 2 ).

Family Demographics

= 6 families were still in treatment at the time of their interview and were not included in this average.

Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

TF-CBT is a well-established and widely disseminated mental health treatment ( Cohen et al., 2017 ; Deblinger, Mannarino, Cohen, Runyon, & Steer, 2011 ; Silverman et al., 2008 ; Wethington et al., 2008 ). It is a conjoint youth-caregiver mental health treatment typically conducted over ~12, 90-minute sessions that address nine major treatment components (i.e., P sychoeducation; P arenting Skills; R elaxation Skills; A ffective Expression and Modulation Skills; C ognitive Coping and Processing Skills; T rauma Narration and Processing; I n Vivo Exposure; C onjoint Child Parent Activities; and E nhancing Future Safety and Development). TF-CBT also addresses a broad range of symptom domains including trauma- and stress-related disorders, disruptive behavior disorders/behaviors, depression/depressive symptoms, and anxiety disorders ( Cohen et al., 2017 ). TF-CBT was chosen as a model treatment for this study because of its broad symptom focus, inclusion of treatment components used in a variety of youth mental health treatments, and involvement of youth and their caregivers, offering potential to improve the applicability of the study’s results to a range of youth mental health treatment approaches.

Procedures for Data Collection

Interviews were conducted via telephone for trainers, and either in-person or via telephone for families based on their preference. A postdoctoral fellow and masters-level research assistant conducted the interviews, which were audio-recorded and transcribed using a professional transcription service. Interviews included three major components. The first component included demographic questions. The second included a brief orientation to the goal of the study, which was to develop a new technology-based resource to help providers and patients during the implementation of homework during mental health treatment. The third component included questions that aimed to assess perspectives on barriers to homework implementation, elicit suggestions for m Health solutions to those barriers, and examine perceptions on the benefits and challenges associated with m Health solutions to homework barriers. The average duration of interviews was 41 minutes for trainers and 37 minutes for families. See Supplementary Materials for complete interviews.

Data Analysis

Transcribed interviews were coded using NVivo qualitative analysis software. NVivo was used to identify common themes (nodes) as they related to (1) patient-, provider-, task-, and environmental-barriers to homework implementation, (2) suggestions for m Health solutions to homework barriers, and (3) benefits and challenges associated with m Health homework solutions. Initial and secondary coding passes were conducted to identify and refine theme classifications as they emerged and impose a data-derived hierarchy to the nodes identified. Focused coding was used to refine the coding and ensure that data were coded completely with minimal redundancy ( Miles & Huberman, 1994 ). Themes were initially proposed by the first author and reviewed by an expert in qualitative and mixed methods research (the second author) and an internationally recognized expert in the implementation of homework and related barriers during CBT (the fourth author). Divergent perspectives on theme descriptions ( n =2) and classifications ( n =1) were compared until agreement was reached.

Results are organized by the main topics explored in this study, including: 1) barriers to the successful implementation of homework, coded on provider, patient, task, and environmental levels; 2) potential m Health solutions to those homework barriers; and 3) perceived benefits and challenges of those potential m Health solutions. Results within each of these topics are presented first from the perspectives of trainers and second from the perspectives of families.

Barriers to the Successful Implementation of Homework

Trainer perspectives..

As displayed in Table 3 , trainers identified several barriers to homework implementation on the provider-, patient-, task-, and environmental-level.

Trainer Perspectives on Homework Barriers

Provider-Level Barriers.

Many trainers felt that providers tend to have difficulty engaging patients in assigned tasks, leading some providers to become discouraged by low levels of engagement. As stated by one trainer,

“I think they recognize that [homework assignments] do have value, but in terms of what I feel, a lot of clinicians are not having success with families completing homework, so it’s diminishing the sense of value…something they’ve tried to put into place and they are not feeling there’s any success in it.”

Trainers also noted that many providers do not see homework as an integral part of therapy. One trainer commented,

“I think there are a lot of concrete barriers, but to me probably the biggest barrier will be the–I think that still to this day [providers] like to think that therapy happens in that one hour.”

Other interrelated difficulties faced by providers related to their capacity to effectively and consistently develop, assess, and assign meaningful and patient-centered homework exercises.

As stated by one trainer,

“I see a lot of that just shooting from the hip, kind of off the cuff, ‘let’s do this,’ but yet, it’s not backed by anything concrete or tangible…I think probably one of the biggest pieces again is the failure on the clinician’s part to follow that up and too often review it at the end of the session.”

Another said,

“I think clinicians don’t always appreciate how hard it is to actually do homework that requires you to make some behavioral change.”

Barriers also related to providers’ time and resources for implementing homework, as conveyed by one trainer’s comment,

“I mean, these people…every minute of every day is filled up with doing, billing, writing, charting, going to meetings, getting supervision, and seeing patients, and then they go home exhausted.”

Patient-Level Barriers.

Many trainers stated that, similar to some providers, patients often do not see homework as an important part of therapy. Put by one trainer,

“I think that some [patients] just feel that coming to the session is enough and that should resolve everything, and that you know, doing homework is just kind of an extra thing…I don’t really need to do it to benefit from the therapy.”

Perhaps relatedly, trainers also noted that patients generally forget to do homework assignments, and often forget why, how, when, and where assignments should be done.

Task-Level Barriers.

Task-level barriers noted by trainers included assignments not always aligning with patient values or treatment goals and that the term ‘homework’ being aversive to patients of all ages. One trainer commented,

“I think it has to be something that [patients] see the value in. And again, we go back to that engagement and them trusting you as well as you explaining to them why this could be helpful…If it didn’t help, we need to change it.”

Another trainer laughed while stating,

“when we use the word homework, we might as well just throw a stink bomb in the room.”

Environmental-Level Barriers.

Finally, on the environmental-level, many trainers suggested that patients’ home lives are busy and chaotic, leaving little-to-no time for homework.

Explained by one trainer,

“I think that for parents…they have many other things in their life; work, parenting, partnerships that they are working on, just day to day chores or things that they have to do in terms of their family or other responsibilities. So, [homework] often feels like, I think for families, to add another thing…it just feels like a lot.”

Associated barriers included limited caregiver involvement and reinforcement for completing homework assignments. One trainer commented,

“So, let’s not forget that the parents need to be encouraged and checked on to make sure the kid is doing it. They have to work at it – It’s not going to just happen. So, helping the parents to see that they’re going to need to work to make sure the kids do it, because again, the kids would rather eat ice-cream than do the work. I mean change is hard.”

Another stated,

“I would say, lack of reinforcement for homework, so maybe for getting what you assign for homework and not reviewing it or the kiddo or the family learning pretty quickly, you know, why do it, because there’s not a lot of support around it. You know, if [patients] don’t get reinforced, whether tangibly or verbally, they may not continue that.”

Family Perspectives.

Families identified several barriers to homework implementation on the patient-, task-, and environmental-level which were similar to many of those noted by national trainers (see Table 4 ).

Family Perspectives on Homework Barriers

Families believed that patients often avoid homework as a result of their symptoms. In other words, the patient’s unhelpful coping strategies are being triggered.

One caregiver commented,

“Sometimes people don’t even want to dig into their feelings even to do the assignment either, you know. It stirs up things. You know, when you’re dealing with feelings, sometimes you don’t want to experience that feeling…you shut down. You don’t want to feel that at that time.”

“When you already have a child that has ADHD or behavior problems, it’s hard to get them motivated and to get them to do these exercises at home.”

Families also felt that patients simply forget to complete homework or bring it to their next session. One child stated,

“That’s my problem, she’ll give me homework, we met once a week, basically, and I would forget it because I’ve got a lot going on, and when I come in and she’s like, ‘Did you do your homework,’ I’m like, ‘Oh man’.”

Similar to trainers, families felt that patients often forget why, how, when and where assignments should be done. As stated by one caregiver,

“I think sometimes it can also be just, like maybe not fully understanding what is being asked of them to do. I know the therapist will ask them in the office, ‘do you understand?’ and of course the kids always go, ‘yes I do, can I go home now’?”

With respect to task-level barriers, most families viewed homework assignments as boring. General consensus from families was that patients–particularly youth– would more often than not just rather be doing something more interesting.

On the environmental level, all families noted that the home-life of patients is busy and chaotic, leaving little perceived time for homework. Everyday responsibilities such as schoolwork, employment, household chores, and familial responsibilities often take precedence. One caregiver stated,

“Well I think it sounds good in the office and then you get home and you just get quite busy and it gets pushed aside.”

Another commented,

“But I know what he’s saying…sometimes seven-and-a-half hours at school and then sometimes his therapy would be an hour-and-a-half. And thank goodness, his teacher was so flexible that on days he has therapy he did not have homework [for school], but he was just so emotionally and physically drained. When he got home, all he wanted to do was just rest or play. Because that’s the therapy, it can be just exhausting.”

Families also believed that that there is often a lack of reinforcement for completing homework assignments.

m Health Solutions to Homework Barriers

Trainer suggestions..

Trainers provided several suggestions for m Health solutions to homework barriers ( Table 5 ). Most trainers felt that reminders and schedules to help patients remember to complete homework assignments would be a crucial feature. One trainer suggested, “Maybe some kind of reminder feature, something that would kind of record into their daily calendars that they use, or an alarm, or something like a daily reminder…set to the times they are most likely to do the homework.”

Trainer Suggestions for m Health Solutions to Homework Barriers

Trainers also suggested including reports or activity summaries of homework completion along with behavior and symptom tracking tools. One trainer thoughtfully commented, “If the homework app can somehow help to provide some data on the actual implementation of certain skills during the week that would be very valuable because I think the constructive feedback and the positive feedback that’s offered by therapists about performance of those skills between sessions can be really valuable.”

Trainers suggested including a variety of interactive, fun, and rewarding activities that engage children and caregivers. For example, one trainer stated,

“I think the more interactive you can make it between parent and child and the more of a game you can make it…kids are more likely to do that and to kind of use those skills.” All trainers ( n =21) felt that a text message-based system for reminding patients to complete homework assignments would be beneficial.

Family Suggestions.

Families suggested that the main function of the resource should serve to provide reminders (e.g., text messages or push notifications) for patients to complete homework assignments as well as instructions for how and when they should be completed. Another common suggestion was to include a reward system within the resource to reinforce engagement with homework assignments. Some suggestions for this reward system included coins, experience points, levels, and customizable avatar characters. One child thoughtfully related,

“there could be a digital reward system like stars or gems or something. Then it could be redeemed or something in the therapist’s office. Like I remember it was a while ago, I remember my therapist said if I was able to do something that I was having trouble with, we would have like brownies or something the next visit.”

Families also recommended that the resource include interactive and fun activities. The most common suggestion was to “gamify” homework assignments to make them more fun and interesting to patients. For example, a caregiver noted,

“I think that if you are able to play a game or level up after you did your activity…I don’t think you would have a problem with them doing the activity. They would be so excited to be able to play the game.”

Families providers also recommended reports and activity summaries so that progress could be tracked and reported to providers to be reviewed during the next treatment session ( Table 6 ). All families ( n =12) felt that a text message-based system for reminding patients to complete homework assignments would be beneficial.

Family Suggestions for m Health Solutions to Homework Barriers

Benefits and Challenges of m Health Solutions to Homework Barriers

The majority of trainers responded that an m Health solution to homework barriers would increase provider use of ( n =20; 95.2%) and family adherence to ( n =21; 100%) homework during mental health treatment. The majority of trainers also responded that such a resource would positively affect the therapeutic relationship ( n =15; 71.4%), increase treatment efficiency ( n =18; 85.7%), and improve treatment effectiveness ( n =18; 85.7%). Neutral responses were provided by all trainers who did not respond affirmatively to these questions (i.e., no negative responses were provided). Trainers also commented on the potential clinical utility of an m Health homework resource in that it would help providers with tracking and assigning homework and patients with skill development while promoting high levels of engagement in youth patients. Access, comfort with technology, and convenience were also noted benefits (See Table 7 ). One trainer commented,

Trainer Perspectives on Benefits and Challenges relating to m Health Solutions to Homework Barriers No. of Trainers

“I feel like so many people now enjoy so much more doing things on electronics and so definitely in sessions with kids I’m often recommending having a clinician use apps…sometimes technology is the way to really hook families in and engage them.”

“You know everybody has a phone and if we can have some apps where…I mean it’s so exciting to me what you are talking about. I can’t think of a better idea, I really can’t. I mean people always have their phones on them even if you are really, really poor, people tend to have a phone.”

Challenges identified by trainers centered around confidentiality, access and comfort with technology, and potential negative impacts on the therapeutic process. For example, one trainer stated,

“I do not know if people worry about if somebody else saw the app and wondered, ‘oh you are in therapy, oh what happened to you?’ So, some things around privacy issues and confidentiality, but those will be pretty easy to fix.”

The majority of families believed that the an m Health homework resource would make practicing therapy skills at home more fun or interesting ( n =11; 91.7%), would help families practice skills more often ( n =12; 100%), would positively affect the therapeutic relationship ( n =12; 100%), and would improve treatment effectiveness ( n =11; 91.7%). Neutral responses were provided by all families who did not respond affirmatively to these questions (i.e., no negative responses were provided). Families also suggested that an m Health homework resource would have excellent clinical utility, helping to improve communication between providers and families, make treatment and homework more rewarding, encourage more engagement from youth One caregiver commented,

“I think it would encourage the kids to get [homework] done even before the parents. The kids would want to do it on the phone, they love messing with phones.”

“I think by having the reminders, as well as having something there that’s interactive for the kids and the caregivers both. I think it would be a huge help.”

Similar to trainers, challenges noted by families related to confidentiality and some families not having access to the technology or the internet. Additional family perspectives on benefits and challenges are provided in Table 8 .

Family Perspectives on Benefits and Challenges relating to m Health Solutions to Homework Barriers

The aims of this study were to assess barriers to the successful implementation of homework during youth mental health treatment, obtain suggestions for m Health solutions to those barriers, and explore perceptions on the benefits and challenges associated with m Health solutions to homework barriers through semi-structured qualitative interviews with relevant stakeholders. National trainers in TF-CBT provided a unique perspective on the common challenges met by mental health providers and their patients as well as potential solutions to those challenges, particularly given their extensive experience problem-solving common clinical challenges with community mental health providers. Interviews with youth TF-CBT patients and their caregivers provided important perspectives from those most affected by homework barriers in mental health treatment.

Perspectives on Barriers to the Successful Implementation of Homework

Trainer and family perspectives on the various barriers to the successful implementation of homework during mental health treatment aligned well with the heuristic proposed by Kazantzis and Shinkfield (2007) , which classifies barriers as occurring on the provider-, patient-, task-, and environmental-levels. Most of the provider-level barriers noted by trainers were consistent with expert recommendations from the research literature, such as providers’ beliefs relating to homework and patient engagement in homework ( Coon et al., 2005 ; Friedberg & Mcclure, 2005 ; Garland & Scott, 2002 ), difficulty designing homework activities and individualizing them to specific patients ( Kazantzis & Shinkfield, 2007 ), forgetting about homework and running out of time during the session ( Friedberg & Mcclure, 2005 ), difficulty with consistency and not wanting to put too many demands on patients ( Coon et al., 2005 ), and difficulty effectively assessing patient barriers ( Kazantzis & Shinkfield, 2007 ). Experts have proposed a model for practice that directly addresses many of these provider-level barriers by proposing an ideal process for facilitating engagement in homework ( Kazantzis, MacEwan, & Dattilio, 2005 ).

Trainer and family perspectives on the most common patient-level homework barriers were similar and were also consistent with the extant literature. These included patients’ avoidance or symptoms ( Coon et al., 2005 ; Dattilio et al., 2011 ; Friedberg & Mcclure, 2005 ; Garland & Scott, 2002 ; Hudson & Kendall, 2005 ; Leahy, 2002 ), forgetting to complete assignments ( Coon et al., 2005 ; Hudson & Kendall, 2005 ), not understanding when, where, or how to do assignments or the rationale ( Dattilio et al., 2011 ; Friedberg & Mcclure, 2005 ; Garland & Scott, 2002 ), and beliefs about homework tasks and their ability to complete them ( Dattilio et al., 2011 ; Kazantzis & Shinkfield, 2007 ). Interestingly, whereas the most commonly endorsed patient-level barrier by trainers was patients not seeing homework as an integral part of therapy or important, the most commonly endorsed barriers by families included avoidance or symptoms, forgetfulness, and lack of understanding about assignments, reflecting differing views on the more significant barriers faced by patients. This discrepancy in the trainers/providers vs . families’ perspectives regarding between session assignments suggests the importance of therapists’ focusing more time on explaining assignments, discussing potential challenges, emphasizing the benefits of completing assignments in overcoming symptoms/difficulties and ultimately inspiring follow through.

Task-level barriers reported by both trainers and families included assignments not aligning with patient values or treatment goals ( Coon et al., 2005 ; Dattilio et al., 2011 ; Hudson & Kendall, 2005 ). Many trainers reported that the word “homework” is an aversive term to patients, particularly to youth patients. Perhaps relatedly, many families reported that children view homework assignments are boring. Negative associations with homework may be addressed by referring to “homework” as practice assignments, experiments, exercises, or action plans, as recommended by a recent Beck Institute blog post by Drs. Judith Beck and Francine Broder ( Beck & Broder, 2016 ).

Finally, environment-level barriers noted by trainers and families included the home lives of patients being busy and chaotic – leaving little time to complete homework assignments; a lack of caregiver involvement in the case of youth; and a lack of reward or reinforcement for completing homework assignments, all of which have been previously noted ( Bru et al., 2013 ; Coon et al., 2005 ; Dattilio et al., 2011 ; Kazantzis & Shinkfield, 2007 ). In sum, trainer and family perspectives on barriers to the successful implementation of homework were largely consistent with those suggested by experts. Further, there was a general agreement between trainers and families with respect to those barriers. It is important to note the interrelatedness of several barriers within various levels. For example, patients not understanding the importance of homework or seeing it as an integral part of therapy could very much reflect a mismatch in alliance, tasks needed to achieve therapy goals, or a poor therapist rationale and opportunity for client feedback and discussion. Further, a patient’s understanding of the rationale for homework might be dependent on the provider’s skill in its explanation.

Trainers and families provided numerous suggestions for m Health solutions to homework barriers. These functionality and content suggestions included: reminders and schedules to overcome barriers to forgetting; behavior and symptom tracking and reports or activity summaries to assist providers in assessing homework completion; a variety of homework activities to choose from to help providers struggling with developing activities; resources for caregivers to improve caregiver support; and an integrated reward system to make completing homework rewarding and reinforcing for patients. Other suggested features related more to user interface and user experience. For example, interviewees felt that the m Health resource should allow easy navigation to relevant resources; include clear instructions via video, text, and audio to help patients understand and remember how to do assignments; include interactive and fun activities to help make the assignments less boring and less like “homework;” and be patient-centered and developmentally appropriate. Trainers and families also felt that a text message-based system for reminding patients to complete homework assignments would be beneficial, indicating that this approach would provide a good alternative to a purely app-based resource.

As outlined in recent reviews, there are several studies on m Health resources that include the functionality and content features suggested in this study and can also be used to facilitate homework implementation ( Bakker et al., 2016 ; Tang & Kreindler, 2017 ). For example, a number of m Health resources can be used for self-monitoring and symptom tracking, and many have engaging activities that can be used to support between-session learning and skill development in the areas of relaxation, cognitive therapy, imaginal exposure, and parent behavioral management ( Bunnell et al., 2019 ; Jungbluth & Shirk, 2013 ; Kristjánsdóttir et al., 2013 ; Newman, Przeworski, Consoli, & Barr Taylor, 2014 ; Reger et al., 2013 ; Shapiro et al., 2010 ; Whiteside, Ale, Vickers Douglas, Tiede, & Dammann, 2014 ). SMS- and app-based reminders and feedback on progress can also be used to encourage continued engagement in skills practice ( Aguilera & Muñoz, 2011 ; Harrison et al., 2011 ; Reger et al., 2013 ; Wiederhold, Boyd, Sulea, Gaggioli, & Riva, 2014 ). However, as stated previously, most of these resources were not designed with the express intention of addressing barriers to homework implementation, particularly for youth and family patient populations, leaving room for future work in this area.

Trainers and families expressed very positive views on m Health solutions to homework barriers. Trainers felt that m Health would increase provider use and family adherence to homework, positively affect the therapeutic relationship, and increase treatment efficiency and effectiveness. Families felt that it would make practicing therapy skills at home more fun or interesting, help families practice skills more often, positively affect the therapeutic relationship, and improve treatment effectiveness. A potential benefit commonly noted by trainers and families was a high likelihood that youth would engage with the resource given their generally strong interest in technology, and that this would help to reinforce the practice of skills learned during therapy. A particular benefit noted was increased access to helpful resources between-sessions. Trainers and families expressed concerns about issues relating to confidentiality. While they did not view this as a fatal flaw of the resource, they suggested implementing appropriate safeguards to protect patient privacy and clearly explaining data protection to encourage use.

Limitations

There are several limitations to this study. Regarding generalizability of results, the selection of trainers and families interviewed was based on experience with TF-CBT, a specific treatment protocol for childhood trauma. Although interview questions were kept general during interviews, referring to mental health treatment rather than solely to TF-CBT, the views expressed by interviewees may relate more to TF-CBT than other child mental health treatments. However, a strength of this research is that TF-CBT has a broad symptom focus (e.g., PTSD, anxiety, depression, anger, disruptive behavior) and includes treatment components used in numerous youth mental health treatments (e.g., psychoeducation, relaxation, cognitive coping, affective modulation, exposure), which suggests that results would be applicable to a range of child mental health treatments. Additionally, national trainers in TF-CBT have consistent exposure to working closely with community mental health providers and regularly help them to problem-solve common barriers in clinical practice. This added insight into difficulties experienced by numerous mental health providers rather than asking individual providers about their experience. This is a strength of this study but also a potential limitation as not directly measured, thus an assumption. The views of trainers may not be completely representative of the every-day challenges to homework implementation experienced by community mental health providers. Given the small samples size and lack of diversity, the results should be interpreted with caution as they may not reflect the experiences or views of therapists and patients who utilize homework across different treatment approaches, therapy settings, and populations.

With respect to interview questions and results, they tended to focus on barriers and challenges and provided less of an opportunity for trainers and family members to share factors that may have led to successes with homework assignments. Such information could also importantly support the development and presentation of m health solutions by therapists. Relatedly, families were asked about barriers faced by youth and caregivers, and not by providers, which would have provided interesting data on family perspectives on providers’ limitations. Although comfort with technology in general was assessed in youth and caregivers, it was not specified as comfort with m Health, and ratings were not collected from trainers. As such, a potential limitation of this study is that participants’ comfort specifically with mHealth was unknown. Furthermore, this study focused specifically on m Health without a comparison to other low-tech solutions, which might have resulted in inflated levels of interest in m health solutions to homework barriers. A final limitation is that interviews were coded by the first author, and there is potential for variability in coding that was not accounted for (i.e., the same themes might have been classified in different ways). Despite this limitation, themes were reviewed and by an internationally recognized expert in the implementation of homework and related barriers during CBT (the fourth author) and compared until agreement was reached, supporting the derived themes.

Conclusions

This study provides important new information on barriers to the successful implementation of homework during youth mental health treatment, based on perspectives of providers, youth, and caregivers with that treatment experience. This study adds to the literature on these barriers, which has been based largely on recommendations from experts in the field. The results of this study aligned well with this literature, providing additional support for these recommendations. Valuable insights on potential m Health solutions to these homework barriers were also provided. These data are being used to inform the development of an m Health resource that aims to address homework barriers in hopes of improving provider use and patient adherence to homework during youth mental health treatment, with the ultimate goal of improving the quality of care received by patients in community mental health settings.

Supplementary Material

Acknowledgments.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding. Dr. Bunnell was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (grant numbers F32 MH108250 and K23 MH118482).

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

Conflict of Interest. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals

Statement of Human Rights.

Ethics approval. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Institutional Review Board at the Medical University of South Carolina (Pro00047774) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Statement on the Welfare of Animals

Ethical approval. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

• Aguilera A, & Muñoz RF. (2011). Text messaging as an adjunct to CBT in low-income populations: A usability and feasibility pilot study. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 42(6), 472–478. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amstadter AB, Broman-Fulks J, Zinzow H, Ruggiero KJ, & Cercone J. (2009). Internet-based interventions for traumatic stress-related mental health problems: A review and suggestion for future research. Clinical Psychology Review, 29(5), 410–420. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bakker D, Kazantzis N, Rickwood D, & Rickard N. (2016). Mental health smartphone apps: Review and evidence-based recommendations for future developments. JMIR Mental Health, 3(1), e7. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beck JS, & Broder FR. (2016). The new “Homework” in cognitive behavior therapy. Beck Institute for Cognitive Behavior Therapy. Retrieved November 24, 2019, from https://beckinstitute.org/the-new-homework-in-cognitive-behavior-therapy/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Berkovits MD, O’Brien KA, Carter CG, & Eyberg SM. (2010). Early identification and intervention for behavior problems in primary care: A comparison of two abbreviated versions of parent-child interaction therapy. Behavior Therapy, 41(3), 375–387. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boschen MJ, & Casey LM. (2008). The use of mobile telephones as adjuncts to cognitive behavioral psychotherapy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39(5), 546–552. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bru L, Solholm R, & Idsoe T. (2013). Participants’ experiences of an early cognitive behavioral intervention for adolescents with symptoms of depression. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 18(1), 24–43. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bunnell BE, Davidson TM, Winkelmann JR, Maples-Keller JL, Ridings LE, Dahne J, … Ruggiero KJ. (2019). Implementation and utility of an automated text messaging system to facilitate symptom self-monitoring and identify risk for post-traumatic stress disorder and depression in trauma center patients. Telemedicine and E-Health. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Callan JA, Dunbar-Jacob J, Sereika SM, Stone C, Fasiczka A, Jarrett RB, & Thase ME. (2012). Barriers to cognitive behavioral therapy homework completion scaledepression version: Development and psychometric evaluation. International Journal of Cognitive Therapy, 5(2), 219–235. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Charmaz K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. New York, NY: SAGE Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Clarke G, Hops H, Lewinsohn PM, Andrews J, Seeley JR, & Williams J. (1992). Cognitive-behavioral group treatment of adolescent depression: Prediction of outcome. Behavior Therapy, 23(3), 341–354. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen JA, Mannarino AP, & Deblinger E. (2017). Treating trauma and traumatic grief in children and adolescents, 2nd ed. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Coon DW, Rabinowitz YG, Thompson LW, & Gallagher-Thompson D. (2005). Older adults. In Kazantzis N, Deane F, Ronan K, & L’Abate L. (Eds.), Using Homework Assignments in Cognitive Behavior Therapy (pp. 117–152). New York, NY: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Danko CM, Brown T, Van Schoick L, & Budd KS. (2016). Predictors and correlates of homework completion and treatment outcomes in parent–child interaction therapy. Child and Youth Care Forum, 45(3), 467–485. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dattilio FM, Kazantzis N, Shinkfield G, & Carr AG. (2011). A survey of homework use, experience of barriers to homework, and attitudes about the barriers to homework among couples and family therapists. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 37(2), 121–136. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davidson TM, Bunnell BE, Saunders BE, Hanson RF, Danielson CK, Cook D, … Ruggiero KJ. (2019). Pilot evaluation of a tablet-based application to improve quality of care in child mental health treatment. Behavior Therapy, 50(2), 367–379. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Deblinger E, Mannarino AP, Cohen JA, Runyon MK, & Steer RA. (2011). Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for children: Impact of the trauma narrative and treatment length. Depression and Anxiety, 28(1), 67–75. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Deblinger E, Pollio E, & Dorsey S. (2016). Applying Trauma-Focused Cognitive–Behavioral Therapy in group format. Child Maltreatment, 21(1), 59–73. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Donker T, Petrie K, Proudfoot J, Clarke J, Birch M-R, & Christensen H. (2013). Smartphones for smarter delivery of mental health programs: a systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15(11), e247. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ehrenreich B, Righter B, Rocke DA, Dixon L, & Himelhoch S. (2011). Are mobile phones and handheld computers being used to enhance delivery of psychiatric treatment? The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 199(11), 886–891. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Friedberg RD, & Mcclure JM. (2005). Adolescents. In Kazantzis N, Deane F, Ronan K, & L’Abate L. (Eds.), Using Homework Assignments in Cognitive Behavior Therapy (pp. 95–116). New York, NY: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Garland A, & Scott J. (2002). Using homework in therapy for depression. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58(5), 489–498. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaynor ST, Lawrence PS, & Nelson-Gray RO. (2006). Measuring homework compliance in cognitive-behavioral therapy for adolescent depression: Review, preliminary findings, and implications for theory and practice. Behavior Modification, 30(5), 647–672. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hanson RF, Gros KS, Davidson TM, Barr S, Cohen J, Deblinger E, … Ruggiero KJ. (2014). National trainers’ perspectives on challenges to implementation of an empirically-supported mental health treatment. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 41(4), 522–534. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harrison V, Proudfoot J, Wee PP, Parker G, Pavlovic DH, & Manicavasagar V. (2011, December). Mobile mental health: Review of the emerging field and proof of concept study. Journal of Mental Health. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Helbig S, & Fehm L. (2004). Problems with homework in CBT: Rare exception or rather frequent? Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 32(3), 291–301. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heron KE, & Smyth JM. (2010). Ecological momentary interventions: Incorporating mobile technology into psychosocial and health behaviour treatments. British Journal of Health Psychology, 15(1), 1–39. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hudson JL, & Kendall PC. (2002). Showing you can do it: Homework in therapy for children and adolescents with anxiety disorders. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58(5), 525–534. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hudson JL, & Kendall PC. (2005). Children. In Kazantzis N, Deane F, Ronan K, & L’Abate L. (Eds.), Using Homework Assignments in Cognitive Behavior Therapy (pp. 75–94). New York, NY: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jungbluth NJ, & Shirk SR. (2013). Promoting homework adherence in cognitive-behavioral therapy for adolescent depression. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 42(4), 545–553. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kazantzis N, & Deane FP. (1999). Psychologists’ use of homework assignments in clinical practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 30(6), 581–585. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kazantzis N, Deane FP, & Ronan KR. (2000). Homework assignments in cognitive and behavioral therapy: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 7(2), 189–202. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kazantzis N, Deane FP, & Ronan KR. (2004). Assessing compliance with homework assingments: Review and recommendations for clinical practice. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60(6), 627–641. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kazantzis N, Deane FP, Ronan KR, & L’Abate L. (2005). Using Homework Assignments in Cognitive Behavior Therapy. New York, NY: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kazantzis N, & Lampropoulos GK. (2002). Reflecting on homework in psychotherapy: What can we conclude from research and experience? Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58(5), 577–585. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kazantzis N, Lampropoulos GK, & Deane FP. (2005). A national survey of practicing psychologists’ use and attitudes toward homework in psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(4), 742–748. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kazantzis N, MacEwan J, & Dattilio F. (2005). A guiding model for practice. In Kazantzis N, Deane F, Ronan K, & L’Abate L. (Eds.), Using Homework Assignments in Cognitive Behavior Therapy (pp. 359–407). New York: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kazantzis Nikolaos, & Shinkfield G. (2007). Conceptualizing patient barriers to nonadherence with homework assignments. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 14(3), 317–324. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kazantzis Nikolaos, Whittington C, & Dattilio F. (2010). Meta-analysis of homework effects in cognitive and behavioral therapy: A replication and extension. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 17(2), 144–156. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kazantzis Nikolaos, Whittington C, Zelencich L, Kyrios M, Norton PJ, & Hofmann SG. (2016). Quantity and quality of homework compliance: A meta-analysis of relations with outcome in cognitive behavior therapy. Behavior Therapy, 47(5), 755–772. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krebs P, & Duncan DT. (2015). Health app use among US mobile phone owners: A national survey. JMIR MHealth and UHealth, 3(4), e101. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kristjánsdóttir ÓB, Fors EA, Eide E, Finset A, Stensrud TL, Van Dulmen S, … Eide H. (2013). A smartphone-based intervention with diaries and therapist-feedback to reduce catastrophizing and increase functioning in women with chronic widespread pain: Randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15(1), e5. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leahy RL. (2002). Improving homework compliance in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58(5), 499–511. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luxton DD, McCann RA, Bush NE, Mishkind MC, & Reger GM. (2011). MHealth for mental health: Integrating smartphone technology in behavioral healthcare. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 42(6), 505–512. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lyon AR, & Budd KS. (2010). A community mental health implementation of Parent–Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT). Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19(5), 654–668. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mausbach BT, Moore R, Roesch S, Cardenas V, & Patterson TL. (2010). The relationship between homework compliance and therapy outcomes: An updated meta-analysis. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 34(5), 429–438. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miles MB, & Huberman AM. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morse JM. (2000). Determining sample size. Qualitative Health Research, 10(1), 3–5. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Newman MG, Przeworski A, Consoli AJ, & Barr Taylor C. (2014). A randomized controlled trial of ecological momentary intervention plus brief group therapy for generalized anxiety disorder. Psychotherapy, 51(2), 198–206. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reger GM, Hoffman J, Riggs D, Rothbaum BO, Ruzek J, Holloway KM, & Kuhn E. (2013). The “PE coach” smartphone application: An innovative approach to improving implementation, fidelity, and homework adherence during prolonged exposure. Psychological Services, 10(3), 342–349. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ruggiero KJ, Saunders BE, Davidson TM, Cook DL, & Hanson R. (2017). Leveraging technology to address the quality chasm in children’s evidence-based psychotherapy. Psychiatric Services, 68, 650–652. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Scheel MJ, Hanson WE, & Razzhavaikina TI. (2004). The process of recommending homework in psychotherapy: A review of therapist delivery methods, client acceptability, and factors that affect compliance. Psychotherapy, 41(1), 38–55. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scheeringa MS, Weems CF, Cohen JA, Amaya-Jackson L, & Guthrie D. (2011). Trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder in threethrough six year-old children: a randomized clinical trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52(8), 853–860. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shapiro JR, Bauer S, Andrews E, Pisetsky E, Bulik-Sullivan B, Hamer RM, & Bulik CM. (2010). Mobile therapy: Use of text-messaging in the treatment of bulimia nervosa. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 43(6), 513–519. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Silverman WK, Ortiz CD, Viswesvaran C, Burns BJ, Kolko DJ, Putnam FW, & Amaya-Jackson L. (2008). Evidence-based psychosocial treatments for children and adolescents exposed to traumatic events. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 37(1), 156–183. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simons AD, Marti CN, Rohde P, Lewis CC, Curry J, & March J. (2012). Does homework “matter” in cognitive behavioral therapy for adolescent depression? Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 26(4), 390–404. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sukhodolsky DG, Kassinove H, & Gorman BS. (2004). Cognitive-behavioral therapy for anger in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9(3), 247–269. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tang W, & Kreindler D. (2017). Supporting homework compliance in cognitive behavioural therapy: essential features of mobile apps. JMIR Mental Health, 4(2), e20. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wethington HR, Hahn RA, Fuqua-Whitley DS, Sipe TA, Crosby AE, Johnson RL, … Task Force on Community Preventive Services. (2008). The effectiveness of interventions to reduce psychological harm from traumatic events among children and adolescents. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(3), 287–313. 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.06.024 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Whiteside SPH, Ale CM, Vickers Douglas K, Tiede MS, & Dammann JE. (2014). Case examples of enhancing pediatric ocd treatment with a smartphone application. Clinical Case Studies, 13(1), 80–94. 10.1177/1534650113504822 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wiederhold BK, Boyd C, Sulea C, Gaggioli A, & Riva G. (2014). Marketing analysis of a positive technology app for the self-management of psychological stress. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 199, 83–87. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

• View on publisher site
• PDF (144.2 KB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections

Advertisement

Homework and Children in Grades 3–6: Purpose, Policy and Non-Academic Impact

• Original Paper
• Open access
• Published: 12 January 2021
• Volume 50 , pages 631–651, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Melissa Holland   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8349-7168 1 ,
• McKenzie Courtney 2 ,
• James Vergara 3 ,
• Danielle McIntyre 4 ,
• Samantha Nix 5 ,
• Allison Marion 6 &
• Gagan Shergill 1  

21k Accesses

17 Citations

127 Altmetric

16 Mentions

Explore all metrics

Increasing academic demands, including larger amounts of assigned homework, is correlated with various challenges for children. While homework stress in middle and high school has been studied, research evidence is scant concerning the effects of homework on elementary-aged children.

The objective of this study was to understand rater perception of the purpose of homework, the existence of homework policy, and the relationship, if any, between homework and the emotional health, sleep habits, and parent–child relationships for children in grades 3–6.

Survey research was conducted in the schools examining student ( n  = 397), parent ( n  = 442), and teacher ( n  = 28) perception of homework, including purpose, existing policy, and the childrens’ social and emotional well-being.

Preliminary findings from teacher, parent, and student surveys suggest the presence of modest impact of homework in the area of emotional health (namely, student report of boredom and frustration ), parent–child relationships (with over 25% of the parent and child samples reporting homework always or often interferes with family time and creates a power struggle ), and sleep (36.8% of the children surveyed reported they sometimes get less sleep) in grades 3–6. Additionally, findings suggest misperceptions surrounding the existence of homework policies among parents and teachers, the reasons teachers cite assigning homework, and a disconnect between child-reported and teacher reported emotional impact of homework.

Conclusions

Preliminary findings suggest homework modestly impacts child well-being in various domains in grades 3–6, including sleep, emotional health, and parent/child relationships. School districts, educators, and parents must continue to advocate for evidence-based homework policies that support children’s overall well-being.

Similar content being viewed by others

Understanding the Quality of Effective Homework

Relationships between perceived parental involvement in homework, student homework behaviors, and academic achievement: differences among elementary, junior high, and high school students.

Collaboration between School and Home to Improve Subjective Well-being: A New Chinese Children’s Subjective Well-being Scale

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Children’s social-emotional health is moving to the forefront of attention in schools, as depression, anxiety, and suicide rates are on the rise (Bitsko et al. 2018 ; Child Mind Institute 2016 ; Horowitz and Graf 2019 ; Perou et al. 2013 ). This comes at a time when there are also intense academic demands, including an increased focus on academic achievement via grades, standardized test scores, and larger amounts of assigned homework (Pope 2010 ). This interplay between the rise in anxiety and depression and scholastic demands has been postulated upon frequently in the literature, and though some research has looked at homework stress as it relates to middle and high school students (Cech 2008 ; Galloway et al. 2013 ; Horowitz and Graf 2019 ; Kackar et al. 2011 ; Katz et al. 2012 ), research evidence is scant as to the effects of academic stress on the social and emotional health of elementary children.

Literature Review

The following review of the literature highlights areas that are most pertinent to the child, including homework as it relates to achievement, the achievement gap, mental health, sleep, and parent–child relationships. Areas of educational policy, teacher training, homework policy, and parent-teacher communication around homework are also explored.

Homework and Achievement

With the authorization of No Child Left Behind and the Common Core State Standards, teachers have felt added pressures to keep up with the tougher standards movement (Tokarski 2011 ). Additionally, teachers report homework is necessary in order to complete state-mandated material (Holte 2015 ). Misconceptions on the effectiveness of homework and student achievement have led many teachers to increase the amount of homework assigned. However, there has been little evidence to support this trend. In fact, there is a significant body of research demonstrating the lack of correlation between homework and student success, particularly at the elementary level. In a meta-analysis examining homework, grades, and standardized test scores, Cooper et al. ( 2006 ) found little correlation between the amount of homework assigned and achievement in elementary school, and only a moderate correlation in middle school. In third grade and below, there was a negative correlation found between the variables ( r  =  − 0.04). Other studies, too, have evidenced no relationship, and even a negative relationship in some grades, between the amount of time spent on homework and academic achievement (Horsley and Walker 2013 ; Trautwein and Köller 2003 ). High levels of homework in competitive high schools were found to hinder learning, full academic engagement, and well-being (Galloway et al. 2013 ). Ironically, research suggests that reducing academic pressures can actually increase children’s academic success and cognitive abilities (American Psychological Association [APA] 2014 ).

International comparison studies of achievement show that national achievement is higher in countries that assign less homework (Baines and Slutsky 2009 ; Güven and Akçay 2019 ). In fact, in a recent international study conducted by Güven and Akçay ( 2019 ), there was no relationship found between math homework frequency and student achievement for fourth grade students in the majority of the countries studied, including the United States. Similarly, additional homework in science, English, and history was found to have little to no impact on respective test scores in later grades (Eren and Henderson 2011 ). In the 2015 “Programme of International Student Assessment” results, Korea and Finland are ranked among the top countries in reading, mathematics, and writing, yet these countries are among those that assign the least amount of homework (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD] 2016 ).

Homework and Mental Wellness

Academic stress has been found to play a role in the mental well-being of children. In a study conducted by Conner et al. ( 2009 ), students reported feeling overwhelmed and burdened by their exceeding homework loads, even when they viewed homework as meaningful. Academic stress, specifically the amount of homework assigned, has been identified as a common risk factor for children’s increased anxiety levels (APA 2009 ; Galloway et al. 2013 ; Leung et al. 2010 ), in addition to somatic complaints and sleep disturbance (Galloway et al. 2013 ). Stress also negatively impacts cognition, including memory, executive functioning, motor skills, and immune response (Westheimer et al. 2011 ). Consequently, excessive stress impacts one’s ability to think critically, recall information, and make decisions (Carrion and Wong 2012 ).

Homework and Sleep

Sleep, including quantity and quality, is one life domain commonly impacted by homework and stress. Zhou et al. ( 2015 ) analyzed the prevalence of unhealthy sleep behaviors in school-aged children, with findings suggesting that staying up late to study was one of the leading risk factors most associated with severe tiredness and depression. According to the National Sleep Foundation ( 2017 ), the recommended amount of sleep for elementary school-aged children is 9 – 11 h per night; however, approximately 70% of youth do not get these recommended hours. According to the MetLife American Teacher Survey ( 2008 ), elementary-aged children also acknowledge lack of sleep. Perfect et al. ( 2014 ) found that sleep problems predict lower grades and negative student attitudes toward teachers and school. Eide and Showalter ( 2012 ) conducted a national study that examined the relationship between optimum amounts of sleep and student performance on standardized tests, with results indicating significant correlations ( r  = 0.285–0.593) between sleep and student performance. Therefore, sleep is not only impacted by academic stress and homework, but lack of sleep can also impact academic functioning.

Homework and the Achievement Gap

Homework creates increasing achievement variability among privileged learners and those who are not. For example, learners with more resources, increased parental education, and family support are likely to have higher achievement on homework (Hofferth and Sandberg 2001 ; Moore et al. 2018 ; Ndebele 2015 ; OECD 2016 ). Learners coming from a lower socioeconomic status may not have access to quiet, well-lit environments, computers, and books necessary to complete their homework (Cooper 2001 ; Kralovec and Buell 2000 ). Additionally, many homework assignments require materials that may be limited for some families, including supplies for projects, technology, and transportation. Based on the research to date, the phrase “the homework gap” has been coined to describe those learners who lack the resources necessary to complete assigned homework (Moore et al. 2018 ).

Parent–Teacher Communication Around Homework

Communication between caregivers and teachers is essential. Unfortunately, research suggests parents and teachers often have limited communication regarding homework assignments. Markow et al. ( 2007 ) found most parents (73%) report communicating with their child’s teacher regarding homework assignments less than once a month. Pressman et al. ( 2015 ) indicated children in primary grades spend substantially more time on homework than predicted by educators. For example, they found first grade students had three times more homework than the National Education Association’s recommendation of up to 20 min of homework per night for first graders. While the same homework assignment may take some learners 30 min to complete, it may take others up to 2 or 3 h. However, until parents and teachers have better communication around homework, including time completion and learning styles for individual learners, these misperceptions and disparities will likely persist.

Parent–Child Relationships and Homework

Trautwein et al. ( 2009 ) defined homework as a “double-edged sword” when it comes to the parent–child relationship. While some parental support can be construed as beneficial, parental support can also be experienced as intrusive or detrimental. When examining parental homework styles, a controlling approach was negatively associated with student effort and emotions toward homework (Trautwein et al. 2009 ). Research suggests that homework is a primary source of stress, power struggle, and disagreement among families (Cameron and Bartel 2009 ), with many families struggling with nightly homework battles, including serious arguments between parents and their children over homework (Bennett and Kalish 2006 ). Often, parents are not only held accountable for monitoring homework completion, they may also be accountable for teaching, re-teaching, and providing materials. This is particularly challenging due to the economic and educational diversity of families. Pressman et al. ( 2015 ) found that as parents’ personal perceptions of their abilities to assist their children with homework declined, family-related stressors increased.

Teacher Training

As homework plays a significant role in today’s public education system, an assumption would be made that teachers are trained to design homework tasks to promote learning. However, only 12% of teacher training programs prepare teachers for using homework as an assessment tool (Greenberg and Walsh 2012 ), and only one out of 300 teachers reported ever taking a course regarding homework during their training (Bennett and Kalish 2006 ). The lack of training with regard to homework is evidenced by the differences in teachers’ perspectives. According to the MetLife American Teacher Survey ( 2008 ), less experienced teachers (i.e., those with 5 years or less years of experience) are less likely to to believe homework is important and that homework supports student learning compared to more experienced teachers (i.e., those with 21 plus years of experience). There is no universal system or rule regarding homework; consequently, homework practices reflect individual teacher beliefs and school philosophies.

Educational and Homework Policy

Policy implementation occurs on a daily basis in public schools and classrooms. While some policies are made at the federal level, states, counties, school districts, and even individual school sites often manage education policy (Mullis et al. 2012 ). Thus, educators are left with the responsibility to implement multi-level policies, such as curriculum selection, curriculum standards, and disability policy (Rigby et al. 2016 ). Despite educational reforms occurring on an almost daily basis, little has been initiated with regard to homework policies and practices.

To date, few schools provide specific guidelines regarding homework practices. District policies that do exist are not typically driven by research, using vague terminology regarding the quantity and quality of assignments. Greater variations among homework practices exist when comparing schools in the private sector. For example, Montessori education practices the philosophy of no examinations and no homework for students aged 3–18 (O’Donnell 2013 ). Abeles and Rubenstein ( 2015 ) note that many public school districts advocate for the premise of 10 min of homework per night per grade level. However, there is no research supporting this premise and the guideline fails to recognize that time spent on homework varies based on the individual student. Sartain et al. ( 2015 ) analyzed and evaluated homework policies of multiple school districts, finding the policies examined were outdated, vague, and not student-focused.

The reasons cited for homework assignment, as identified by teachers, are varied, such as enhancing academic achievement through practice or teaching self-discipline. However, not all types of practice are equally effective, particularly if the student is practicing the skill incorrectly (Dean et al. 2012 ; Trautwein et al. 2009 ). The practice of reading is one of the only assignments consistently supported by research to be associated with increased academic achievement (Hofferth and Sandberg 2001 ). Current literature supports 15–20 min of daily allocated time for reading practice (Reutzel and Juth 2017 ). Additionally, research supports project-based learning to deepen learners’ practice and understanding of academic material (Williams 2018 ).

Research also shows that homework only teaches responsibility and self-discipline when parents have that goal in mind and systematically structure and supervise homework (Kralovec and Buell 2000 ). Non-academic activities, such as participating in chores (University of Minnesota 2002 ) and sports (Hofferth and Sandberg 2001 ) were found to be greater predictors of later success and effective problem-solving.

Consistent with the pre-existing research literature, the following hypotheses are offered:

Homework will have some negative correlation with children’s social-emotional well-being.

The purposes cited for the assignment of homework will be varied between parents and teachers.

Schools will lack well-formulated and understood homework policies.

Homework will have some negative correlation with children’s sleep and parent–child relationships.

This quantitative study explored, via perception-based survey research, the social and emotional health of elementary children in grades 3 – 6 and the scholastic pressures they face, namely homework. The researchers implemented newly developed questionnaires addressing student, teacher, and parent perspectives on homework and on children’s social-emotional well-being. Researchers also examined perspectives on the purpose of homework, the existence of school homework policies, and the perceived impact of homework on children’s sleep and family relationships. Given the dearth of prior research in this area, a major goal of this study was to explore associations between academic demands and child well-being with sufficient breadth to allow for identification of potential associations that may be examined more thoroughly by future research. These preliminary associations and item-response tendencies can serve as foundation for future studies with causal, experimental, or more psychometrically focused designs. A conceptual framework for this study is offered in Fig.  1 .

Conceptual framework

Research Questions

What is the perceived impact of homework on children’s social-emotional well-being across teachers, parents, and the children themselves?

What are the primary purposes of homework according to parents and teachers?

How many schools have homework policies, and of those, how many parents and teachers know what the policy is?

What is the perceived impact of homework on children’s sleep and parent–child relationships?

The present quantitative descriptive study is based on researcher developed instruments designed to explore the perceptions of children, teachers and parents on homework and its impact on social-emotional well-being. The use of previously untested instruments and a convenience sample preclude any causal interpretations being drawn from our results. This study is primarily an initial foray into the sparsely researched area of the relationship of homework and social-emotional health, examining an elementary school sample and incorporating multiple perspectives of the parents, teachers, and the children themselves.

Participants

The participants in this study were children in six Northern California schools in grades third through sixth ( n  = 397), their parents ( n  = 442), and their teachers ( n  = 28). The mean grade among children was 4.56 (minimum third grade/maximum sixth grade) with a mean age of 9.97 (minimum 8 years old/maximum 12 years old). Approximately 54% of the children were male and 45% were female, with White being the most common ethnicity (61%), followed by Hispanic (30%), and Pacific Islander (12%). Subjects were able to mark more than one ethnicity. Detailed participant demographics are available upon request.

Instruments

The instruments used in this research include newly developed student, parent, and teacher surveys. The research team formulated a number of survey items that, based on existing research and their own professional experience in the schools, have high face validity in measuring workload, policies, and attitudes surrounding homework. Further psychometric development of these surveys and ascertation of construct and content validity is warranted, with the first step being their use in this initial perception-based study. Each of the surveys, developed specifically for this study, are discussed below.

Student Survey

The Student Survey is a 15-item questionnaire wherein the child was asked closed- and open-ended questions regarding their perspectives on homework, including how homework makes them feel.

Parent Survey

The Parent Survey is a 23-item questionnaire wherein the children’s parents were asked to respond to items regarding their perspectives on their child’s homework, as well as their child’s social-emotional health. Additionally, parents were asked whether their child’s school has a homework policy and, if so, if they know what that policy specifies.

Teacher Survey

The Teacher Survey is a 22-item questionnaire wherein the children’s teacher was asked to respond to items regarding their perspectives of the primary purposes of homework, as well as the impact of homework on children’s social-emotional health. Additionally, teachers were asked whether their school has a homework policy and, if so, what that policy specifies.

Data was collected by the researchers after following Institutional Review Board procedures from the sponsoring university. School district approval was obtained by the lead researcher. Upon district approval, individual school approval was requested by the researchers by contacting site principals, after which, teachers of grades 3 – 6 at those schools were asked to voluntarily participate. Each participating teacher was provided a packet including the following: a manila envelope, Teacher Instructions, Administration Guide, Teacher Survey, Parent Packet, and Student Survey. Surveys and classrooms were de-identified via number assignment. Teachers then distributed the Parent Packet to each child’s guardian, which included the Parent Consent and Parent Survey, corresponding with the child’s assigned number. A coded envelope was also enclosed for parents/guardians to return their completed consent form and survey, if they agreed to participate. The Parent Consent form detailed the purpose of the research, the benefits and risks of participating in the research, confidentiality, and the voluntary nature of completing the survey. Parents who completed the consent form and survey sent the completed materials in the enclosed envelope, sealed, to their child’s teacher. After obtaining returned envelopes, with parent consent, teachers were instructed to administer the corresponding numbered survey to the children during a class period. Teachers were also asked to complete their Teacher Survey. All completed materials were to be placed in envelopes provided to each teacher and returned to the researchers once data was collected.

Analysis of Data

This descriptive and quantitative research design utilized the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) to analyze data. The researchers developed coding keys for the parent, teacher, and student surveys to facilitate data entry into SPSS. Items were also coded based on the type of data, such as nominal or ordinal, and qualitative responses were coded and translated where applicable and transcribed onto a response sheet. Some variables were transformed for more accurate comparison across raters. Parent, teacher, and student ratings were analyzed, and frequency counts and percentages were generated for each item. Items were then compared across and within rater groups to explore the research questions. The data analysis of this study is primarily descriptive and exploratory, not seeking to imply causal relationships between variables. Survey item response results associated with each research questionnaire are summarized in their respective sections below.

The first research question investigated in this study was: “What is the perceived impact of homework on children’s social-emotional well-being across teachers, parents, and children?” For this question the examiners looked at children’s responses to how homework makes them feel from a list of feelings. As demonstrated in Table 1 , approximately 44% of children feel “Bored” and about 25% feel “Annoyed” and “Frustrated” toward homework. Frequencies and percentages are reported in Table 1 . Similar to the student survey, parents also responded to a question regarding their child’s emotional experience surrounding homework. Based on parent reports, approximately 40% of parents perceive their child as “Frustrated” and about 37% acknowledge their child feeling “Stress/Anxiety.” Conversely, about 37% also report their child feels “Competence.” These results are reported in Table 1 .

Additionally, parents and teachers both responded to the question, “How does homework affect your student’s social and emotional health?” One notable finding from parent and teacher reports is that nearly half of both parents and teachers reported homework has “No Effect” on children’s social and emotional health. Frequencies and percentages are reported in Table 2 .

The second research question investigated in this study was: “What are parent and teacher perspectives on the primary purposes of homework?” For this question the examiners looked at three specific questions across parent and teacher surveys. Parents responded to the questions, “Does homework relate to your child’s learning?” and “How often is homework busy work?” While the majority of parents reported homework “Always” (45%) or “Often” (39%) relates to their child’s learning, parents also feel homework is “Often” (29%) busy work. The corresponding frequencies and percentages are summarized in Table 3 . Additionally, teachers were asked, “What are the primary reasons you assign homework?” The primary purposes of homework according to the teachers in this sample are “Skill Practice” (82%), “Develop Work Ethic” (61%), and “Teach Independence and Responsibility” (50%). The frequencies and percentages of teacher responses are displayed in Table 4 . Notably, on this survey item, teachers were instructed to choose one response (item), but the majority of teachers chose multiple items. This suggests teachers perceive themselves as assigning homework for a variety of reasons.

The third research question investigated was, “How many schools have homework policies, and of those, how many parents and teachers know what the policy is?” For this question the examiners analyzed parent and teacher responses to the question, “Does your school have a homework policy?” Frequencies and percentages are displayed in Table 5 . Notably, only two out of the six schools included in this study had homework policies. Results indicate that both parents and teachers are uncertain regarding whether or not their school had a homework policy.

The fourth research question investigated was, “What is the perceived impact of homework on children’s sleep and parent–child relationships?” Children were asked if they get less sleep because of homework and parents were asked if their child gets less sleep because of homework. Finally, teachers were asked about the impact of sleep on academic performance. Frequencies and percentages of student, parent, and teacher data is reported in Table 6 . Results indicate disagreement among parents and children on the impact of homework on sleep. While the majority of parents do not feel their child gets less sleep because of homework (77%), approximately 37% of children report sometimes getting less sleep because of homework. On the other hand, teachers acknowledge the importance of sleep in relation to academic performance, as nearly 93% of teachers report sleep always or often impacts academic performance.

To investigate the perceived impact of homework on the parent–child relationship, parents were asked “How does homework impact your child’s relationships?” Almost 30% of parents report homework “Brings us Together”; however, 24% report homework “Creates a Power Struggle” and nearly 18% report homework “Interferes with Family Time.” Additionally, parents and children were both asked to report if homework gets in the way of family time. Frequencies and percentages are reported in Table 7 . Data was further analyzed to explore potentially significant differences between parents and children on this perception as described below.

In order to prepare for analysis of significant differences between parent and child perceptions regarding homework and family time, a Levene’s test for equality of variances was conducted. Results of the Levene’s test showed that equal variances could not be assumed, and results should be interpreted with caution. Despite this, a difference in mean responses on a Likert-type scale (where higher scores equal greater perceived interference with family time) indicate a disparity in parent ( M  = 2.95, SD  = 0.88) and child ( M  = 2.77, SD  = 0.99) perceptions, t (785) = 2.65, p  = 0.008. Results suggest that children were more likely to feel that homework interferes with family time than their parents. However, follow up testing where equal variances can be assumed is warranted upon further data collection.

The purpose of this research was to explore perceptions of homework by parents, children, and teachers of grades 3–6, including how homework relates to child well-being, awareness of school homework policies and the perceived purpose of homework. A discussion of the results as it relates to each research question is explored.

Perceived Impact of Homework on Children’s Social-Emotional Well-Being Across Teachers, Parents, and Students

According to self-report survey data, children in grades 3–6 reported that completing homework at home generates various feelings. The majority of responses indicated that children felt uncomfortable emotions such as bored, annoyed, and frustrated; however, a subset of children also reported feeling smart when completing homework. While parent and teacher responses suggest parents and teachers do not feel homework affects children’s social-emotional health, children reported that homework does affect how they feel. Specifically, many children in this study reported experiencing feelings of boredom and frustration when thinking about completing homework at home. If the purpose of homework is to enhance children’s engagement in their learning outside of school, educators must re-evaluate homework assignments to align with best practices, as indicated by the researchers Dean et al. ( 2012 ), Vatterott ( 2018 ), and Sartain et al. ( 2015 ). Specifically, educators should consider effects of the amount and type of homework assigned, balancing the goal of increased practice and learning with potential effects on children’s social-emotional health. Future research could incorporate a control group and/or test scores or other measures of academic achievement to isolate and better understand the relationships between homework, health, and scholastic achievement.

According to parent survey data, the perceived effects of homework on their child’s social and emotional well-being appear strikingly different compared to student perceptions. Nearly half of the parents who participated in the survey reported that homework does not impact their child’s social-emotional health. Additionally, more parents indicated that homework had a positive effect on child well-being compared to a negative one. However, parents also acknowledge that homework generates negative emotions such as frustration, stress and anxiety in their children.

Teacher data indicates that, overall, teachers do not appear to see a negative impact on their students’ social-emotional health from homework. Similar to parent responses, nearly half of teachers report that homework has no impact on children’s social-emotional health, and almost one third of teachers reported a positive effect. These results are consistent with related research which indicates that teachers often believe that homework has positive impacts on student development, such as developing good study habits and a sense of responsibility (Bembenutty 2011 ). It should also be noted, not a single teacher reported the belief that homework negatively impacts children’s’ social and emotional well-being, which indicates clear discrepancies between teachers’ perceptions and children’s feelings. Further research is warranted to explore and clarify these discrepancies.

Primary Purposes of Homework According to Teachers and Parents

Results from this study suggest that the majority of parents believe that homework relates and contributes to their child’s learning. This finding supports prior research which indicates that parents often believe that homework has long-term positive effects and builds academic competencies in students (Cooper et al. 2006 ). Notably, however, nearly one third of parents also indicate that homework is often given as busy work by teachers. Teachers reported that they assigned homework to develop students’ academic skills, work ethic, and teach students responsibility and promote independence. While teachers appear to have good intentions regarding the purpose of homework, research suggests that homework is not an effective nor recommended practice to achieve these goals. Household chores, cooking, volunteer experiences, and sports may create more conducive learning opportunities wherein children acquire work ethic, responsibility, independence, and problem-solving skills (Hofferth and Sandberg 2001 ; University of Minnesota 2002 ). Educators should leverage the use of homework in tandem with other student life experiences to best foster both academic achievement and positive youth development more broadly.

Homework Policies

As evident from parent responses, the majority of parents are unaware if their child’s school has a homework policy and many teachers are also uncertain as to whether their school provides restrictions or guidelines for homework (e.g., amount, type, and purpose). Upon contacting school principals, it was determined that only two of the six schools have a school-wide homework policy. Current data indicates the professionals responsible for assigning homework appear to be unclear about whether their school has policies for homework. Additionally, there appears to be a disconnect between parents and teachers regarding whether homework policies do exist among the sampled schools. The research in the current study is consistent with previous research indicating that policies, if they do exist, are often vague and not communicated clearly to parents (Sartain et al. 2015 ). This study suggests that homework policies in these districts require improved communication between administrators, teachers, and parents.

Perceived Impact of Homework on Children’s Sleep and Parent–Child Relationships

Regarding the importance of sleep on academic performance, nearly all of the teachers included in this study acknowledged the impact that sleep has on academic performance. There was disagreement among children and parents on the actual impact that homework has on children’s sleep. Over one third of children report that homework occasionally detracts from their sleep; however, many parents may be unaware of this impact as more than three quarters of parents surveyed reported that homework does not impact their child’s sleep. Thus, while sleep is recognized as highly important for academic achievement, homework may be adversely interfering with students’ full academic potential by compromising their sleep.

In regard to homework’s impact on the parent child-relationship, parents in this survey largely indicated that homework does not interfere in their parent–child relationship. However, among the parents who do notice an impact, the majority report that homework can create a power struggle and diminish their overall family time. These results are consistent with Cameron and Bartell’s ( 2009 ) research which found that parents often believe that excessive amounts of homework often cause unnecessary family stress. Likewise, nearly one third of children in this study reported that homework has an impact on their family time.

This study provides the foundation for additional research regarding the impact of academic demands, specifically homework, on children’s social-emotional well-being, including sleep, according to children, parents, and teachers. Additionally, the research provides some information on reasons teachers assign homework and a documentation of the lack of school homework policies, as well as the misguided knowledge among parents and teachers about such policies.

The preexisting literature and meta-analyses indicate homework has little to no positive effect on elementary-aged learners’ academic achievement (Cooper et al. 2006 ; Trautwein and Köller 2003 ; Wolchover 2012 ). This led to the question, if homework is not conducive to academic achievement at this level, how might it impact other areas of children’s lives? This study provides preliminary information regarding the possible impact of homework on the social-emotional health of elementary children. The preliminary conclusions from this perception research may guide districts, educators, and parents to advocate for evidence-based homework policies that support childrens’ academic and social-emotional health. If homework is to be assigned at the elementary level, Table 8 contains recommended best practices for such assignment, along with a sample of specific guidelines for districts, educators, and parents (Holland et al. 2015 ).

Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research

Due to the preliminary nature of this research, some limitations must be addressed. First, research was conducted using newly developed parent, teacher, and student questionnaires, which were not pilot tested or formally validated. Upon analyzing the data, the researchers discovered limitations within the surveys. For example, due to the nature of the survey items, the variables produced were not always consistently scaled. This created challenges when making direct comparisons. Additionally, this limited the sophistication of the statistical procedures that could be used, and reliability could not be calculated in typical psychometric fashion (e.g., Cronbach’s Alpha). Secondly, the small sample size may limit the generalizability of the results, especially in regard to the limited number of teachers (n  = 28) we were able to survey. Although numerous districts and schools were contacted within the region, only three districts granted permission. These schools may systematically differ from other schools in the region and therefore do not necessarily represent the general population. Third, this research is based on perception, and determining the actual impacts of homework on child wellness would necessitate a larger scale, better controlled study, examining variables beyond simple perception and eliminating potentially confounding factors. It is possible that individuals within and across rater groups interpreted survey items in different ways, leading to inconsistencies in the underlying constructs apparently being measured. Some phrases such as “social-emotional health” can be understood to mean different things by different raters, which could have affected the way raters responded and thus the results of this study. Relatedly, causal links between homework and student social-emotional well-being cannot be established through the present research design and future research should employ the use of matched control groups who do not receive homework to better delineate the direct impact of homework on well-being. Finally, interpretations of the results are limited by the nested nature of the data (parent and student by teacher). The teachers, parents, and students are not truly independent groups, as student and parent perceptions on the impact of homework likely differ as a function of the classroom (teacher) that they are in, as well as the characteristics of the school they attend, their family environment, and more. The previously mentioned challenge of making direct comparisons across raters due to the design of the surveys, as well as small sample size of teachers, limited the researchers’ ability to address this issue. Future research may address this limitation by collecting data and formulating related lines of inquiry that are more conducive to the analysis of nested data. At this time, this survey research is preliminary. An increased sample size and replication of results is necessary before further conclusions can be made. Researchers should also consider obtaining data from a geographically diverse population that mirrors the population in the United States, and using revised surveys that have undergone a rigorous validation process.

Abeles, V., & Rubenstein, G. (2015). Beyond measure: Rescuing an overscheduled, overtested, underestimated generation . New York: Simon & Schuster.

Google Scholar  

American Psychological Association (APA). (2009). Stress in America 2009 . https://bit.ly/39FiTk3 .

American Psychological Association (APA). (2014). Stress in America: Are teens adopting adults’ stress habits? https://bit.ly/2SIiurC .

Baines, L. A., & Slutsky, R. (2009). Developing the sixth sense: Play. Educational HORIZONS ,  87 (2), 97–101. https://bit.ly/39LLGU4 .

Bembenutty, H. (2011). The last word: An interview with harris cooper—Research, policies, tips, and current perspectives on homework. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22 (2), 340–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X1102200207 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Bennett, S., & Kalish, N. (2006). The case against homework: How homework is hurting our children and what we can do about it . New York: Crown Publishers.

Bitsko, R. H., Holbrook, J. R., Ghandour, R. M., Blumberg, S. J., Visser, S. N., Perou, R., & Walkup, J. T. (2018). Epidemiology and impact of health care provider:Diagnosed anxiety and depression among US children. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 39 (5), 395. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0000000000000571 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Cameron, L., & Bartell, L. (2009). The researchers ate the homework! Toronto: Canadian Education Association.

Carrion, V. G., & Wong, S. S. (2012). Can traumatic stress alter the brain? Understanding the implications of early trauma on brain development and learning. Journal of Adolescent Health, 51 (2), S23–S28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.04.010 .

Cech, S. J. (2008). Poll of US teens finds heavier homework load, more stress over grades. Education Week, 27 (45), 9.

Child Mind Institute. Children’s mental health report . (2015). https://bit.ly/2SSzE4v .

Child Mind Institute. (2016). 2016 children’s mental health report . https://bit.ly/2SQ9kbj .

Conner, J., Pope, D., & Galloway, M. (2009). Success with less stress. Educational Leadership, 67, 54–58.

Cooper, H. (2001). Homework for all–in moderation. Educational leadership, 58 (7), 34–38.

Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., & Patall, E. A. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987–2003. Review of Educational Research, 76 (1), 1–62. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076001001 .

Dean, C. B., Hubbell, E. R., Pitler, H., & Stone, B. J. (2012). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement . Alexandria: ASCD.

Eide, E. R., & Showalter, M. H. (2012). Sleep and student achievement. Eastern Economic Journal, 38 (4), 512–524. https://doi.org/10.1057/eej.2011.33 .

Eren, O., & Henderson, D. J. (2011). Are we wasting our children’s time by giving them more homework? Economics of Education Review, 30 (5), 950–961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.03.011 .

Galloway, M., Conner, J., & Pope, D. (2013). Nonacademic effects of homework in privileged, high-performing high schools. The Journal of Experimental Education, 81 (4), 490–510. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2012.745469 .

Greenberg, J., & Walsh, K. (2012). What teacher preparation programs teach about k-12 assessment: A review . Washington: National Council on Teacher Quality.

Güven, U., & Akçay, A. O. (2019). Trends of homework in mathematics: Comparative research based on TIMSS study. International Journal of Instruction., 12 (1), 1367–1382.

Hofferth, S. L., & Sandberg, J. F. (2001). How American children spend their time. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63 (2), 295–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00295.x .

Holland, M. L., Sisson, H., & Abeles, V. (2015, January). Academic demands, homework, and social–emotional health. NASP Communique, 45 (5), 10.

Holte, K. (2015). Homework in primary school: Could it be made more child-friendly? Studia Paedagogica, 21 (4), 13–33. https://doi.org/10.5817/SP2016-4-1 .

Horowitz, J. M., & Graf, N. (2019). Most U.S. teens see anxiety and depression as a major problem among their peers. Pew Research Center. https://pewrsr.ch/32kUmhU .

Horsley, M., & Walker, R. (2013). Reforming homework: Practices, learning and policies . South Yarra: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kackar, H. Z., Shumow, L., Schmidt, J. A., & Grzetich, J. (2011). Age and gender differences in adolescents’ homework experiences. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32 (2), 70–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2010.12.005 .

Katz, I., Buzukashvili, T., & Feingold, L. (2012). Homework stress: Construct validation of a measure. The Journal of Experimental Education, 80 (4), 405–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2011.610389 .

Kralovec, E., & Buell, J. (2000). The end of homework: How homework disrupts families, overburdens children, and limits learning . Boston: Beacon Press.

Leung, G. S., Yeung, K. C., & Wong, D. F. (2010). Academic stressors and anxiety in children: The role of paternal support. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19 (1), 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-009-9288-4 .

Markow, D., Kim, A., & Liebman, M. (2007). The Metlife survey of the American teacher . New York: Metlife, Inc. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED530021.pdf .

MetLife. (2008). MetLife American teacher survey grades the state of homework . (ED500012). https://www.metlife.com/aboutus/newsroom/2008/february/metlife-american-teacher-survey-grades-the-state-of-homework/ .

Moore, R., Vitale, D., & Stawinoga, N. (2018). The digital divide and educational equity: A look at students with very limited access to electronic devices at home (Insights in Education and Work) . Iowa City: ACT Inc.

Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Minnich, C. A., Stanco, G. M., Arora, A., & Centurino, V. A. S. (2012). TIMSS 2011 encyclopedia: Education policy and curriculum in mathematics and science (Vols. 1, 2). Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College. https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2011/encyclopedia-timss.html .

National Sleep Foundation. (2017). How much sleep do babies and kids need? https://bit.ly/37E157D .

Ndebele, M. (2015). Socio-economic factors affecting parents’ involvement in homework: Practices and perceptions from eight Johannesburg public primary schools. Perspectives in Education, 33 (3), 72–91.

O’Donnell, M. (2013). Maria Montessori: A critical introduction to key themes and debates . Bloomsbury Academic: Bloomsbury Academic.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2016). PISA 2015 results in focus. https://bit.ly/2T1NUb0 .

Perfect, M. M., Levine-Donnerstein, D., Archbold, K., Goodwin, J. L., & Quan, S. F. (2014). The contribution of sleep problems to academic and psychosocial functioning. Psychology in the Schools, 51 (3), 273–295. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21746 .

Perou, R., Bitsko, R. H., Blumberg, S. J., Pastor, R., Ghandour, R. M., Gfroerer, J. C., et al. (2013). Mental health surveillance among children: United States, 2005–2011. MMWR, 62 (2), 1–35.

Pope, D. (2010). Beyond ‘doing school’: From ‘stressed-out’ to ‘engaged in learning.’ Education Canada, 50 (1), 4–8.

Pressman, R. M., Sugarman, D. B., Nemon, M. L., Desjarlais, J., Owens, J. A., & Schettini-Evans, A. (2015). Homework and family stress: With consideration of parents’ self-confidence, educational level, and cultural background. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 43 (4), 297–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2015.1061407 .

Reutzel, D. R., & Juth, S. (2017). Supporting the development of silent reading fluency: An evidence-based framework for the intermediate grades (3–6). International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 7 (1), 27–46.

Rigby, J. G., Woulfin, S. L., & März, V. (2016). Understanding how structure and agency influence education policy implementation and organizational change. American Journal of Education, 122 (3), 295–302. https://doi.org/10.1086/685849 .

Sartain, C., Glenn, L., Jones, J., Merritt, D., (2015). A policy analysis of district homework policies [Doctoral dissertation, Saint Louis University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. https://bit.ly/2vSDxOT .

Sisson, H. F. (2015). Academic demands on the social-emotional health of primary and secondary grade students [Master’s thesis, California State University, Sacramento]. Sacramento State Scholarworks. https://bit.ly/2vNyMGq .

Tokarski, J. E. (2011). Thoughtful homework or busywork: Impact on student success [Master’s thesis, Dominican University of California]. Dominican Scholar. https://bit.ly/38UrQWw .

Trautwein, U., & Köller, O. (2003). The relationship between homework and achievement: Still much of a mystery. Educational Psychology Review, 15 (2), 115–145. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023460414243 .

Trautwein, U., Niggli, A., Schnyder, I., & Lüdtke, O. (2009). Between-teacher differences in homework assignments and the development of students’ homework effort, homework emotions, and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101 (1), 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.101.1.176 .

University of Minnesota (2002). Involving children in household tasks: Is it worth the effort . https://bit.ly/2TkcUe7

Vatterott, C. (2018). Rethinking homework: Best practices that support diverse needs (2nd ed.). Alexandria: ASCD.

Westheimer, K., Abeles, V., & Truebridge, S. (2011).  End the race: A facilitation guide and companion resource to the film race to nowhere . Reel Link Films. https://bit.ly/2T1FG2D .

Williams, D. L. (2018). The impact of project-based learning on fourth-grade students’ understanding in reading. [Doctoral dissertation, Capella University] ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. https://bit.ly/2SIjvzD .

Wolchover, N. (2012, March 30). Too much homework can lower test scores, researchers say. Huffington Post . https://bit.ly/38EdJoi .

Zhou, Y., Siu, A. F., & Wai, S. T. (2015). Influences of unhealthy sleep behaviors on the excessive daytime sleepiness and depressive symptoms in children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24 (7), 2120–2126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-014-0013-6 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Education, California State University, 6000 J Street, Sacramento, CA, 95819, USA

Melissa Holland & Gagan Shergill

Buckeye Union School District, 5049 Robert J. Mathews Parkway, El Dorado Hills, CA, 95762, USA

McKenzie Courtney

Institute for Social Research, CSUS, 304 S Street, Suite 333, Sacramento, CA, 95811, USA

James Vergara

Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District, 8849 Cook Riolo Road, Roseville, CA, 95747, USA

Danielle McIntyre

Natomas Unified School District, 1901 Arena Blvd, Sacramento, CA, 95834, USA

Samantha Nix

Panama-Buena Vista Union School District, 4200 Ashe Rd, Bakersfield, CA, 93313, USA

Allison Marion

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by all authors. All authors contributed on this first draft and on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melissa Holland .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics Approval

Ethics approval was granted by the Institutional Review Board at the sponsoring university. This research was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the sponsoring university. Data was collected by the researchers after following the IRB procedures. This study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.

Consent to Participate

Consent forms used in this research available upon request addressed to the corresponding author.

Access to Data and Material

Available upon request addressed to the corresponding author.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Holland, M., Courtney, M., Vergara, J. et al. Homework and Children in Grades 3–6: Purpose, Policy and Non-Academic Impact. Child Youth Care Forum 50 , 631–651 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-021-09602-8

Download citation

Accepted : 05 January 2021

Published : 12 January 2021

Issue Date : August 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-021-09602-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Social emotional health
• Elementary students
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

When Is Homework Stressful? Its Effects on Students’ Mental Health

Are you wondering when is homework stressful? Well, homework is a vital constituent in keeping students attentive to the course covered in a class. By applying the lessons, students learned in class, they can gain a mastery of the material by reflecting on it in greater detail and applying what they learned through homework. 

However, students get advantages from homework, as it improves soft skills like organisation and time management which are important after high school. However, the additional work usually causes anxiety for both the parents and the child. As their load of homework accumulates, some students may find themselves growing more and more bored.

Students may take assistance online and ask someone to do my online homework . As there are many platforms available for the students such as Chegg, Scholarly Help, and Quizlet offering academic services that can assist students in completing their homework on time. 

Negative impact of homework

There are the following reasons why is homework stressful and leads to depression for students and affect their mental health. As they work hard on their assignments for alarmingly long periods, students’ mental health is repeatedly put at risk. Here are some serious arguments against too much homework.

No uniqueness

Homework should be intended to encourage children to express themselves more creatively. Teachers must assign kids intriguing assignments that highlight their uniqueness. similar to writing an essay on a topic they enjoy.

Moreover, the key is encouraging the child instead of criticizing him for writing a poor essay so that he can express himself more creatively.

Lack of sleep

One of the most prevalent adverse effects of schoolwork is lack of sleep. The average student only gets about 5 hours of sleep per night since they stay up late to complete their homework, even though the body needs at least 7 hours of sleep every day. Lack of sleep has an impact on both mental and physical health.

No pleasure

Students learn more effectively while they are having fun. They typically learn things more quickly when their minds are not clouded by fear. However, the fear factor that most teachers introduce into homework causes kids to turn to unethical means of completing their assignments.

Excessive homework

The lack of coordination between teachers in the existing educational system is a concern. As a result, teachers frequently end up assigning children far more work than they can handle. In such circumstances, children turn to cheat on their schoolwork by either copying their friends’ work or using online resources that assist with homework.

Anxiety level

Homework stress can increase anxiety levels and that could hurt the blood pressure norms in young people . Do you know? Around 3.5% of young people in the USA have high blood pressure. So why is homework stressful for children when homework is meant to be enjoyable and something they look forward to doing? It is simple to reject this claim by asserting that schoolwork is never enjoyable, yet with some careful consideration and preparation, homework may become pleasurable.

No time for personal matters

Students that have an excessive amount of homework miss out on personal time. They can’t get enough enjoyment. There is little time left over for hobbies, interpersonal interaction with colleagues, and other activities. 

However, many students dislike doing their assignments since they don’t have enough time. As they grow to detest it, they can stop learning. In any case, it has a significant negative impact on their mental health.

Children are no different than everyone else in need of a break. Weekends with no homework should be considered by schools so that kids have time to unwind and prepare for the coming week. Without a break, doing homework all week long might be stressful.

How do parents help kids with homework?

Encouraging children’s well-being and health begins with parents being involved in their children’s lives. By taking part in their homework routine, you can see any issues your child may be having and offer them the necessary support.

Set up a routine

Your student will develop and maintain good study habits if you have a clear and organized homework regimen. If there is still a lot of schoolwork to finish, try putting a time limit. Students must obtain regular, good sleep every single night.

Observe carefully

The student is ultimately responsible for their homework. Because of this, parents should only focus on ensuring that their children are on track with their assignments and leave it to the teacher to determine what skills the students have and have not learned in class.

Listen to your child

One of the nicest things a parent can do for their kids is to ask open-ended questions and listen to their responses. Many kids are reluctant to acknowledge they are struggling with their homework because they fear being labelled as failures or lazy if they do.

However, every parent wants their child to succeed to the best of their ability, but it’s crucial to be prepared to ease the pressure if your child starts to show signs of being overburdened with homework.

Talk to your teachers

Also, make sure to contact the teacher with any problems regarding your homework by phone or email. Additionally, it demonstrates to your student that you and their teacher are working together to further their education.

Homework with friends

If you are still thinking is homework stressful then It’s better to do homework with buddies because it gives them these advantages. Their stress is reduced by collaborating, interacting, and sharing with peers.

Additionally, students are more relaxed when they work on homework with pals. It makes even having too much homework manageable by ensuring they receive the support they require when working on the assignment. Additionally, it improves their communication abilities.

However, doing homework with friends guarantees that one learns how to communicate well and express themselves. 

Review homework plan

Create a schedule for finishing schoolwork on time with your child. Every few weeks, review the strategy and make any necessary adjustments. Gratefully, more schools are making an effort to control the quantity of homework assigned to children to lessen the stress this produces.

Bottom line

Finally, be aware that homework-related stress is fairly prevalent and is likely to occasionally affect you or your student. Sometimes all you or your kid needs to calm down and get back on track is a brief moment of comfort. So if you are a student and wondering if is homework stressful then you must go through this blog.

While homework is a crucial component of a student’s education, when kids are overwhelmed by the amount of work they have to perform, the advantages of homework can be lost and grades can suffer. Finding a balance that ensures students understand the material covered in class without becoming overburdened is therefore essential.

Zuella Montemayor did her degree in psychology at the University of Toronto. She is interested in mental health, wellness, and lifestyle.

Psychreg is a digital media company and not a clinical company. Our content does not constitute a medical or psychological consultation. See a certified medical or mental health professional for diagnosis.

• Privacy Policy

© Copyright 2014–2034 Psychreg Ltd

• PSYCHREG JOURNAL
• MEET OUR WRITERS
• MEET THE TEAM

The Baker Orange

Screen-time and its effects on student’s mental health

How many hours of screen-time does the average college student rack up in a day? From laptops to smartphones to tablets, the average amount of screen-time for college students is more than an average day of school for grades K-12. Over 8 hours a day are devoted to social media, online homework and other personal uses for many students all across the country.  

For Baker students specifically, managing their screen-time usage can be challenging.   

Sutton Dye is a freshman and says that “I definitely know I’m on my devices more than I should be. I’d say I’m on my phone more mainly because it’s always with me wherever I go.”

He notes that with the start of the school year and practices after classes, his amount of screen-time has gotten better.  

Sophomore Kate Gifford explained that using screens can take away from other things she enjoys.

“I feel trapped in a hole of scrolling, when I could be outside or reading the Bible,” Gifford said.

Screen time can take away from hobbies and activities and it can be difficult to switch off social media or other online platforms.  

Most social media platforms are designed to be addictive and more engaging than homework or emails. This is why so many students have trouble with turning off social media specifically. As these platforms become more accessible and engaging, they can have a bigger influence in the lives of many students.  

After so much time is dedicated to using a screen, lots of students start to notice a decline in their mental health. Heavy screen usage overtime can lead to feelings of isolation, anxiety, tiredness, insomnia, body dysmorphia and depression. There are many strategies out there to combat these feelings even though they may feel challenging to overcome.

Limiting screen time is probably the most effective way to reduce anxiety and even procrastination. Another strategy can be to schedule when to use certain apps or programs so that less time is spent on unrelated activities. Silencing devices can be helpful when trying to focus.   

Participating in screen-free activities like exercise, meditation or just hanging out with friends can be great mood-boosters. Going to on-campus events or joining a club can also help.

To get better sleep, try to avoid looking at a screen before bed for at least one hour. Or if homework sessions late at night are more the style, lower the brightness and adjust the colors to more yellow hues to get a less harsh effect and to avoid eye strain.  

For more help, the Baker Student Counseling Center is open Monday through Friday and offers different solutions. There are also numerous online resources that are available 24/7. Screen-time is just one of the many things college students have on their plates and it is worthwhile knowing that there are ways to improve and feel more positive.  

• Baker student life
• screen time

• Open access
• Published: 27 June 2023

The relationship between homeworking during COVID-19 and both, mental health, and productivity: a systematic review

• Charlotte E. Hall 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Louise Davidson 2 , 4 ,
• Samantha K. Brooks 1 , 3 ,
• Neil Greenberg 1 , 3 &
• Dale Weston 2  

BMC Psychology volume  11 , Article number:  188 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

6068 Accesses

8 Citations

24 Altmetric

Metrics details

As of March 2020, the UK public were instructed to work from home where possible and as a result, nearly half of those in employment did so during the following month. Pre-pandemic, around 5% of workers chose to work from home; it was often seen as advantageous, for example due to eliminating commuting time and increasing flexibility. However, homeworking also had negative connotations, for example, blurred boundaries between work and home life due to a sense of constant connectivity to the workplace. Understanding the psychological impact of working from home in an enforced and prolonged manner due to the COVID-19 pandemic is important. Therefore, this review sought to establish the relationship between working from home, mental health, and productivity.

In January 2022, literature searches were conducted across four electronic databases: Medline, Embase, PsycInfo and Web of Science. In February 2022 grey literature searches were conducted using Google Advanced Search, NHS Evidence; Gov.uk Publications and the British Library directory of online doctoral theses. Published and unpublished literature which collected data after March 2020, included participants who experienced working from home for at least some of their working hours, and detailed the association in terms of mental health or productivity were included.

In total 6,906 citations were screened and 25 papers from electronic databases were included. Grey literature searching resulted in two additional papers. Therefore, 27 studies were included in this review. Findings suggest the association between homeworking and both, mental health and productivity varies considerably, suggesting a complex relationship, with many factors (e.g., demographics, occupation) having an influence on the relationship.

We found that there was no clear consensus as to the association between working from home and mental health or productivity. However, there are indications that those who start homeworking for the first time during a pandemic are at risk of poor productivity, as are those who experience poor mental health. Suggestions for future research are suggested.

Peer Review reports

Within the UK, the COVID-19 pandemic led to several behavioural interventions being implemented by the government with the aim to reduce transmission of the virus. As of March 2020, the public were instructed to work from home and as a result, nearly half of those in employment did so during April 2020 [ 1 ]. As of January 2022, 36% of workers still reported homeworking at least once in the last seven days [ 2 ]. Pre-pandemic, only around 5% of workers chose to work from home [ 3 ] and findings on the impact of doing so is inconsistent. For some, homeworking was seen as a positive way of overcoming issues (e.g., decreasing commuting time [ 4 ]). However, homeworking also had negative connotations, for example, blurred boundaries between work and home life due to a sense of constant connectivity to the workplace [ 5 ]. Considering the potential disadvantages of homeworking pre-pandemic, understanding the psychological effect of enforced and prolonged working from home due to the COVID-19 pandemic is important.

Unsurprisingly, since the onset of the pandemic, the association between working from home and various aspects of health have been the subject of much research. Literature reviews, including papers from pre-pandemic, have reported mixed findings. For example, a rapid review conducted by Oakman (2020), contained 23 studies published between 2008 and 2020, explored the link between working from home and mental and physical health. For mental health specifically, the relationship was reported to be complex with many conflicting findings (e.g., increased stress and increased well-being; [ 6 ]). Varied findings have also been reported by a systematic review conducted by Lunde (2022) which sought to establish the relationship between working from home and employee health (examined outcomes included: general health, pain, well-being, stress, exhaustion and burnout, satisfaction, life and leisure) using studies published between 2010 to 2020 [ 7 ].

A scoping review focused on more current pandemic related research was conducted by Elbaz (2022) and aimed to establish the association between telework (i.e., a working arrangement that allows individuals to engage in work activities through information and communication technologies from outside the main work location [ 8 ]) and work-life balance using studies published between January 2020 and December 2021. 42 papers were included, and the review concluded that teleworking resulted in a mixed relationship. However, the link between teleworking and psychological health was typically more negative than positive [ 8 ].

Thus, the purpose of this review is to establish if there is an association between working from home and both, mental health, and productivity; specifically, for those who experienced working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic. This systematic review seeks to, first, contribute to the evidence base by being the first review to collate findings from published and grey literature research originating from economically developed countries (as indicated by membership of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; OECD) into the link between working from home and both, mental health, and productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Second, to establish risk or resilience (as defined as positive adaptation in response to adversity [ 9 ]) factors that make an individual more likely to adapt well to homeworking during a pandemic. Third, to provide findings and conclusions that can be used to establish implications and future research suggestions for improving the experience of homeworking for those doing so during a future public health emergency.

This systematic review is designed in concordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [ 10 ]. This results in the method section describing and explaining the process of criteria selection, use of information sources, the search strategy, study selection, data collection, quality assessment and the analytical method used during the review.

Eligibility criteria

The development of inclusion and exclusion criteria for the current review was iterative and developed alongside literature familiarisation, preliminary database searches, and research team meetings. The final inclusion and exclusion criteria for the current systematic review can be found in Table 1 .

Information sources

Electronic database searches.

Search terms were created in relation to population/context, intervention, and outcome of the research question, as recommended by Cochrane’s Handbook for Systematic Reviews [ 11 ]. Terms were developed a priori from current literature and developed iteratively by the research team using preliminary searches to ensure a manageable and focused scope of investigation.

The final search was conducted on the 25 th of January 2022 across the following databases:

Ovid®SP MEDLINE.® 1946 to January 18, 2022

Ovid.®SP Embase 1974 to 2022 January 14

Ovid.®SP APA PsycINFO 1806 to January Week 2 2022

Web of Science™ Core Collection

The final search involved two strings of terms: firstly, those relating to homeworking, and secondly, psychological terms encompassing mental health, resilience, and productivity. Where possible, databased controlled vocabulary was used. Free text terms remained consistent across all four searches, only differing on database specific truncation and use of punctuation. Free text terms were searched within titles and abstracts on Medline, Embase and APA PsychINFO. Free text terms were searched within title, abstract, author keywords and Keywords Plus in Web of Science Core Collection. All searches were limited to 2020 – current, to only capture data related to working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic. Full search strategies for all databases, including filters and limits used can be found in Supplemental Table 1 .

Grey literature searches

The following sources were searched on the 1 st of February 2022: Google Advanced Search, NHS Evidence; Gov.uk Publications; and the British Library directory of online doctoral theses (EThOS).

The following search was used for the Google Advanced Search, NHS evidence, and EthOS. For the Google Advanced Search, the results were ordered by most relevant, and the first 20 pages (totalling 200 hits) were screened. The NHS search was limited to primary research only.

(“work from home” OR “telework” OR “homework”)

(“mental health” OR “productivity” OR “resilience”)

The remaining searches were kept relatively simple due to small numbers of papers available shown during preliminary searches. Gov.uk Publication searches were limited to: ‘research’ or ‘statistics’ or ‘policy papers and consultations’, including the terms “homework”, “telework”, or “work from home”. Office for National Statistics searches were “homework”, “telework” or “work from home”. Full search strategies for all registers and websites, including filters and limits used can be found in Supplemental Table 2 .

Study selection

Results of the literature searches were downloaded to EndNote X9 reference management software (Thomson Reuters, New York, United States (US)). Initial screening was carried out for all titles and abstracts against the inclusion and exclusion criteria by one author (CEH). Each study was categorised into one of the following groups: “include”, “exclude” or “unsure”. A 10% check of excluded papers (~ 400 records) was carried out by a second reviewer (LD), any papers marked as potentially relevant by LD were then rescreened by CEH. Both of the “include” and “unsure” categories then were subject to full text screening. To provide robustness to the review process, 10% of the papers were also full text screened by a second reviewer (LD). When there were disagreements between reviewers (i.e., on 3/12 papers), a third reviewer (SKB) was used, and the majority decision taken. Articles were then categorised into “include” or “exclude”. A PRIMSA flowchart of the screening process is presented in Fig.  1 .

PRISMA flow diagram

Data extraction and synthesis

Data was extracted using a data extraction spreadsheet by one author (CEH). Article data and information extracted included: authors; title; type of document (e.g., publication, governmental report); publication year; publication origin; aims and hypotheses; size of sample; sample demographics and characteristics; variables of interest examined, outcome measures; key findings, limitations, and recommendations. Extraction of this data allowed for study characteristics (e.g., date of publication, country of origin, sample characteristics, outcome measures) to be reported alongside key findings, whilst considering reported study limitations and recommendations/implications suggested by the authors. A 20% check of extracted data relating to key findings was carried out by LD, no discrepancies found between reviewers. Narrative synthesis was used to collate findings from the retained papers [ 12 ]. Research findings were firstly grouped by variables examined (e.g., productivity or mental health focused), and a narrative was synthesised.

Quality assessment

The Mixed Methods Appraisal tool [ 13 ] was used to appraise the quality of included studies based on the information provided in the papers. This tool was chosen due to its ability to appraise both qualitative and quantitative studies whilst also accounting for the differences between types of study. Many reviews have used this tool for quality assessment, for example [ 14 , 15 , 16 ]. Papers were checked for suitability using the following screening questions: “Are there clear research questions?”; “Do the collected data allow to address the research questions?”. Each study was then assessed using five questions relevant to the methodological approach used within the paper [ 13 ]. One author carried out the quality appraisal (CEH).

In total 6,906 search results were extracted from electronic databases. Post duplication screening, 4,233 papers remained for title and abstract screening. 119 papers were sought for retrieval, one paper [ 17 ] was deemed potentially relevant to the review, but after exhausting all means of accessing the full text the paper had to be excluded from the review. Following title and abstract screening, 118 full texts were screened, and 25 studies were retained as they aligned with the inclusion criteria. Two additional studies were included as a result of grey literature searches. Therefore, 27 studies were included in this review (refer to Fig.  1 for flow diagram).

Study characteristics

Date of publication.

No papers included in this review were published prior to 2020, as per the exclusion criteria. Only one paper was published in 2020 [ 18 ], 25 papers were published in 2021 [ 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 ], and one paper was published in 2022 [ 44 ].

Country of origin

Data extracted relating to the location of the first authors institution at the time of publication was extracted to display geographical spread of the papers retained within this review. As per the inclusion criterion, all paper origins are from OECD countries. The location of papers is relatively varied, with four papers originating from each of the USA [ 21 , 28 , 30 , 43 ], the UK [ 19 , 39 , 40 , 42 ] and Japan [ 32 , 33 , 34 , 38 ]. Three papers originated from Turkey [ 26 , 27 , 37 ], and Italy [ 18 , 22 , 24 ]. Two papers originated from Columbia [ 23 , 35 ]. The remaining papers originated from Canada [ 31 ], Germany [ 44 ], Luxembourg [ 36 ], the Netherlands [ 41 ], Portugal [ 20 ], Spain [ 25 ] and Sweden [ 29 ].

Study design

The majority of the retained papers used similar methodological approaches to collect data; 24 out of 27 of the papers used online surveys [ 18 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 ]. It is necessary to note that, three of these papers used additional qualitative elements in their surveys [ 39 , 40 , 42 ], and four surveys collected data at multiple time points [ 36 , 38 , 41 , 44 ]. Of the remaining three papers, two used secondary data analysis [ 26 , 44 ], and one paper [ 19 ] used semi-structed interviews to collect data.

Variables examined and measures

Of the 27 papers, 13 focused specifically on mental health outcomes [ 22 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 33 , 34 , 36 , 37 , 41 , 42 , 43 ], six on productivity outcomes [ 20 , 21 , 23 , 27 , 31 , 32 ], and eight included both mental health and productivity outcomes [ 18 , 19 , 30 , 35 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 44 ]. All measures used varied across studies with many being unvalidated. Table 2 shows more in-depth details about variable measures.

Study sample

There was substantial variation in the sample characteristics across the included papers. Sample size varied highly between papers, ranging from n  = 32 [ 19 ] to n  = 20,395 [ 34 ]. In relation to job role, many papers included participants from difference sectors and occupations within their study [ 19 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 25 , 27 , 28 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 43 , 44 ], two included a representative participant group [ 26 , 36 ], some targeted specific occupations or groups (e.g., Alumni from the Portuguese AESE Business School [ 20 ]; Italian professionals [ 24 ]; university staff [ 29 , 42 ]; behaviour analysists [ 30 ]; administrative workers [ 18 ]) and, some did not provide information on job role but focused on home working populations [ 34 , 35 , 40 ]. Table 3 displays extracted data in relation to sample size and characteristics including location and job role details.

Quality appraisal

Overall quality of papers varied across the 27 that were retained, with an average score of 62%. The MMAT quality scores as a percentage can be found in Table 2 . The included papers within this systematic review varied in quality. Many were cross-sectional, quantitative in methodology, and recruited participants using snowball or opportunistic sampling. This resulted in some unclear sample characteristics (e.g., not knowing where a percentage of participants were from), and uncertainty as to how often the sample were working from home. Only three of the retained papers within this review used qualitative research elements, and there was no common method for measuring mental health, or productivity across homeworking research.

To allow comparisons across and between research, findings relating to mental health and productivity will be separated and reported on separately in the following section.

• Mental health

This following section details outcomes relating to mental health and synthesises the following outcomes from 21 papers: ‘depression’ [ 20 , 22 , 33 , 37 , 42 ]; ‘anxiety’ [ 20 , 22 , 33 , 37 , 42 ]; ‘stress’ (including work stress) [ 18 , 22 , 28 , 29 , 35 , 37 , 38 ]; ‘psychological distress’ [ 24 , 34 , 41 ]; wellbeing [ 36 ] (including ‘subjective wellbeing’ [ 24 ], ‘psychological wellbeing’ [ 25 ]; ‘mental wellbeing’ [ 26 , 42 , 43 ]); ‘health’ [ 29 ]; ‘burnout’ [ 28 , 30 , 44 ]; and general ‘mental health’ [ 39 , 40 ]. Table 2 provides additional information on how these outcomes are measured, and it is necessary to note that there are overlap in how outcomes are described (i.e., ‘mental wellbeing’, ‘psychological wellbeing’, ‘health’, and ‘psychological distress’ were all measured using the same questionnaire).

The findings in relation to mental health varied across the retained papers. Many of the papers reported a negative relationship between homeworking and mental health and wellbeing [ 19 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 29 , 30 , 33 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 43 , 44 ]. For example, one paper established that the transition to homeworking during the pandemic increased psychological strain due to increased work intensification, poor adaptation to new ways of working, and online presenteeism [ 19 ]. Another paper reported that out of those who continued to work during the COVID-19 pandemic (i.e., not furloughed, or unemployed), teleworkers experienced less self-perceived wellbeing than those who continued working at their pre-COVID-19 workplace [ 25 ].

Some of the retained papers concluded a mixed findings in relation to home working and mental health. For example, despite a main finding that working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic results in lower levels of well-being, Schifano et al., also concluded that when the sample only includes those who switched to homeworking from office working, there is a small fall in anxiety levels when moving to working from home [ 36 ]. Additionally, Taylor et al., reports that around 40 per cent believe that their mental health had worsened either a lot or a little since working from home, compared to around 30 per cent that believed their mental health had improved [ 39 ]. Similarly, Moretti et al., reports that around 40 per cent of participants declared a reduced stress level since they have worked remotely, around 30 per cent reported an unchanged level, and one-third of participants experienced increased stress [ 18 ].

Homeworking was found to have no association with burnout by one retained paper [ 30 ]. Shimura et al., provides evidence that remote work does decrease psychological and physical stress responses when controlling for confounding factors such as job stressors, social support, and sleep status [ 38 ]. Working from home was also considered to be better for wellbeing in comparison to being furloughed or unemployed [ 25 , 36 ].

Factors affecting mental health when homeworking

Demographics.

When considering age, findings were mixed. One paper reported being older [ 36 ] resulted in poorer mental health outcomes. Additionally, another paper focused on stress and burnout specifically reported that being a young male [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 ], an older male (55 +) or a middle aged or older woman (45 +) resulted in increased stress, and being a middle-aged man [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 ] increased burnout [ 28 ].

Being female was reported to result in increases of depression, anxiety, and stress [ 37 ]. Females were also reported to experience two or more new physical or mental health issues were provided in comparison to male workers [ 43 ]. In this study, nine types of physical issues were assessed, these included, but are not limited to, musculoskeletal discomfort or injury, headaches or migraines, cardiovascular issues. Eight types of mental health issues were assessed, these included, but are not limited to, anxiety or nervousness, mental stress, rumination or worry, depression, sadness, or feeling blue [ 43 ].

Those considered better-educated were reported to have worsened mental health outcomes [ 36 ]. Those working in the field of “education and research” judged their telework experience to be much worse than participants working in other fields (e.g., ‘IT and telecommunication’, ‘Public administration and law enforcement agencies’, ‘Health and social services’ and ‘Legal and administrative services’) and were less willing to replicate the telework experience, there were also higher levels of stress and anxiety apparent [ 22 ].

Living arrangements

Living and working in a home which is considered crowded or confined resulted in poorer mental health [ 33 , 36 ]. Having a larger house and living with a partner, or with one or two housemates, was also found to be protective of mental health [ 22 ].

Results are mixed in relation to working in a household that includes children. On one hand, having young children in the home was considered to have a negative link to wellbeing, supposedly related to increased demands [ 36 ]. Whereas other research reported having infants (less than two years old) or toddlers (two to five years of age) at home as protective of wellbeing but were also associated with more mental health issues [ 43 ]. These conflicting findings were reasoned to be due to working parents being able to spend more time at home with their children, resulting in better mental wellbeing. However, due to work-life strain caused by increased demands and lack of support (i.e., from babysitters) during working hours there is an increase in new physical and mental issues apparent [ 43 ].

Isolation or loneliness

Spending more time remote working was considered to increase perceptions of isolation, and isolation and psychological distress were reported to mutually affect each other over time [ 41 ]. Additionally, having frequent contacts with work colleagues was considered protective factors of mental health [ 22 ].

Homeworking preference

Workers who preferred to work from home experienced less psychological distress with increasing telecommuting frequency, while those who preferred not to telecommute experienced more psychological distress with increasing telecommuting frequency [ 34 ].

Length of time homeworking

The association between working from home and mental health and wellbeing was found to differ depending on frequency and length of time home working [ 26 , 29 , 33 , 44 ].

One paper found working from home for a short duration was considered no different on mental well-being in comparison to those always working at the employer’s premises [ 26 ]. Niu et al., found that there was initially no difference in the mental health between workers who continued working in the office and those who switched to telework, but participants who teleworked for a longer period showed more severe anxiety and depression in comparison to those who teleworked for a short period. [ 33 ]. Similarly, those working from home for a high percentage of their weekly hours reported more negative psychological symptoms than employees who work from home for less hours [ 44 ], and higher ratings of stress were also reported in those working from home several times per week in comparison to those who worked from home less than once per month [ 29 ].

• Productivity

This following section details outcomes relating to productivity and synthesises the following outcomes from 14 papers: ‘productivity’[ 18 , 21 , 27 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 35 , 40 ], ‘performance’ [ 23 , 39 ], ‘percieved productivity’ [ 20 ], ‘level of work ability’ [ 44 ], ‘presenteeism’ [ 38 ]. Table 2 provides additional information on how these outcomes are measured.

The findings in relation to productivity varied across the retained papers. Some of the retained papers concluded a negative relationship between home working and productivity [ 19 , 30 , 32 , 40 ]. For example, Adisa (2021) found that the transition to home working from office-based work caused increased work intensification, online presenteeism and employment insecurity – which resulted in psychological strain and poor levels of work engagement [ 19 ]. Similarly, increased work intensity (e.g., receiving more information from teams and engaging in more planning activities) due to working from home also resulted in decreased worker productivity [ 30 ]. Morikawa et al., concludes that productivity whilst working from home was about 60–70% of the productivity at business premises, and was especially low for employees and firms that started homeworking after the onset of the COVID pandemic [ 32 ]. A UK-wide survey of office workers (including telecom, local government, financial services and civil service staff) who were working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic reported that since the onset of homeworking, 30% reported of workers that it is now more difficult to meet targets, and they had concerns of underperforming [ 39 ].

Some studies concluded that working from home was in fact no different in comparison to office working in terms of productivity [ 23 ]. This was reported for those who worked at home pre-COVID-19 and tended to practice working from home frequently [ 32 ]. Additionally, other research concluded that 90% of new teleworkers reported being at least as productive (i.e., accomplishing at least as much work per hour at home) as they were previously in their usual place of work [ 31 ].

Moretti et al., reported that working at home resulted in productivity decreasing in 39.2% and an increasing in 29.4% of participants [ 18 ]. However, Guler et al., established that participants who worked from home were more relaxed, more efficient, and they produced better quality work [ 27 ]. Despite reported increased or no change to levels of productivity, some research studies did find that those working from home were reporting longer working hours [ 21 , 27 ].

Factors affecting productivity when homeworking

Two papers reported that males were less productive than females when working from home [ 20 , 21 ]. Those who are older and have higher levels of income are also more likely to be productive when homeworking [ 21 ], as were those who are unmarried with no children [ 31 ]. Those who are highly educated, high wage employees, long distance commuters, tended to exhibit a relatively small reduction in productivity [ 32 ]. Having an appropiate workspace was also associated with higher levels of productivity [ 21 ].

In terms of occupation, “scientists” were most likely to have the highest level of productivity, in comparison to “engineering and architecture,” “computer sciences and mathematics” and “healthcare and social services.” [ 21 ]. Other research also supported that those who work in in information and communications industry only displayed a relatively small reduction in productivity [ 32 ]. Higher levels of productivity in were also apparent in public administration (41%) as well as in health care and social assistance (45%). In contrast, the corresponding percentage was lower in goods-producing industries (31%) and educational services (25%) [ 31 ].

Mental health and productivity

A few of the retained studies looked at the interaction between mental health and productivity whilst homeworking [ 21 , 27 , 35 ]. In a sample of staff that had been working from home for more than 6 months, it was reported that they were less stressed, more efficient, and had better quality of work during working from home period according to self-report data [ 27 ]. Other research reported that having an appropiate workspace, and better mental health was also associated with higher levels of productivity [ 21 ]. Stress was also found to lessen the positive association between working remotely on productivity and engagement [ 35 ].

This systematic literature review sought to 1) explore the association between working from home and both, mental health, and productivity, and 2) establish potential risk factors. Literature searches encompassed both peer previewed published literature and grey literature, 27 papers were retained post screening and included within this review. The results established that relationship between homeworking and both, mental health and productivity varies considerably, suggesting a complex association with many mediating and moderating factors.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and the introduction of enforced and prolonged homeworking, working from home was often considered advantageous. Research often concluded that homeworking had multiple advantages [ 4 , 45 , 46 , 47 ]. There were also potential concerns reported with homeworking [ 45 , 48 ], for example in relation constant connectivity to the workplace [ 5 ], but these were not considered to outweigh the benefits [ 48 ]. This review revealed conflicting findings, with the majority of the research suggesting a negative or mixed link to mental health, which is supported by current literature [ 6 ].

This suggests that homeworking as a choice is considered largely beneficial (i.e., as shown by research prior to the pandemic), but when homeworking is instead mandatory there is potential that it may have a more negative association for certain individuals and occupations over others.

The relationship between working from home and productivity was also mixed, in that some papers found that home workers could be more productive, whereas others found the opposite. However, most studies reviewed show that homeworking for both new starters (e.g., has only worked from home) and those transitioning to homeworking for the first time, were particularly likely to report low levels of productivity along with concerns about meeting targets. There was also consistency amongst reviewed papers that homeworkers who reported better mental health (e.g., were less stressed) were more productive which is consistent with previous research showing an inverse relationship between stress levels and productivity [ 49 , 50 ]. Taken together, findings from the current review suggest that prolonged homeworking can negatively affect mental health, and in turn, lower levels of mental health can negatively affect productivity. Therefore, there should be a focus on maintaining and mitigating workers mental health when they are asked to work from home for a prolonged period.

Feelings of isolation or loneliness in homeworkers were also considered to have a consistent link to poorer mental health. This finding is well supported as the negative association isolation and loneliness have on mental health is widely reported across research (e.g., [ 51 , 52 ], and as demonstrated in an overview of systematic reviews [ 53 ]). The ability to create a shared sense of social identity with colleagues, which is protective of workplace stress [ 54 ] and burnout [ 55 ], may be hindered by homeworking [ 56 ] which can result in feelings of isolation or loneliness. This finding suggests that opportunities for social integration should be promoted by managers and team leaders. For example, through team meetings, in person events, or where possible, office working days.

As the findings relating to both mental health and productivity were varied, examination of factors which have potential to affect this relationship were explored. Personal and practical factors such as, being female, older in age, living and working in a crowded or confined home, or having young children at home were consistently associated with worsened mental health. Literature also concludes, being female, older in age, a highly educated high wage earner, being unmarried with no children, or someone with an active advantage towards homeworking (e.g., long distance commuters), and an appropiate workspace were associated with higher levels of productivity. These findings highlight the importance of considering practical factors that could be targeted by potential interventions (e.g., exploring how to manage work and having children at home, having an appropriately sized workspace, and managing overcrowded housing situations) as well as tailoring interventions to suit the target demographic (e.g., by considering gender, age, and occupation).

Limitations

Limitations for the current review these can be split into retained paper limitations and review process limitations. In terms of retained paper limitations, quality screening established that the retained papers varied in quality. Many were cross-sectional (only four studies within the current review collected data from multiple time points), quantitative in methodology, and recruited participants using snowball or opportunistic sampling. This resulted in some unclear sample characteristics (e.g., not knowing where a percentage of participants were from), and uncertainty as to how often the sample were working from home. These elements limit the generalisability of the findings, and this should be considered when conclusions are drawn from this data.

For this review specifically there are a number of limitations to consider. Firstly, limiting the search to English only may have resulted in the exclusion of potentially relevant papers. Secondly, this review did not seek to collate findings from studies which only directly compared those who had to work from home during the pandemic vs. those who could not, or did not, work from home, which could have potentially provided clearer results. However, where papers provided comparisons (e.g., [ 25 , 36 ]) they were extracted and presented in the results. Thirdly, current literature has established that working throughout the pandemic can be negatively related to mental health [ 57 , 58 , 59 ], which makes it difficult to disentangle the impact of working from home specifically. However, in the current review, three papers indicated that homeworking has potential to be negatively linked to mental health when carried out, or continued, for a long period of time (in comparison to hybrid working or working from home for a short period). This could possibly be due to the previously reported benefits of homeworking (e.g., flexibility, eradicating commuting time, and work life balance) no longer feeling advantageous when constantly working from home. This is an area that requires more research and is discussed in more detail in the following section.

Implications and future research

The current review found that working from home is neither positively or negative related to mental health or productivity, suggesting that a one size fits all approach to tackling the mitigation and management of workers mental health and productivity whilst they work from home is not suitable nor fit for purpose. However, there are indications that those who start homeworking for the first time during a pandemic are at risk of poor productivity, as are those who experience poor mental health. This suggests that employers should aim to help those who are new to home working, for example through training or mentoring programs. Additionally, those at risk of having poor mental health should be more closely monitored and provided with early support to ensure productivity.

The varied nature of the findings also calls for more in-depth research into why homeworking has such wide-ranging effect on individuals, and what factors have potential to mitigate and moderate this relationship. Due to the wide-ranging findings, it may be sensible to focus on specific occupational contexts and qualitatively explore barriers and facilitators to working from home to provide in depth rich data. Such work is currently underway as a PhD project focused on response organisations that worked from home during the COVID-19 pandemic conducted by the first author of the current review.

Considering the impact of working from home for different durations is also important, as the current review establishes that three papers indicated that homeworking has potential to be negatively associated with mental health when carried out, or continued, for a long period of time. Further empirical research is needed to provide more detail into, this finding along with examination into the factors that could impact this relationship (e.g., isolation, pre-existing mental health concerns). Resilience factors and characteristics associated with growth and flourishing whilst working from home should also be the subject of future research.

Methodologically, future research should seek to employ qualitative or mixed method designs to collect more in-depth and complete data in relation to the psychological effect of homeworking. Additionally, there should be a focus on using similar research measures when adding to the homeworking evidence base, as this would allow for research finding to be accurately compared. Similar suggestions were reported in a recent rapid review [ 60 ].

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

Office for National Statistics. Coronavirus and homeworking in the UK: April 2020. [Internet] Office for National Statistics; 2020. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/coronavirusandhomeworkingintheuk/april2020.

Office for National Statistics. Homeworking and spending during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, Great Britain: April 2020 to January 2022. [Internet] Office for National Statistics; 2022. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/releases/homeworkingandspendingduringthecoronaviruscovid19pandemicukapril2020tojanuary2022 .

Felstead A, Reuschke D. Homeworking in the UK: before and during the 2020 lockdown. 2020.

Google Scholar  

Kelliher C, Anderson D. Doing more with less? Flexible working practices and the intensification of work. Hum Relat. 2010;63(1):83–106.

Article   Google Scholar  

Matusik SF, Mickel AE. Embracing or embattled by converged mobile devices? Users’ experiences with a contemporary connectivity technology. Hum Relat. 2011;64(8):1001–30.

Oakman J, Kinsman N, Stuckey R, Graham M, Weale VJBPH. A rapid review of mental and physical health effects of working at home: how do we optimise health? BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):1–13.

Lunde L-K, Fløvik L, Christensen JO, Johannessen HA, Finne LB, Jørgensen IL, et al. The relationship between telework from home and employee health: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):1–14.

Elbaz S, Richards JB, Provost Savard Y. Teleworking and work–life balance during the COVID-19 pandemic: A scoping review. Canadian Psychology / Psychologie Canadienne. 2022.

Luthar SS, Cicchetti D. The construct of resilience: Implications for interventions and social policies. Dev Psychopathol. 2000;12(4):857–85.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1–9.

Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. John Wiley & Sons; 2019.

Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Rodgers M, Britten N, Roen K, Duffy S. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. A product from the ESRC methods programme Version. 2006;1(1):b92.

Hong QN, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, Dagenais P, Gagnon MP, Griffiths F, Nicolau B, O’Cathain A, Rousseau MC. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Education for information. 2018;34(4):285-91.

De Kock JH, Latham HA, Leslie SJ, Grindle M, Munoz S-A, Ellis L, et al. A rapid review of the impact of COVID-19 on the mental health of healthcare workers: implications for supporting psychological well-being. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):1–18.

de Pablo GS, Vaquerizo-Serrano J, Catalan A, Arango C, Moreno C, Ferre F, et al. Impact of coronavirus syndromes on physical and mental health of health care workers: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Affect Disord. 2020;275:48–57.

Chen J, Farah N, Dong RK, Chen RZ, Xu W, Yin J, et al. Mental health during the COVID-19 crisis in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(20):10604.

Yang E, Kim Y, Hong S. Does working from home work? Experience of working from home and the value of hybrid workplace post-COVID-19. J Corp Real Estate. 2023;25(1):50–76.

Moretti A, Menna F, Aulicino M, Paoletta M, Liguori S, Iolascon G. Characterization of Home Working Population during COVID-19 Emergency: A Cross-Sectional Analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(17):28.

Adisa TA, Ogbonnaya C, Adekoya OD. Remote working and employee engagement: a qualitative study of British workers during the pandemic. Inf Technol People. 2021 (ahead-of-print).

Afonso P, Fonseca M, Teodoro T. Evaluation of anxiety, depression and sleep quality in full-time teleworkers. J Public Health. 2021;25:25.

Awada M, Lucas G, Becerik-Gerber B, Roll S. Working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic: Impact on office worker productivity and work experience. Work. 2021;69(4):1171–89.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bertino V, Nistico V, D’Agostino A, Gambini O, Demartini B. Telework during COVID-19 outbreak: Impact on mental health among Italian workers. Eur Psychiatry. 2021;64:S678–S.

Campo AM, Avolio B, Carlier SI. The relationship between telework, job performance, work–life balance and family supportive supervisor behaviours in the context of COVID-19. Glob Bus Rev. 2021:09721509211049918.

De Sio S, Cedrone F, Nieto HA, Lapteva E, Perri R, Greco E, et al. Telework and its effects on mental health during the COVID-19 lockdown. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2021;25(10):3914–22.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Escudero-Castillo I, Mato-Diaz FJ, Rodriguez-Alvarez A. Furloughs, Teleworking and Other Work Situations during the COVID-19 Lockdown: Impact on Mental Well-Being. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(6):12.

Giovanis E, Ozdamar O. Implications of COVID-19: The Effect of Working From Home on Financial and Mental Well-Being in the UK. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2021;21:21.

Guler MA, Guler K, Guneser Gulec M, Ozdoglar E. Working From Home During a Pandemic: Investigation of the Impact of COVID-19 on Employee Health and Productivity. J Occup Environ Med. 2021;63(9):731–41.

Hayes SW, Priestley JL, Moore BA, Ray HE. Perceived Stress, Work-Related Burnout, and Working From Home Before and During COVID-19: An Examination of Workers in the United States. Sage Open. 2021;11(4):21582440211058190.

Heiden M, Widar L, Wiitavaara B, Boman E. Telework in academia: associations with health and well-being among staff. High Educ. 2021;81(4):707–22.

Jimenez-Gomez C, Sawhney G, Albert KM. Impact of COVID-19 on the applied behavior analysis workforce: Comparison across remote and nonremote workers. Behav Anal Pract. 2021;14(4):873–82.

Mehdi T, Morissette R. Working from home: Productivity and preferences. 2021.

Morikawa M. Work-from-home productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from Japan. Econ Inq. 2022;60(2):508–27.

Niu Q, Nagata T, Fukutani N, Tezuka M, Shimoura K, Nagai-Tanima M, et al. Health effects of immediate telework introduction during the COVID-19 era in Japan: A cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE [Electronic Resource]. 2021;16(10):e0256530.

Otsuka S, Ishimaru T, Nagata M, Tateishi S, Eguchi H, Tsuji M, et al. A Cross-Sectional Study of the Mismatch Between Telecommuting Preference and Frequency Associated With Psychological Distress Among Japanese Workers in the COVID-19 Pandemic. J Occup Environ Med. 2021;63(9):e636–40.

Sandoval-Reyes J, Idrovo-Carlier S, Duque-Oliva EJ. Remote Work, Work Stress, and Work-Life during Pandemic Times: A Latin America Situation. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(13):02.

Schifano S, Clark AE, Greiff S, Vogele C, D’Ambrosio C. Well-being and working from home during COVID-19. Information Technology & People. 2021.

Senturk E, Sagaltici E, Genis B, Gunday TO. Predictors of depression, anxiety and stress among remote workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Work. 2021;70(1):41–51.

Shimura A, Yokoi K, Ishibashi Y, Akatsuka Y, Inoue T. Remote Work Decreases Psychological and Physical Stress Responses, but Full-Remote Work Increases Presenteeism. Front Psychol. 2021;12:730969.

Taylor P, Scholarios D, Howcroft D. Covid-19 and Working from Home Survey: Preliminary Findings. 2021.

Tronco Hernandez YA, Parente F, Faghy MA, Roscoe CMP, Maratos FA. Influence of the COVID-19 Lockdown on the Physical and Psychosocial Well-being and Work Productivity of Remote Workers: Cross-sectional Correlational Study. JMIRx Med. 2021;2(4):e30708.

Van Zoonen W, Sivunen AE. The impact of remote work and mediated communication frequency on isolation and psychological distress. Eur J Work Organ sychol. 2022;31(4):610–21.

Wood SJ, Michaelides G, Inceoglu I, Hurren ET, Daniels K, Niven K. Homeworking, Well-Being and the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Diary Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(14):16.

Xiao Y, Becerik-Gerber B, Lucas G, Roll SC. Impacts of Working From Home During COVID-19 Pandemic on Physical and Mental Well-Being of Office Workstation Users. J Occup Environ Med. 2021;63(3):181–90.

Niebuhr F, Borle P, Borner-Zobel F, Voelter-Mahlknecht S. Healthy and Happy Working from Home? Effects of Working from Home on Employee Health and Job Satisfaction. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(3):1122.

Ammons SK, Markham WTJSS. Working at home: Experiences of skilled white collar workers. Socio Spectr. 2004;24(2):191–238.

Fonner KL, Roloff ME. Why teleworkers are more satisfied with their jobs than are office-based workers: When less contact is beneficial. J Appl Commun Res. 2010;38(4):336–61.

Dockery AM, Bawa S. Is working from home good work or bad work? Evidence from Australian employees. AJLE. 2014;17(2):163–90.

Tavares AI. Telework and health effects review. J Int J Healthcare. 2017;3(2):30–6.

Adaramola S. Job stress and productivity increase. Work. 2012;41:2955–8.

Seva RR, Tejero LMS, Fadrilan-Camacho VFF. Barriers and facilitators of productivity while working from home during pandemic. J Occup Health. 2021;63(1):e12242.

Pancani L, Marinucci M, Aureli N, Riva P. Forced social isolation and mental health: a study on 1,006 Italians under COVID-19 lockdown. Front Psychol. 2021;12:663799.

Ramírez-Ortiz J, Castro-Quintero D, Lerma-Córdoba C, Yela-Ceballos F, Escobar-Córdoba F. Mental health consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic associated with social isolation. Columb J Anesthesiol. 2020;48(4).

Leigh-Hunt N, Bagguley D, Bash K, Turner V, Turnbull S, Valtorta N, et al. An overview of systematic reviews on the public health consequences of social isolation and loneliness. Public Health. 2017;152:157–71.

Haslam SA, Van Dick R. A social identity approach to workplace stress. Soc Psychol Organizations. 2011:325–52.

Haslam SA, Jetten J, Waghorn C. Social identification, stress and citizenship in teams: a five-phase longitudinal study. IJSM. 2009;25(1):21–30.

Thatcher SM, Zhu X. Changing identities in a changing workplace: Identification, identity enactment, self-verification, and telecommuting. Acad Manag Rev. 2006;31(4):1076–88.

Greenberg N, Weston D, Hall C, Caulfield T, Williamson V, Fong K. Mental health of staff working in intensive care during Covid-19. Occup Med (Oxford). 2021;71(2):62–7.

Hall CE, Milward J, Spoiala C, Bhogal JK, Weston D, Potts HW, et al. The mental health of staff working on Intensive Care Units over the COVID-19 winter surge of 2020 in England: a cross sectional survey. Br J Anaesth. 2022;128(6):971–9.

Palma-Vasquez C, Carrasco D, Hernando-Rodriguez JC. Mental health of teachers who have teleworked due to COVID-19. Eur J Investig Health, Psychol Educ Inform Tech. 2021;11(2):515–28.

Oakman J, Kinsman N, Stuckey R, Graham M, Weale V. A rapid review of mental and physical health effects of working at home: how do we optimise health? BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):1–13.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Emergency Preparedness and Response, a partnership between the UK Health Security Agency, King’s College London and the University of East Anglia. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR, UKHSA or the Department of Health and Social Care. For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychological Medicine, King’s College London, Weston Education Centre, London, SE5 9RJ, UK

Charlotte E. Hall, Samantha K. Brooks & Neil Greenberg

Evaluation & Translation Directorate, Science Group, Behavioural Science and Insights Unit, UKHSA, Porton Down, Salisbury, SP4 0JG, UK

Charlotte E. Hall, Louise Davidson & Dale Weston

Health Protection Research Unit, Institute of Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience, King’s College London, 10 Cutcombe Road, London, SE5 9RJ, UK

School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9QH, UK

Louise Davidson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

CEH, DW, SKB and NG conceptualised the review, created aims and established inclusion criteria. CEH, LD and SKB conducted the database searches and all screening in accordance with the inclusion criteria. CEH conducted quality appraisal of included papers. CEH carried out the analysis, and CEH drafted the initial manuscript; all authors provided critical revision of intellectual content. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charlotte E. Hall .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1:.

Supplemental Table 1. Search Strategy. Supplemental Information Table 2. Grey literature Searches.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Hall, C.E., Davidson, L., Brooks, S.K. et al. The relationship between homeworking during COVID-19 and both, mental health, and productivity: a systematic review. BMC Psychol 11 , 188 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01221-3

Download citation

Received : 02 December 2022

Accepted : 06 June 2023

Published : 27 June 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01221-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Work from home

BMC Psychology

ISSN: 2050-7283

• General enquiries: [email protected]