Since the start of the Coronavirus pandemic thousands of people have experienced teleworking and this practice is becoming increasingly commonplace. Systematic reviews can yield evidence and information to help inform the development of policies and regulations, the aim of this study was to highlight the differences in exposure to psychosocial risk factors for health between part-time and full-time teleworking from home. The protocol of the systematic review of the literature was registered on PROSPERO 2020 platform - International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (number CRD42020191455), according to the PRISMA statement guidelines. The key words “telework” and frequency (“part-time” or “full-time”), together with their synonyms and variations, were searched. Independent researchers conducted the systematic search of 7 databases: Scopus, SciELO, PePSIC; PsycInfo, PubMed, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA) and Web of Science. Of the 638 articles identified from 2010 to June 2021, 32 were selected for data extraction. The authors evaluated the risk of bias and quality of evidence of the studies included using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The results were categorized into 7 dimensions of psychosocial risk factors: work intensity and working hours; emotional demands; autonomy; social relationships at work; conflict of values, work insecurity and home/work interface. The results revealed scant practice of full-time teleworking prior to the pandemic. Regarding the psychosocial risk factors found, differences were evident before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. For part-time and full-time telework prior to the pandemic, the dimensions of intensification of work and working hours, social relationships at work, and the home-work interface were the most prominent factors. However, in studies performed during the COVID-19 pandemic where teleworking was mostly performed full-time, there was an increase in focus on emotional demands and the home-work interface, and a reduction in the other dimensions.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

EDA. Sandwich doctorate funding. This research was partially supported by by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brazil (CAPES) – Finance Code 001 - 2021 https://www.gov.br/capes/pt-br EDA. Remunerated leave for doctoral studies. Federal Institute of Parana, Brazil. https://www.ifpr.edu.br/ LRTB. Remunerated leave for doctoral studies. Catarinense Federal Institute, Brazil. https://ifc.edu.br/ EDA. Translation from portuguese to english. School of Public Health, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil. https://www.usp.br/ MS. Funding of publication fees. Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences of the University of Porto https://www.up.pt/ The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Not Applicable

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

Results are part of an ongoing doctoral study, approved by the Ethics and Re-search Committee of the School of Public Health, University of São Paulo, as Certificate of Submission for Appreciation Ethical - CAAE: 15180319.9.0000.5421.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Not Applicable

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Not Applicable

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Not Applicable

The data will be kept in the public repository of theses of the University of São Paulo, Brazil because they are part of the thesis developed by the author Evelise Dias Antunes. https://www.teses.usp.br/ Also available in PROSPERO 2020 platform - International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (number CRD42020191455). https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020191455

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020191455