1 The Impact of Working from Home on the Occupational Balance of Filipino Young Adult

2 Office Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic in the Philippines

3 Ma. Carol Mae G. Protacio¹, Zha-Nella B. Canja², Patrice Anne H. Alcoreza3, Therese Faye C.
4 Co4, Koj M. Custodio5, Donne Rogielle Nico S. Gula6, Danielle Ann Q. Loa7, Patricia G.
5 Presillas8, Lucille Marie B. Samaco9
6

7 Department of Occupational Therapy, College of Rehabilitation Sciences, Manila, NCR,

8 Philippines
9
10 Corresponding Authors:

11 Ma. Carol Mae G. Protacio, MSOT, OTRP

12 University of Santo Tomas, España Blvd, Sampaloc, Manila, 1008 Metro Manila
13 mbgutay@ust.edu.ph
14 09178430131
15
16 Koj M. Custodio
17 B30 L8 Onyx Street, Las Piñas Royale Estates, Naga Road, Pulanglupa Dos, Las Piñas City
18 1742
19 koj.custodio.crs@ust.edu.ph
20 09275907791
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33

1
34 Individual Author’s Contributions

35 C.P, Z.C.; Conceptualized, supervised and co-wrote the paper. P.A.,T.C., K.C., D.G., D.L., P.P.,
36 L.S.; Conceptualized & co-wrote the paper.

37

38 Disclosure Statement

39 The authors declare that there are no relevant or material financial interests that relate to the
40 research described in this paper.

41

42 Conflicts of Interest

43 The authors of this paper declare no conflicting interests.

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

2
60 Abstract

61 Work is affected due to COVID-19 which led to implementing work from home arrangements
62 which resulted in a shift in occupational balance between work and home responsibilities. The
63 study aims to evaluate the current occupational balance of office workers who shifted to work
64 from home, and identify the association between occupational balance and quality of life in the
65 current setup. Convenience sampling was utilized to gather young Filipino workers aged 25-34
66 years old in Makati City through Google Forms, and recruitment process through Facebook and
67 word of mouth. Data is gathered using the Occupational Balance Questionnaire (OBQ11) and
68 the World Health Organization-Quality of Life Scale (WHOQOL-BREF) to measure the effect of
69 the transition to WFH. The association between Quality of Life and Occupational Balance is
70 computed through Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Results showed the mean score of OBQ11
71 is 20.446, with standard deviation of 5.832. In the WHOQOL-BREF, the environmental domain
72 has the highest mean (70.2 ± 14.76) while the psychological domain has the lowest mean
73 (61.28±17.32). Occupational Balance and Quality of Life are statistically significant in Filipino
74 young adults who WFH for physical, psychological, environmental, and social domains (P =
75 0.000, P = 0.000, P = 0.000, P = 0.030, respectively). Filipino young adult workers have good
76 occupational balance after work from home during the pandemic. The association of
77 Occupational Balance and Quality of Life have a moderate correlation for the physical,
78 psychological, and environmental domains and a weak correlation for the social domain.
79
80 Keywords: work-life balance, COVID-19, telework, quality of life

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

3
 88 Introduction

89 The impact of COVID-19 led to traditionally on-site engagements transferring online.1 The
90 Philippine government implemented measures in preventing virus spread, such as social
91 distancing and shutting down of institutions and businesses.2 Lockdown procedures stated the
92 closure of non-essential businesses and the prohibition of gatherings with employers tasked to
93 determine on-site employees' safety.3-4
94
95 Work From Home (WFH) is an alternative work arrangement conducted in the worker’s personal
96 space using their electronic devices for work rather than in typical workplaces.5 WFH can either
97 be flexible or hybrid. Flexible work arrangement (FWA) includes flexibility in work hours and
98 location, with workers not working in typical workplaces, such as when instructors opted to
99 record modules rather than physically going to their institutions.6-7 Hybrid Work Arrangement
100 (HWA) includes limited visits to the office.8 Upon loosening of COVID-19 restrictions, HWA
101 allowed employees to combine on-site and off-site work.9
102
103 Occupational balance (OB) is the proportion of time spent in productive, restorative, and leisure
104 occupations, including habits, routines, roles, and rituals, which either hinder or support
105 occupational performance.10 Perception of OB depends on what is meaningful in the context of
106 self-care, care of others, work, and leisure.11 Thus, OB becomes subjective depending on
107 individuals' perceptions of their time use in occupations. Transitioning to WFH, the occupational
108 balance of working adults is affected in terms of their time spent in Activities of Daily Living
109 (ADLs), Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADLs), work, and leisure, which are part of the
110 daily occupations considered in work-life balance.12-13 An individual has roles at home and work
111 that require different responsibilities.14-15 The context of being at home and outdoors includes
112 home management, resting, leisure participation, and spending time with family. With the advent
113 of WFH comes a blurring of lines between work and home responsibilities, which would affect
114 an individual’s OB.16-17
115
116 Occupational therapists (OTs) employ the use of occupations in the promotion of health and
117 well-being of individuals.18 OTs measure OB using non-standardized tools such as structured
118 interviews, keen observation, and standardized tools, including the Occupational Balance
119 Questionnaire (OBQ11). The OBQ11 is an 11-item questionnaire with a four-point Likert scale
120 that focuses on the satisfaction of one's occupational profile within afforded opportunities and
121 resources.19 Additionally, it focuses on the time spent in wanted occupations, the perception of

4
122 and the need for more meaningful occupations.20 A study investigated the internal construct
123 validity of OBQ with 13 items. Results led to two items, items 3 and 6, being removed due to
124 their misfit in the purpose of the questionnaire caused by multidimensionality. This led to the
125 latest revised version of OBQ11, which is more reliable than OBQ.21
126
127 Occupational imbalance occurs when one experiences a shift in their usual roles and routines,
128 leading to a disproportionate amount of time spent in occupations resulting in decreased well-
129 being.22-24 It is a loss of balance in the engagement of different occupations. Quality of life (QOL)
130 is how one perceives their well-being and function in different aspects of life.25 The two are
131 associated by excessive or insufficient time spent in one area at the expense of another, which
132 may compromise individuals’ health & QOL.20 The World Health Organization Quality of Life
133 Scale (WHOQOL-BREF) is a multilingual standardized tool assessing QOL that has undergone
134 validation studies in other countries. A study evaluated psychometric properties of WHOQOL-
135 BREF among Serbian medical students wherein good reliability (the Cronbach’s alpha
136 was >0.7) was shown.25 WHOQOL-BREF scale assessment affirmed good internal consistency.
137 Another study used WHOQOL-BREF to assess QOL of Korean adults wherein the Cronbach’s
138 alphas for QOL indicator were 0.91 and 0.94 before and after COVID-19, respectively.26
139
140 Studies used a cross-sectional design and collected data using surveys, questionnaires, and
141 database information.26-27 Energy-saving and inclusivity are some benefits of WFH.27 The
142 experiences of workers who WFH are less stress, less time commuting, and greater satisfaction
143 than other workers.28 Contrarily, the transition to WFH showed an increase in sedentary
144 behavior. Thus it implies a context-dependence on different cultures. 26-27, 29, 30-31. Additionally,
145 the WFH model is only applicable to workers who have the necessary means to sustain this
146 kind of arrangement (i.e., stable internet connection, electronic devices, etc.), showing that this
147 arrangement favors those who are middle class or above.32 Studies report a positive link
148 between WFH and perceptions of work-life balance, such as the negation of commuting and
149 positive relationships with family at home, but few have looked at whether this change has wider
150 implications on the intersection of occupations between work and home. 27, 33
151
152 A study focused on the perception of productivity, satisfaction, and stress of Italian
153 homeworkers during the pandemic, with results showing an increase in productivity due to the
154 removal of stress in commuting, but also a decrease due to distractions in the home
155 environment.27 Another study focused on characteristics of teleworkers and differences in time-

5
156 use patterns between the office and work-at-home workdays, with results showing that
157 teleworkers are able to spend more familial time than on-site office workers.31 Philippines
158 experienced an unprecedented shift to WFH. The OB and QOL of adults who shifted to WFH
159 during the pandemic and the effects of WFH and home work conflict have yet to be
160 contextualized locally. Limitations gathered from international studies stated that a cross-
161 sectional study lacks data to make sound conclusions since data would only be collected once.
162 Some studies stated that having a small or large sample size resulted in limitations in making a
163 categorical statement.31, 34
164
165 The study aims to understand and evaluate the current occupational balance of young Filipino
166 adult office workers who shifted to WFH during the pandemic. The study intends to identify the
167 association between Occupational Balance and QOL in the context of WFH during the
168 pandemic.

169
170

6
171 Methodology

172 Ethical Considerations

173 This study underwent a technical review process and was approved by the Ethics Review
174 Committee of the University of Santo Tomas - College of Rehabilitation Sciences (SI-2021-03-
175 R3).
176
177 Design
178 This quantitative study utilized survey research design to determine the OB and identify the
179 association between OB and QOL in the context of WFH during the pandemic.
180
181 Participants
182 Convenience sampling was utilized to gather participants who are young Filipino workers ages
183 25-34 years old in Makati City through online posters posted on Facebook, word of mouth, and
184 Google Forms. Other eligibility criteria used were: (1) whose work or company office is located
185 in Makati City but working from home inside or outside Makati; (2) who transitioned from on-site
186 work to WFH since the first COVID-19 lockdown in Makati; (3) “hybrid workers,” or are both
187 working outside and working from home; and (4) Work which includes using a computer, phone,
188 or other electronic devices. Termination criteria such as any non-compliance if: 1) participant
189 was unable to answer the items marked as required, or 2) participant was unable to complete
190 the survey until its end 3) participant was unable to meet the inclusion criteria of the study. The
191 forms were open to the public from April 7, 2022 to April 11, 2022. There were a total of 100
192 participants who joined the study. However, only 92 were eligible to participate in the study
193 based on the inclusion criteria.
194
195 Tools
196 The OBQ11 is an 11-item self-administered questionnaire with a four-point Likert scale
197 designed to assess the OB of individuals. Item scores are summed into a total score, where 0 is
198 the minimum and 33 is the maximum.23 The OBQ11 demonstrated good reliability (r=0.92) and
199 acceptable internal consistency (α=0.785).21, 35
200
201 The WHOQOL-BREF is a 26-item self-administered questionnaire with a five-point Likert scale
202 designed to assess the QOL of young adult workers. It has four domains: physical health,
203 psychological health, social relationships, and environment. Two separate items measure
204 overall QOL and general health. Domain scores are scaled in a positive direction, where 0 is the
205 minimum and 100 is the maximum in the transmuted scores. The WHOQOL-BREF has shown

7
206 good discriminant validity, content validity, internal consistency (α=0.84), and test-retest
207 reliability (0.66 for physical health, 0.72 for psychological, 0.76 for social relationships, and 0.87
208 for environment).25 Higher scores from both OBQ11 and WHOQOL-BREF denote higher
209 perceived OB and QOL.23, 25 Permission to use both questionnaires was requested from and
210 given by their respective owners.
211
212 Procedures
213 The study continued with the participant recruitment process via Facebook and word of mouth.
214 Participants were sent a Google form link containing OBQ11 and WHOQOL-BREF
215 questionnaires and the Participant’s Information Sheet (PIS) that contains information about the
216 study. Before answering the said questionnaires, an informed consent form (ICF) was presented
217 to the participants, where they decided whether or not to participate in the study. Participants’
218 demographic information, excluding their names, were also obtained. Participants were
219 instructed to accomplish the questionnaires in one sitting. De-identification and anonymization
220 of the data collected from Google Forms were done. Each participant's data was then converted
221 into a standardized index, which is used to correlate with other participant data. The researchers
222 analyzed the data collected after gathering participants.
223
224 Data Analysis
225 Descriptive Statistics were used to present and summarize the results of the OBQ11,
226 WHOQOL-BREF, and participant demographics into categorical variables (presented as
227 percentages) and continuous variables (presented as mean ± standard deviation). For testing
228 the association between OB and QOL, Pearson’s correlation coefficient rho (rs) was utilized.
229 The direction and strength of correlation (effect sizes) used are as follows, r = 0.00-0.19
230 indicates a very weak effect, r = 0.20-0.39 indicates a weak effect, r = 0.40-0.59 indicates a
231 moderate effect, r = 0.60-0.79 indicates a moderately strong effect, and r = 0.80-1.0 indicates a
232 strong effect between variables.36 Statistical significance was set at 0.05.
233
234
235
236
237
238
239

8
240 Results

241 The following section contains the results. Descriptive statistics for the OBQ11 were presented,
242 which aided in evaluating the OB of Filipino young adult office workers. Descriptive statistics
243 were also used to present the results for QOL. Additionally, descriptive and inferential statistics
244 were also presented to find the association between OB and QOL.
245
246 100 participants responded to the survey, but only 92 were eligible to participate according to
247 the inclusion criteria. Table 1 shows the distribution of study samples with the demographic
248 characteristics of the participants presented in n(%). Based on the data, the majority of the
249 respondents were aged 25. There were more female respondents than men. Majority of the
250 respondents reported being under a hybrid work arrangement. 45 respondents reported 31-40
251 hours a week as their average weekly work hours. Most of the respondents reported being
252 single. Only 2 respondents answered that they are currently ill.
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273

9
274 Table 1: Descriptive Statistics of Demographic Characteristics of Participants

Demographic Data (n = 92) n (%)

1. Age (years)
25 26 (26.6)
26 14 (15.22)
27 7 (7.61)
28 9 (9.78)
29 8 (8.7)
30 3 (3.26)
31 4 (4.35)
32 8 (8.7)
33 7 (7.61)
34 6 (6.52)

2. Sex
Male 36 (39.13)
Female 56 (60.87)

3. Employment Type
Hybrid Work Arrangement 45 (48.91)
Full-time WFH 40 (43.47)
Part-time WFH 7 (7.6)

4. Role
Single 78 (84.78)
Mother 6 (6.52)
Father 6 (6.52)
Single Mother 2 (2.18)

5. Marital Status
Single 78 (84.78)
Married 13 (14.13)
Separated 1 (1.09)
Divorced 0 (0)
Living as Married 0 (0)
Widowed 0 (0)

6. Average Number of Work Hours per Week

0-10 12 (13.04)
11-20 2 (2.17)
21-30 7 (7.61)
31-40 45 (48.91)
41-50 22 (23.91)
51-60 3 (3.26)
61 + 1 (1.09)

7. Are you currently ill?

Yes 2 (2.17)
No 90 (97.82)
275
276

10
277 Table 2 shows the mean score and standard deviation of the OBQ11 responses. Figure 1
278 reveals that among the 92 participants, the lowest OBQ11 score is 5, while the highest score is
279 33.
280
281 Table 2: Descriptive Statistics of Occupational Balance Questionnaire

Mean Std. Dev

20.45 5.83

282
283 Figure 1: Level of Occupational Balance
284

285
286
287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

11
295 Table 3 shows the mean and standard deviation for each domain on the WHOQOL-BREF
296 questionnaire. The psychological domain has the lowest total mean score (61.28 ± 17.32)
297 among all the other domains, while the environmental domain has the highest mean score (70.2
298 ± 14.76).

299 Table 3: Descriptive Statistics of WHOQOL-BREF responses (n = 92)

Mean + SD

DOMAIN 1: Physical 62.2 ± 15.82

DOMAIN 2: Psychological 61.28 ± 17.32

DOMAIN 3: Social Relationships 69.72 ± 17.62

DOMAIN 4: Environment 70.2 ± 14.76

300
301 Table 4 shows that OBQ11 and each of the 4 domains of WHOQOL-BREF is statistically
302 significant (p = 0.000 for physical, psychological, and environmental domains, and p = 0.030 for
303 social domain). The effect size for the physical, psychological, and environmental domains
304 (R=0.449, R=0.440, R=0.437, respectively) had a moderate positive correlation to the OB at a
305 0.05 level of significance. Social domain (R=0.227) had a weakly positive effect on OB with 0.05
306 level of significance. Thus, as OB increases, the 4 domains of WHOQOL-BREF also increase,
307 as shown in Figure 2.
308
309 Table 4: Correlation Analysis between OBQ-11 and WHOQOL-BREF Domains

Pearson R p-value Interpretation Remarks

Physical 0.449 0.000 Moderate Significant

Psychological 0.440 0.000 Moderate Significant

Social 0.227 0.030 Weak Significant

Environment 0.437 0.000 Moderate Significant

12
310 Figure 2: Scatterplot for the Correlation of OBQ-11 to WHOQOL-BREF Domains

311
312

13
313 Discussion

314 A total of 92 eligible participants participated in the study. The majority of the participants were
315 Female, 56 (60.87%), while 36 (39.13%) were male participants. The study aimed to understand
316 and evaluate the current occupational balance of Filipino adult office workers who shifted to
317 WFH during the pandemic.
318
319 The mean score of OBQ11 is 20.45, with a standard deviation of 5.83 and a median score of 20.
320 Higher mean scores in the OBQ11 indicate a higher level of perceived OB. The current OBQ11
321 has no cut-off scores determining whether the OB is high or not. In support of a recent study
322 investigating the impact of COVID-19 restrictions on occupational balance, OB scores with a
323 mean score of 19 ± 6.9 and a median of 18 showed good OB, indicating that participants were
324 able to maintain their overall OB despite the COVID-19 restrictions and WFH arrangements.19
325 Thus, with the mean score of OB in this study resulting in 20.45, it can be concluded that the
326 participants in this study rated good OB. The participants' satisfaction with their time spent in
327 rest, recovery, and sleep is generally good during social and physical restrictions imposed
328 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Given that the WFH arrangement has been employed since
329 2020, most respondents rated their OB substantially high, thus indicating that the mean OB
330 score of this study was good. Implications for good OB depict satisfaction in the time spent in
331 various meaningful occupations as perceived by the individual participants despite the
332 adjustment to WFH setup.
333
334 The score values of WHOQOL-BREF are based on reviewed studies where a mean score of 60
335 and above indicates a good QOL, thus all four domains in this study were reported as having a
336 good QOL with mean and standard deviation of 62.2 ± 15.82, 61.28 ± 17.32, 69.72 ± 17.62, and
337 70.2 ± 14.76, respectively.39 In line with this, a previous study examined the positive and
338 negative impact of pandemics on WFH employees, and the results showed more positive
339 experiences of WFH than negative ones.28 This finding was due to the benefits of WFH such as
340 the experience of more productivity, more satisfaction working from home than in workplaces,
341 more flexibility, perceived job control and autonomy, less time for commuting, and more time for
342 leisure.28 This is, however, in contrast with the study made among enterprise workers in East
343 China, wherein the pandemic caused a lower level of quality of life due to isolation, moderate
344 discomfort, and pain, as well as feelings of anxiety and depression.40 Another study made in
345 Morocco contradicted our results where the study concluded that the COVID-19 pandemic
346 moderately disrupted quality of life.41 Results showed that restrictive measures caused

14
347 significant changes in one’s daily activities and employment disrupting the quality of life and
348 well-being.
349
350 Comparing the four domains of the WHOQOL-BREF, the environmental health domain was the
351 highest with a mean score of 70.2 ± 14.76, while the psychological domain was the lowest with
352 a mean score of 61.28 ± 17.32, which is congruent with a study in India, where the
353 psychological health domain also had the lowest mean score (63.841 ± 14.897). 37 However, the
354 same study had the social relationship domain as their highest mean score (69.921± 14.563),
355 contradicting our results with the environmental domain as the highest (70.2 ± 14.76). This may
356 be because the data gathered is context-dependent, which varies between the environment’s
357 components and human characteristics. This is further supported by a study made in India for
358 software-professional workers, where there was a significant positive association between
359 quality of life and job stress in terms of the workplace environment, physical infrastructures,
360 amount of autonomy and emotional factors surrounding the worker.38 As moderate correlation
361 was found between the environmental domain and OB, environmental factors such as physical
362 environment, home environment, financial resources, and participation and opportunities for
363 leisure also affect the individual’s OB. In the performance of occupations, the environment
364 where an individual is expected to engage in is important as this may affect their overall
365 execution. Different factors may act as either facilitators or hindrances to occupational
366 participation. In WFH, environmental changes that may be considered are changes in personal
367 workspaces leading to a lack of need to commute to work and a higher perception of physical
368 safety, a feasible home environment for optimal working conditions, and having more time to
369 engage in other occupations such as leisure. If the environment is not suitable for the individual,
370 this will affect their experience in work.10
371
372 The psychological domain in this study rated the lowest, congruent with previous studies
373 suggesting that there may be dissatisfaction with one’s bodily image and appearance during the
374 pandemic, a greater level of negative feelings, lower self-esteem, personal beliefs, and a
375 distracted mental state. Psychosocial functioning affects how one perceives their OB. In
376 achieving a higher level of OB, gaining satisfaction in one’s occupations would likely increase
377 subjective health and OB.42 As OB is positively related to happiness, well-being, and personal
378 health, occupational imbalance further leads to possible disease, unhappiness, stress, or
379 boredom, affecting one’s psychological health.42 A study backs this wherein a low rating of
380 occupational balance was found in people with feelings of anxiety and depression, thus,

15
381 affecting their overall quality of life.43
382
383 The current study found that in Filipino young adults who WFH, the OB and QOL are statistically
384 significant (P = 0.000) for the 3 domains of physical, psychological, and environmental, and (P=
385 0.030) for the social relationships domain. The effect size for the physical, psychological, and
386 environmental domains (R=0.449, R=0.440, R=0.437 respectively) have a moderate positive
387 correlation to the OB at a 0.05 level of significance and the social domain (R=0.227) had a
388 weakly positive effect on OB. As the data is statistically significant (P=0.000), it can still be
389 concluded that there is an association between QOL and OB. This was in conformity with the
390 said statement in the introduction, where occupational imbalance and the domains of quality of
391 life are associated with each other by the excessive or insufficient time spent in one area at the
392 expense of another, which would ultimately lead to compromised health and QOL. 20
393 Furthermore, a previous study wherein a highly significant correlation (P=0.359) between OBQ
394 and overall QOL scores were found among parents in India.37 A strong relationship between life
395 satisfaction and occupational balance was also seen in a study in Sweden, where OB had a
396 moderate positive correlation to life satisfaction (rho=0.518, P=0.01).44 Since health is also a
397 compromised factor, the same study also concluded that occupational balance was correlated
398 with self-rated health (rho=0.581, P=0.01).44 Another study indicated that low workplace stress,
399 good balance, and high meaning in everyday occupations had a significant effect on self-rated
400 health.45
401
402 The physical domain’s association with OB is significant. With the physical domain including
403 ADL performance, work capacity, mobility, energy, and rest, it is evident how the current context
404 of WFH affects the worker’s OB. ADL performance affects OB through the daily routines, habits,
405 and rituals of the individual and the amount of work, and the distance to work. The energy
406 exerted in doing these activities, rest and sleep also affect OB. The data gathered in the local
407 context is thus in-line with overseas studies that show an association between the two.
408
409 Additionally, the social relationships domain has the least significance (P=0.03) among the other
410 domains in this study. This domain’s effect size (rho=0.227) on OB has only a weak effect, but it
411 can still affect the OB as it is statistically significant (P=0.03). Social participation is one of the
412 areas of occupation that one must engage in to achieve social interdependence and increased
413 social well-being.10 Due to the WFH setup, social context affects OB considering the satisfaction
414 in the individual’s relationships with family and friends at home, social support and sexual

16
415 activity. The number of traditionally social activities available has significantly decreased due to
416 lockdown protocols. It led to the rising popularity of “virtual hangouts,” which served as another
417 perspective for social interaction. There is also positive familial relationships due to more time
418 spent at home as previously stated in the introduction.31 Moreover, social support from the
419 individual’s company, coworkers, friends, and family impacts the individual’s work experience
420 and influences one’s psychological strain and well-being.46 Having social support with
421 coworkers despite the WFH setup is vital in establishing or strengthening relationships in the
422 virtual workplace. Under activities of daily living, sexual activity is considered an essential
423 contributor to quality of life.10 However, with the lockdown measures and fear of virus
424 contraction due to the pandemic, reduction in intimate relationships and sexual activity were
425 affected in terms of decrease in sexual desire, in access to sexual activities and contraception,
426 and in satisfaction.47
427
428 Conclusions

429 The study explored the OB of Filipino young adult office workers who shifted to WFH during the
430 pandemic. The study also identified the association between OB and QOL in the context of
431 WFH during the pandemic. Results showed that Filipino young adult office workers have good
432 OB corresponding to a weak to moderately positive QOL. There is a moderately positive
433 correlation between OB and the three quality of life domains, specifically physical,
434 psychological, and environmental health. The social domain is identified to have a weak positive
435 correlation with OB. Thus, this indicates that the association between OB and QOL is context-
436 dependent and varies between the different QOL domains. The data gathered in this study will
437 benefit occupational therapy as a whole by providing professionals the perspective of young
438 adult office workers’ work-life balance during the pandemic locally while factoring in both human
439 and non-human factors that may influence its quality.

440
441 Limitations of the study

442 The study presents strengths and limitations that should be considered while interpreting
443 results. The design was cross-sectional analytic that utilized a survey research design which is
444 the strength of assessing OB and QOL and how they are related to specific variables at one
445 point in time in the context of WFH during the pandemic. With this, the accuracy of the individual
446 responses may still vary as the individual participant’s circumstances and perceptions may
447 change at different times. As the study was conducted in a limited time, the sample size was

17
448 small. Makati City was the focus of the participant’s geographical state, which cannot be
449 generalized throughout other Metro Manila areas. Furthermore, due to the lockdown restrictions,
450 the type of recruitment utilized in the study was only limited to internet users.
451
452 Recommendation

453 The study implicated that the WFH context affects QOL, which has a significant association with
454 OB. Separate studies with quantitative methods can be conducted in other regions of the
455 Philippines that would evaluate OB and QOL during the pandemic in the context of WFH. Future
456 studies may increase the amount of time to gather important data from a larger number of
457 participants for a more in-depth discussion on the assessment and association between OB and
458 QOL. The association between OB and QOL to the demographic characteristics of the
459 participants may also be further explored in future studies.
460
461 Acknowledgments

462 The authors would like to acknowledge Ms. Petra Wagman and Ms. Carita Håkansson for
463 allowing us to use the OBQ11 tool and the World Health Organization to use the WHOQOL-
464 BREF tool. Additionally, we would like to thank our statistician, Eldrick Fonollera, from Pinoy
465 Statistician For Hire on Facebook for aiding us in our statistical analysis. We want to thank the
466 UST CRS Ethics Review Committee for granting their approval for us to continue and implement
467 our study. We would also like to express gratitude for the patience and guidance of our faculty-
468 co authors and our participants for their time and effort in answering our survey. Lastly, we
469 would like to acknowledge the efforts of Assoc. Prof. Anne Marie C. Aseron, Asst. Prof.
470 Kathlene Anne V. Hernandez, Ms. Catherine Joy T. Escuadra, MHPEd, Asst. Prof. Karen Sagun
471 MRS, MSOT, and Asst. Prof. Ivan Neil B. Gomez, Ph.D., MHPEd, for helping us with the
472 preliminary phases required to complete the study.
473
474

18
475 References

476 1. Daniel SJ. Education and the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospects. 2020 Oct;49(1):91-6. DOI:
477 10.1007/s11125-020-09464-3

478 2. Office of the President of the Philippines. Executive Order No. 168, s. 2014: GOVPH. Official
479 Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines. 2014

480 3. Lopez RM, Bello SH. DTI and DOLE INTERIM GUIDELINES ON WORKPLACE
481 PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF COVID-19. Department of Labor and Employment.
482 2020.

483 4. Michaels D, Wagner GR. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and
484 worker safety during the COVID-19 pandemic. Jama. 2020 Oct 13;324(14):1389-90. DOI:
485 10.1001/jama.2020.16343

486 5. Lamond D, Daniels K, Standen P. Defining telework: what is it exactly. InProceedings of the
487 Second International Workshop on Telework. 1997 Sep.

488 6. Tacadao, M. S. A Descriptive Study on Off-site Work Arrangement in the Philippines.

489 Philippine Journal of Labor Studies. 2018; 1(2): 45-62.

490 7. Toquero CM. Challenges and opportunities for higher education amid the COVID-19
491 pandemic: The Philippine context. Pedagogical Research. 2020;5(4). DOI: 10.29333/pr/7947

492 8. Ali A. Hybrid Work Arrangements Will Define The Future [Internet]. AllWork.Space. 2020
493 [cited 2021May11]. Available from: https://allwork.space/2020/10/hybrid-work-arrangements-
494 will-define-the-future/

495 9. Hybrid Remote Work Arrangements: How Employees and Employers Can Make Partial
496 Remote Work, Work [Internet]. RemoteHabits. 2020 [cited 11 May 2021]. Available from:
497 https://remotehabits.com/article/hybrid-remote-work-arrangement-tips/

498 10. American Occupational Therapy Association. Occupational Therapy Practice Framework:
499 Domain Et Process.

500 11. Stamm T, Lovelock L, Stew G, Nell V, Smolen J, Machold K, Jonsson H, Sadlo G. I have a
501 disease but I am not ill: A narrative study of occupational balance in people with rheumatoid
502 arthritis. OTJR: Occupation, participation and health. 2009 Jan;29(1):32-9. DOI:
503 10.1177/153944920902900105

19
504 12. Ransome P. Conceptualizing boundaries between ‘life and ‘work’. The International Journal
505 of Human Resource Management. 2007 Mar 1;18(3):374-86. DOI:
506 10.1080/09585190601167425

507 13. Maruyama T, Hopkinson PG, James PW. A multivariate analysis of work–life balance
508 outcomes from a large-scale telework programme. New Technology, Work and
509 Employment. 2009 Mar;24(1):76-88. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-005X.2008.00219.x

510 14. Xiao Y, Becerik-Gerber B, Lucas G, Roll SC. Impacts of working from home during COVID-
511 19 pandemic on physical and mental well-being of office workstation users. Journal of
512 Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2021 Mar;63(3):181. DOI:
513 10.1097/jom.0000000000002097

514 15. Duxbury L, Halinski M. When more is less: An examination of the relationship between
515 hours in telework and role overload. Work. 2014 Jan 1;48(1):91-103. DOI: 10.3233/WOR-
516 141858

517 16. Wilcock AA, Chelin M, Hall M, Hamley N, Morrison B, Scrivener L, Townsend M, Treen K.
518 The relationship between occupational balance and health: A pilot study. Occupational
519 Therapy International. 1997 Mar;4(1):17-30. DOI: 10.1002/oti.45

520 17. Delanoeije J, Verbruggen M, Germeys L. Boundary role transitions: A day-to-day approach
521 to explain the effects of home-based telework on work-to-home conflict and home-to-work
522 conflict. Human Relations. 2019 Dec;72(12):1843-68. DOI: 10.1177/0018726718823071

523 18. Malek-Ismail J, Krajnik S. Occupational imbalance and lifestyle rebalancing: Occupational
524 transitions experienced by 1st-Year MOT students. The American Journal of Occupational
525 Therapy. 2016 Aug;70(4_Supplement_1):7011510201p1-. DOI: 10.5014/ajot.2016.70S1-
526 PO3025

527 19. Tse T, Roberts E, Garvie J, Sutton E, Munro A. The impact of COVID‐19 restrictions on
528 occupational balance: A mixed-method study of the experience of Australian occupational
529 therapists. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal. 2021 Sept;69(1):89-97. DOI:
530 10.1111/1440-1630.12772

531 20. Sy MP, Ohshima N. Utilising the Occupational Justice Health Questionnaire (OJHQ) with a
532 Filipino drug surrenderee in occupational therapy practice: A case report. World Federation
533 of Occupational Therapists Bulletin. 2019 Jan 2;75(1):59-62. DOI:
534 10.1080/14473828.2018.1505682

20
535 21. Håkansson C, Wagman P, Hagell P. Construct validity of a revised version of the
536 Occupational Balance Questionnaire. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2020
537 Aug 17;27(6):441-9. DOI: 10.1080/11038128.2019.1660801

538 22. Skevington, SM. Quality of life. Encyclopedia of Stress. 2007. 317–319.

539 23. Wagman P, Håkansson C. Introducing the occupational balance questionnaire (OBQ).
540 Scandinavian journal of occupational therapy. 2014 May 1;21(3):227-31. DOI:
541 10.3109/11038128.2014.900571

542 24. Backman CL. Occupational balance: Exploring the relationships among daily occupations
543 and their influence on well-being. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2004
544 Oct;71(4):202-9. DOI: 10.1177/000841740407100404

545 25. Ilić I, Šipetić-Grujičić S, Grujičić J, Živanović Mačužić I, Kocić S, Ilić M. Psychometric
546 properties of the world health organization’s quality of life (WHOQOL-BREF) questionnaire
547 in medical students. Medicina. 2019 Dec;55(12):772. DOI: 10.3390/medicina55120772

548 26. Park KH, Kim AR, Yang MA, Lim SJ, Park JH. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the
549 lifestyle, mental health, and quality of life of adults in South Korea. PLoS One. 2021 Feb
550 26;16(2):e0247970. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247970

551 27. Moretti A, Menna F, Aulicino M, Paoletta M, Liguori S, Iolascon G. Characterization of home
552 working population during COVID-19 emergency: a cross-sectional analysis. International
553 Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020 Jan;17(17):6284. DOI:
554 10.3390/ijerph17176284

555 28. Tušl, M., Brauchli, R., Kerksieck, P. et al. Impact of the COVID-19 crisis on work and private
556 life, mental well-being and self-rated health in German and Swiss employees: a cross-
557 sectional online survey. BMC Public Health. 2021 April, 741 (2021). DOI: 10.1186/s12889-
558 021-10788-8

559 29. Lister K, Harnish T. The State of Telework in the US. Telework Research Network. 2011
560 Jun:5-5.

561 30. Flanagan EW, Beyl RA, Fearnbach SN, Altazan AD, Martin CK, Redman LM. The impact of
562 COVID-19 stay-at-home orders on health behaviors in adults. Obesity. 2021 Feb;29(2):438-
563 45. DOI: 10.1002/oby.23066

564 31. Pabilonia SW, Vernon V. Telework and time use in the United States. Available at SSRN
565 3601959. 2020 May 12.

21
566 32. Abendroth AK, Reimann M. Telework and work-family conflict across workplaces:
567 investigating the implications of work–family-supportive and high-demand workplace
568 cultures. InThe work-family interface: Spillover, complications, and challenges 2018 Oct 29.
569 Emerald Publishing Limited. DOI: 10.1108/S1530-353520180000013017

570 33. Wheatley D. Work-life balance, travel-to-work, and the dual-career household. Personnel
571 Review. 2012 41(6):813-831. DOI: 10.1108/00483481211263764

572 34. Bertulfo DJ. COVID-19 labour market impact in the Philippines: Assessment and national
573 policy responses. 2020.

574 35. Günal A, Pekçetin S, Demirtürk F, Şenol H, Håkansson C, Wagman P. Validity and reliability
575 of the turkish occupational balance questionnaire (OBQ11-T). Scandinavian journal of
576 occupational therapy. 2020 Oct 2;27(7):493-9. DOI: 10.1080/11038128.2019.1673479

577 36. Günal, A., Pekçetin, S., Wagman, P., Håkansson, C., & Kayıhan, H. Occupational
578 balance and quality of life in Mothers of children with cerebral palsy. British Journal of
579 Occupational Therapy. 2021; 85(1), 37–43. DOI: 10.1177/0308022621995112

580 37. Sahu, S., Bandyopadhyay, B., Chandrashekaran, M., Mohapatra, D., David, K. Q., Ghanta,
581 S., et al. Quality of life and occupational balance during Corona virus disease 2019
582 lockdown in India: A survey on parents of children below 16 years. The Indian Journal of
583 Occupational Therapy. 2021; 53(4), 138. DOI: 10.4103/ijoth.ijoth_54_21

584 38. Babu, G. R., Sudhir, P. M., Mahapatra, T., Das, A., Rathnaiah, M., Anand, I., et al.
585 Association of quality of life and job stress in occupational workforce of India: Findings from
586 a cross-sectional study on software professionals. Indian journal of occupational and
587 environmental medicine. 2016; 20(2), 109–113. DOI: 10.4103/0019-5278.197544

588 39. Silva, P. A., Soares, S. M., Santos, J. F., Silva, L. B. Cut-off point for WHOQOL-bref as a
589 measure of quality of life of older adults. Revista de saude publica. 2014; 48(3), 390–397.
590 DOI: 10.1590/s0034-8910.2014048004912

591 40. Chen, X., Xu, Q., Lin, H. et al. Quality of life during the epidemic of COVID-19 and its
592 associated factors among enterprise workers in East China. BMC Public Health 21 2021;
593 1370 . DOI: 10.1186/s12889-021-11414-3

594 41. Samlani, Z., Lemfadli, Y., Errami, A.A., Oubaha, S., Krati, K.. The impact of the COVID-19
595 pandemic on quality of life and well-being in Morocco. Arch Community Med Public Health.
596 2020; 6(2): 130-134. DOI: 10.17352/2455-5479.000091

22
597 42. Park, S., Lee, H. J., Jeon, B. J., Yoo, E. Y., Kim, J. B., & Park, J. H. Effects of occupational
598 balance on subjective health, quality of life, and health-related variables in community-
599 dwelling older adults: A structural equation modeling approach. PloS one. 2021; 16(2),
600 e0246887. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246887

601 43. Wagman, P., Hjärthag, F., Håkansson, C., Hedin, K., Gunnarsson, B. Factors associated
602 with higher occupational balance in people with anxiety and/or depression who require
603 occupational therapy treatment. Scandinavian journal of occupational therapy. 2021; 28. 1-7.
604 DOI: 10.1080/11038128.2019.1693626.

605 44. Wagman P, Håkansson C. Exploring occupational balance in adults in Sweden.

606 Scandinavian journal of occupational therapy. 2014; 1;21(6):415-20. DOI:
607 10.3109/11038128.2014.934917

608 45. Håkansson C., Ahlborg G., Jr. Perceptions of employment, domestic work, and leisure as
609 predictors of health among women and men. Journal of Occupational Science. 2020; 17:3,
610 150-157, DOI: 10.1080/14427591.2010.9686689

611 46. Collins, A. M., Hislop, D., Cartwright, S. Social support in the workplace between
612 teleworkers, office-based colleagues and supervisors. New Technology, Work, and
613 Employment. 2016 July 31(2), 161–175. DOI: 10.1111/ntwe.12065

614 47. Stavridou, A., Samiakou, C., Kourti, A., Tsiorou, S., Panagouli, E., Thirios, A., et al. (2021).
615 Sexual Activity in Adolescents and Young Adults through COVID-19 Pandemic. Children.
616 2021 July 8(7), 577. MDPI AG. DOI: 10.3390/children8070577

23
APPENDICES

Appendix A. Ethics Approval

April 7, 2022

Ma. Carol Mae G. Protacio, MSOT, OTRP

Primary Investigator

Dear Mrs. Protacio:

Greetings in the name of St. Thomas of Aquinas!

This is to inform you that the proposal with the following details:

Title The Impact of Working from Home on the Occupational Balance

of Filipino Young Adult Office Workers during the COVID-19
Pandemic in the Philippines

Protocol Number SI-2021-013-R3

The University of Santo Tomas-College of Rehabilitation Sciences Ethics Review Committee

has favorably granted the authors APPROVAL. You may now proceed with your research.
However, may we request for the group to submit the following as soon as possible for
documentation of the committee:
● Facebook page link for the recruitment and add
● Revised paragraph for indirect benefits in the manuscript and PIS-ICF. We recommend
avoiding using the words “FEELING OF USEFULNESS AND RELEVANCE/ SENSE OF
CONTRIBUTION”

The following are standard requirements attached to approved protocols:

1. Approval will be for a period of one (1) year commencing on the stamped date of
approval. At the end of this period, if the research project has been completed or
discontinued for any reason, the investigator is required to inform the Committee in
writing. If the investigator completes the work earlier than planned, he/she must inform
the Committee in writing as soon as the work is completed.
a. Early Termination: Decision of the researcher, principal investigator, the
institution, or sponsor to end the implementation of a study before its completion
b. Continuing Review: Extension or renewal of approval for another year.
c. Amendment: Any changes in the approved protocol submitted for review and
approval of the committee.

24
 d. Protocol Deviation: Non-compliance with the approved protocol that does not
increase risk or decrease benefit to participants or does not significantly affect
their rights, safety or welfare or the integrity of data
e. Protocol Violation: Non-compliance with the approved protocol that increases risk
or decreases benefit to participants or significantly affects their rights, safety or
welfare or the integrity of data.
f. Reportable Negative Events: Occurrences in the study site that indicate risks or
actual harms to participants and to members of the research team and to integrity
of data.
g. Serious Adverse Event (SAE): An unfortunate event leading to serious harm to
the participants such as death, life threatening incident or high risk; events
resulting to prolonged hospitalization, significant disability, incapacity, congenital
anomaly or another episode which is considered to be harmful to the research
participant.
h. Suspected Unexpected Serious Adverse Reaction (SUSAR): Any serious
adverse reaction/event in the research participant who were provided with
intervention, which may or may not be dose/parameter related, but are not
expected or anticipated since the reaction are not consistent with current
information about the intervention in question.
i. Unexpected Adverse Event (UAE): Any non-serious adverse reaction/event in the
research participant who were provided with intervention, which may or may not
be dose/parameter related, but are not expected or anticipated since the reaction
is not consistent with current information about the intervention in question.
2. Submit to the Committee any pending documents (e.g. letters, contracts, memorandum
of understanding) that are pertinent to the research project, if applicable.
3. Notify the Committee thru submission of post-approval review application (see SOP 3 for
complete requirements) for any of the following:
4. The investigator, at all times, is responsible for the ethical conduct of the research in
accordance with the guidelines established by the University of Santo Tomas and the
Declaration of Helsinki. The stamped, approved version of the informed consent should
be the only version used during the conduct of the study. Note that ERC stamp will be
added in the informed consent, upon submission of the approved copy to
ethicsreview.crs@ust.edu.ph
5. Upon the completion of the research project, the investigator is required to submit to the
Ethics Research Committee a digital copy of the complete manuscript (including all
results, discussions, appendices, and correspondences) and a final report form.

For the Ethics Review Committee,

_______________________________________________

25
_____________________________________
Chairman
Ethics Review Committee
College of Rehabilitation Sciences
University of Santo Tomas

26
 APPENDIX B. Gantt Chart

Research Date Date 2021 Gantt Chart 2022 Gantt Chart

Activity Starte Complete
d d May Jun Jul Augu Septemb Octobe Novemb Decemb Januar Februa Marc Apr Ma
e y st er r er er y ry h il y

1 May August
Technical 2021 2021
Review

2 Septe April 2022

Ethics mber
Review 2021

3 August August
PJAHS 2021 2021

1st Februa February

Progress ry 2022 2022
Report

4 April April 2022

Recruitme 2022
nt

5 April April
Data 2022 2022
gathering

6 April April 2022

Data 2022
analysis

27
2nd March March 12
Progress 12 2022
Report 2022

7 Januar March
Manuscrip y 2022 2022
t writing

Completed April 18 April 18

Draft of 2022 2022
Manuscrip
t

Poster and April 26 April 30

Video 2022 2022
Presentati
on

Question April 30 April 30

and 2022 2022
Answer

8 May 6 May 6
Manuscrip 2022 2022
t
submissio
n

28
APPENDIX C. Budget Chart

The group prepared Php 3,500 for the initial submission of the proposal to the Ethics Review
Committee. The questionnaire OBQ11 and WHOQOL-BREF were requested from the owners
but are free of charge, thus no budget will be allocated for these. The study was conducted
online and some participants were gathered from Facebook so the researchers would need to
boost the post to gather more participants. For the estimated range of 754 to 2,200 people
reached on Facebook, this required a total amount of Php 700 for 3 days. The researchers also
hired a statistician to help in analyzing and computing the data, amounting to Php 2,000.

Item Amount

ERC - 1st submission 3,500

Facebook: Social Media boost 700

Statistician 2,000

Total (Pesos) ₱ 6,200

29
APPENDIX D. Data Recruitment
Greetings! We are 3rd year Occupational Therapy students from the University of Santo Tomas
College of Rehabilitation Sciences currently undertaking our research study entitled "The Impact
of Working from Home on the Occupational Balance of Filipino Young Adult Office Workers
during the COVID-19 Pandemic in the Philippines". This study aims to evaluate occupational
balance as well as identify the association of Occupational Balance and Quality of Life to young
adult office workers who shifted to the work-from-home setup due to the pandemic.

Please refer to the picture below with the qualifications we are looking for in our participants. If
interested, scan the QR code on the picture or click on the link to be redirected to the survey!
https://forms.gle/hjk7MDRsdpSZDAyv6

If there are any questions, you may contact us here on Facebook or Messenger.
You may also contact:
Koj Custodio: +63 9275907791
Lucille Samaco: +63 9158334584

30
31
APPENDIX E. Infographic Material
Educational Materials

32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Display Picture for Facebook Page

Cover Picture for Facebook Page

39
APPENDIX F. Demographic Questionnaire

Demographic Information

1. Age:
__ 25
__ 26
__ 27
__ 28
__ 29
__ 30
__ 31
__ 32
__ 33
__ 34

2. Date of birth (mm/dd/yyyy):

_______________

3. Role:
__ Mother
__ Father
__ Single

4. Sex
__ Male
__Female
__Others____

5. Marital Status
__Single
__Married
__Divorced
__Separated
__ Living as Married
__Widowed

6. Highest Educational Attainment

__Primary School Degree
__High School Degree
__Bachelor's Degree
__Master's Degree
__Professional Degree

40
 __Doctorate Degree

7. Occupation/ Job:
___________

8. Average Number of Working Hours per Week:

____________

9. Work Location
__ Makati

10. Employment Type

__Hybrid Work Arrangement (i.e. mix of working on-site and from home)
__Full-time WFH
__Part-time WFH

11. Are you currently ill? (If yes, please state your illness/health problem on "others")
__Yes
__No
__Other ____

12. If something is wrong with your health what do you think it is? (ex: _____illness/
problem) (type n/a if none)
_________________

41
42
43
44
45
APPENDIX G. Assessment tools

I. Occupational Balance Questionnaire (OBQ11-E)

Item Number Item

1 In a typical week, I feel there are just enough things to do.

2 There is a balance between things I do for myself and things I do

for others.

3 I make sure I do things I really want to do.

4 I balance the different kinds of activities in my life, e.g., work,

household chores, leisure, rest, and sleep.

5 I have enough time to do the things that I must do.

6 I have a balance among my physical, social, intellectual and

restful activities.

7 I am satisfied with the amount of time that I spend on my various

daily activities.

8 In a typical week, I am satisfied with the number of activities that I

take part in

9 There is enough variation between things that I must do and

things that I want to do.

10 There is a balance between activities that give me energy versus

those that drain my energy.

11 I am satisfied with the amount of time that I spend relaxing,

recovering, and sleeping.

46
47
 II. World Health Organization Quality of Life Questionnaire

This assessment asks how you feel about your quality of life, health, or other areas of your life.
Please answer all the questions. If you are unsure about which response to give to a question,
please choose the one that appears most appropriate. This can often be your first response.

Please read each question, assess your feelings, and choose the number on the scale for each
question that gives the best answer for you.

1 2 3 4 5
Very Poor Neithe Good Very
poor r poor good
nor
good

1(G1) How would you rate your quality of life?

1 2 3 4 5
Very Poor Neithe Good Very
poor r poor good
nor
good

2 (G4) How satisfied are you with your health?

The following questions ask about how much you have experienced certain things in the last
two weeks.

1 2 3 4 5
Not at A little A Very An
All moder Much extre
ate me
amoun amou
t nt

3 To what extent do you feel that physical

(F1.4) pain prevents you from doing what you
need to do?

4(F11. How much medical treatment do you

3) need to function in your daily life?

5(F4.1) How much do you enjoy life?

48
 6(F24. To what extent do you feel your life to be
2) meaningful?

1 2 3 4 5
Not at A little A Very Extre
All moder Much mely
ate
amoun
t

7(F5.3) How well are you able to concentrate?

8 How safe do you feel in your daily life?

(F16.1)

9 How healthy is your physical

(F22.1) environment?

The following questions ask about how completely you experience or were able to do certain
things in the last two weeks.

1 2 3 4 5
Not at A little Moder Mostly Com
All ately pletel
y

10 Do you have enough energy for

(F2.1) everyday life?

11 Are you able to accept your bodily

(F7.1) appearance?

12 Have you enough money to meet your

(F18.1) needs?

13 How available to you is the information

(F20.1) that you need in your day-to-day life?

14 To what extent do you have the

(F21.1) opportunity for leisure activities?

Not at Slightl Moder Very Extre

all y ately mely

49
 15 How well are you able to get around 1 2 3 4 5
(F9.1) physically?

The following questions ask you to say how good or satisfied you have felt about various
aspects of your life over the last two weeks.

1 2 3 4 5
Very Dissat Neithe Satisfi Very
dissat isfied r ed satisf
isfied satisfie ied
d nor
dissati
sfied

16 How satisfied are you with your sleep?

(F3.3)

17 How satisfied are you with your ability to

(F10.3) perform your daily living activities?

18(F12 How satisfied are you with your capacity

.4) for work?

19 How satisfied are you with yourself?

(F6.3)

20(F13 How satisfied are you with your personal

.3) relationships?

21(F15 How satisfied are you with your sex life?

.3)

22(F14 How satisfied are you with the support

.4) you get from your friends?

23(F17 How satisfied are you with the conditions

.3) of your living place?

24(F19 How satisfied are you with your access

.3) to health services?

25(F23 How satisfied are you with your

.3) transport?

The following question refers to how often you have felt or experienced certain things in the last
two weeks.

50
 1 2 3 4 5
Never Seldo Quite Very Alway
m often often s

26 How often do you have negative

(F8.1) feelings such as blue mood, despair,
anxiety, depression?

Did someone help you to fill out this form?

__Yes
__No

How long did it take to fill this form out?

__________________

Do you have any comments about the assessment?

________________________

51
52
53
54
55
56
57
APPENDIX H. Grammar checker (Grammarly)

58
APPENDIX I. Plagiarism checker (Duplichecker)

59