Search

Background. There is an agreement on the importance of measuring work-life balance, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the available tools to do so are not sufficient to address all dimensions, contexts, and professions. Aim. The article reviews existing instruments that have been widely utilised to tap into the breadth and depth of work-life balance. Evaluation. This is a perspective scoping review guided by PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Articles reporting on the measurement of work-life balance were reviewed. The authors performed the review based on agreed-upon search terms, inclusion and exclusion criteria, search databases, and the data extraction process. Key Issues. The existing tools appear to have divergent underpinning theoretical models, factors, structural/psychometric properties, and the number of accumulated citations. The existing tools also varied in terms of their target sector, with limited tools available for the analysis of work-life balance among healthcare professionals. We argue that while the existing tools provide a general base for the work-life balance measurement, it would be imperative to adjust those tools to the specific cultural and professional contexts. Future work-life balance measures should consider the changes imposed by atypical or disruptive events that have the potential to alter work-life balance, such as in the case of the COVID-19 pandemic. The onus is on researchers and policymakers to work collaboratively in each context to adapt, implement, and evaluate those tools as they become integrated into the matrix of labour market assessments in the future. Conclusions. The article highlighted current gaps and improvement opportunities in the work-life balance measurement field. Implications for Healthcare and Nursing Management. The maintenance of work-life balance will remain an issue for years to come. Ensuring comprehensive and context-specific measurements would be essential to guide the evidence-based recommendations necessary to support the workforce across the various sectors of the economy in the future.

This study investigated stress levels and coping strategies among working and nonworking women in the United Arab Emirates.Stress levels in working and nonworking women have previously been studied, but few studies used cortisol to measure stress or examined how coping strategies affect stress levels.We employed a cross-sectional design with a convenience sample of women aged 20-65 years. Information on women's sociodemographic characteristics, perceived stress (using the Perceived Stress Scale) and coping strategies (using the Brief-COPE) was collected. Participants' morning (07:00-08:00) and evening (19:00-20:00) cortisol levels were measured using unstimulated saliva samples.In total, 417 working and 403 nonworking women participated in this study. More nonworking women reported high stress levels than working women (14.1% vs. 4.1%, p = .001). Working women reported more use of informational support and venting to cope with stress compared with nonworking women (94.0% vs. 88.1%, p = .001). More nonworking women had impaired morning (0.094 mg/dl) and evening (0.359 mg/dl) cortisol compared with working women (58.1% vs. 28.5% and 41.7% vs. 18.0%, respectively). Compared with working women, nonworking women had 3.25 (95%CI: 2.38, 4.47) and 3.78 (95%CI: 2.65, 5.43) times the odds of impaired morning and evening cortisol, respectively.Nonworking women exhibited higher levels of stress than working women. There is an urgent need to support nonworking women to manage stress through appropriate awareness campaigns and public health policies.Policymakers and community leaders should consider the mental health of nonworking women as a priority in planning public health policies and programmes. Nurse managers must have a voice in reforming public health policy to support early assessment and management of stress among nonworking women.