Telework, time use, and well-being: Evidence from the 2022 Time Use Survey

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful for feedback from Patricia Houle, Carole Sawaya, Rachel Leistra, René Morissette, Tahsin Mehdi, Vincent Hardy, and Ana Fostik.

Highlights

• This study uses time diary data to compare three groups of workers: non-teleworkers (did not telework last week and worked on-site on the diary day); on-site teleworkers (teleworked last week but worked on-site on the diary day); and work-from-home (WFH) teleworkers (teleworked last week and worked at home on the diary day).
• As teleworkers who worked from home on the diary day did not have a commute to work, they were able to reallocate more than an hour per day, on average, to other activities.
• There is no difference in paid work time among all three categories of workers, after accounting for sociodemographic and job characteristics.
• Both men and women did more unpaid housework – such as preparing meals, laundry, or cleaning – when they teleworked from home.
• Parents who teleworked at home spent about over an hour more caring for their children, compared to on-site teleworkers and non-teleworkers. This care time included when they actively cared for children as their main activity and when they were co-present with children.
• When working from home, teleworkers slept between 19 to 23 minutes more, compared to on-site and non-teleworkers, respectively. They also spent more time eating, but less time on personal care activities such as getting dressed and personal hygiene.
• Teleworkers at home spent about half an hour more in leisure, on average. They spent more time in both passive leisure activities (such as TV-watching) and active leisure activities (such as exercising).
• Satisfaction with work-life balance was higher for teleworkers who worked from home on the diary day.
• Those who worked on-site, but teleworked last week, were more likely to report higher levels of time pressure and strain compared to non-teleworkers and WFH teleworkers. This time pressure included cutting back on sleep or feeling constantly under stress.

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic led to a substantial shift in work arrangements, particularly a rapid rise in working from home. The percentage of Canadians working most of their hours from home rose from 7% in May 2016 to about 24% in July 2022 and then slightly down to 21% in July 2023 (Statistics Canada, 2024a). Although the situation around telework is still changing, many more Canadians appear to be working from home than in the past – whether exclusively or in hybrid arrangements (Statistics Canada, 2024b).

The feasibility of teleworking varies substantially. Past research in Canada shows that women, prime working-age individuals (from 25 to 54 years old), more educated groups, higher-earning households, and certain racialized groups have a higher propensity to work from home (Mehdi & Morissette, 2021b; Clarke & Hardy, 2022; Statistics Canada, 2024a). Working from home is also more common for those who work full-time as well as in certain regions, especially in larger cities. In general, this pattern is primarily related to the occupation workers hold, as the prevalence of working in office jobs varies substantially across this dimension.

Recent studies in Canada have investigated numerous aspects of teleworking, including the feasibility of teleworking (Statistics Canada, 2024a), decreases in commuting time and shifts in commute type (Savage & Turcotte, 2020; Morisette et al., 2021), implications for job security (Mehdi & Morissette, 2021b) and wages (Mehdi & Morissette, 2022; Pabilonia & Vernon, 2022), and language use at work (Cornelissen, 2024).

However, despite this growing body of knowledge on telework, we know little about how working from home may have changed people’s day-to-day lives. In theory, how teleworking might shape time use and well-being can be paradoxical (Charalampous et al., 2019; Chung & van der Lippe, 2020; Chung, 2022; Kim et al., 2019). On the one hand, teleworking may allow workers to reallocate commute time toward preferred activities and balance the competing demands of work and personal life, leading to enhanced well-being. On the other hand, telework may lead to longer work hours or may exacerbate gender inequality in unpaid housework and care. Working from home can also blur the boundaries between work and home life, leading to increased strain and role conflict for employees.

Recent evidence on teleworking before and after the pandemic shows that the daily lives of teleworkers seem to be different. In studies using time use data from the United States from both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, teleworking at home is associated with a number of changes in time use (e.g., Frazis, 2022; Lyttelton et al., 2022, 2023; Pabilonia & Vernon, 2022; Restrepo & Zeballos, 2022). As commute time decreases, workers reallocate their time toward leisure, unpaid housework and care and sleep, while often spending less time in paid work and personal care. However, there is no up-to-date evidence on time use and telework in Canada, as previous research from Statistics Canada on this topic dates from over 14 years ago (Turcotte, 2010).

This study fills this information gap and uses new data from the 2022 Time Use Survey, conducted in Canada from July 2022 to July 2023, to explore time use and work arrangements after the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this study, two research questions are asked: First, how is teleworking from home associated with how people use their time? Second, how are aspects of well-being – such as work-life balance and time pressure – associated with teleworking from home?

Start of text box 1

Measuring telework and time use

To better understand how time use may be associated with teleworking, this study leverages two different sources of data from the 2022 Time Use Survey. First, in this survey, teleworking is defined as employees^Note  spending any time working from home, a co-working space, or elsewhere, while using telecommunications tools (e.g., laptop, phone, tablet)^Note , in the week preceding the survey. Second, the time use diary is used to identify the location of paid work on the “diary day” or designated reference day (see Data for more information). This determines whether teleworkers worked at home or on-site on the day they reported their time use. Telework status is thus compared across three categories: non-teleworkers (did not telework last week and worked on-site on the diary day), on-site teleworkers (teleworked last week but worked on-site on the diary day), and work-from-home (WFH) teleworkers (teleworked last week and worked at home on the diary day).^Note 

The central aim of this study is to uncover whether teleworking at home is associated with different patterns of time use. As previous research shows (e.g., Statistics Canada, 2024a), employees with the ability to telework differ in meaningful ways from those who do not telework in terms of their socioeconomic characteristics (also see Appendix Table A.1). As such, this study uses regression models to try to account for these socioeconomic differences and isolate the relationship between telework and time use or well-being (Appendix Table A.3).

If there are no differences between groups remaining after controlling for these factors, this would suggest that the relationship can be largely explained by differences in sociodemographic or job characteristics. However, if differences do remain after the models, this suggests that the observed differences in characteristics cannot fully explain time use or well-being patterns, and instead that it may be related to telework status.

This study primarily presents the adjusted daily minutes predicted by regression models that control for socioeconomic confounders.^Note  This estimate represents the predicted daily minutes for a given time use outcome when holding all else constant – that is, as if all three groups of workers did not differ in terms of sociodemographic or job characteristics. For more details about the measures and methods used in this article, see Data, measures, and methods.

End of text box 1

Teleworking at home saved an hour or more per day on commuting

The most prominent difference in time use between those who work on-site and those who telework is commute time, as the ability to work from home reduces or eliminates the need to commute (Morissette et al., 2021; Mehdi & Morissette, 2024).

Indeed, non-teleworkers were predicted to commute for just over an hour (63 minutes) and on-site teleworkers for about 74 minutes (Chart 1), once all else was held constant.

Teleworkers who worked at home, therefore, redistributed over an hour to other activities during the diary day. Apart from their work commute, however, there was no statistically significant difference on average in transportation for other, non-work activities between the groups of teleworkers (Chart 1).

Data table for Chart 1



Data table for chart 1
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for chart 1 Non-teleworkers, On-site teleworkers and WFH teleworkers, calculated using adjusted daily minutes units of measure (appearing as column headers).

	Non-teleworkers	On-site teleworkers	WFH teleworkers
	adjusted daily minutes
Work commute	62.7Note *	74.0Note *	0.9
Other transportation	13.4	16.3	16.2
Note * significantly different (p < 0.05) from reference category (WFH teleworkers) Return to note * referrer Note: “WFH” = work-from-home. The adjusted predicted daily minutes presented above are estimated using separate OLS linear regression models for each time use category, holding all covariates constant (see the Methods section for more details about the analytic strategy). Models control for all diary, sociodemographic, and job characteristics (see the Measures section for a complete list). Confidence intervals are presented in Appendix Table A.6. For more details on the activities included in the primary time use activities, see Appendix Table A.4. Source: Statistics Canada, Time Use Survey, 2022.

Non-teleworkers commuted about 11 minutes less than on-site teleworkers – those who teleworked last week but worked on-site – once accounting for sociodemographic and job characteristics (Chart 1). This may be because, on average, on-site teleworkers were located slightly farther away from their office or worksite than non-teleworkers (7 kilometers more) (results not shown here). On-site teleworkers were also less likely to commute in a private vehicle (76%) than non-teleworkers (82%), on average, and more likely to commute in other ways such as public transit or active transportation (results not shown here).

Both men and women who teleworked at home did more unpaid housework

Unpaid housework is one of the primary areas of time use that may be affected by teleworking at home compared to working on-site at an office or workplace. Those who work from home may be able to reallocate saved time on their commute toward housework. Teleworkers may also be able to complete tasks such as cleaning, laundry, or cooking during the paid workday when at home. Previous findings using time use data from the United States generally show that teleworkers at home do more housework (Pabilonia & Vernon, 2022, 2023; Lyttelton et al., 2022, 2023; Restrepo & Zeballos, 2022).

Working from home was associated with about 16 minutes more in unpaid housework compared to non-teleworkers (Chart 2), once controlling for differences in sociodemographic and job characteristics. This represents a relative difference of about 21% more time in housework on paid workdays for WFH teleworkers (82 predicted minutes) and non-teleworkers (66 predicted minutes).

Data table for Chart 2



Data table for chart 2
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for chart 2 All, 95% confidence intervals, Men+, Women+, lower bound and upper bound, calculated using adjusted daily minutes units of measure (appearing as column headers).

	All	95% confidence intervals		Men+Data table for chart 2 Note 1	95% confidence intervals		Women+Data table for chart 2 Note 1	95% confidence intervals
		lower bound	upper bound		lower bound	upper bound		lower bound	upper bound
	adjusted daily minutes
Non-teleworkersData table for chart 2 Note 2	66.1	58.7	73.5	48.5	41.4	55.6	87.3	80.6	94.0
On-site teleworkersData table for chart 2 Note 2	76.5	70.8	82.2	66.8Note *	59.3	74.3	88.0	79.2	96.8
WFH teleworkersData table for chart 2 Note 2	82.4Note *	74.8	90.0	62.5Note *	52.4	72.6	102.9Note *	91.5	114.3
Note * significantly different (p < 0.05) from reference category (non-teleworkers) Return to note * referrer Note 1 Given that the non-binary population is small, data aggregation to a two-category gender variable is sometimes necessary to protect the confidentiality of responses. In these cases, individuals in the category “non-binary persons” are distributed into the other two gender categories and are denoted by the “+” symbol. Return to note 1 referrer Note 2 Significantly different (p < 0.05) from reference category (men+), for women+. Return to note 2 referrer Note: “WFH” = work-from-home. Error bars represent the 95% confidence interval. The adjusted predicted daily minutes presented above are estimated using separate OLS linear regression models by gender, holding all covariates constant (see the Methods section for more details about the analytic strategy). Models control for all diary, sociodemographic, and job characteristics (see the Measures section for a complete list). For more details on the activities included in the category of housework, see Appendix Table A.4. Source: Statistics Canada, Time Use Survey, 2022.

Given that unpaid housework is a highly gendered activity – with women persistently doing more than men (Moyser & Burlock, 2018) – we might expect that the relationship between teleworking at home and housework may differ for men and women. Some studies contend that men who work from home may be exposed more to the needs of the household, resulting in increased housework (Shafer et al., 2020), whereas others suggest that teleworking could exacerbate women’s unequal responsibility for these tasks (Chung, 2022).

The results showed that both men and women do more housework when working from home, compared to non-teleworkers (14 and 16 minutes more, respectively), once controlling for other factors (Chart 2). However, regardless of telework status, women still do more unpaid housework than men. This contrasts with some previous studies in the United States, which found that the gender gap in housework actually widened for teleworkers (Lyttelton et al., 2022; Pabilonia & Vernon, 2022).

Finally, teleworkers who worked on-site on the diary day were not different in terms of unpaid housework time compared to teleworkers who worked at home. However, this is because there is concealed variation between men and women on-site teleworkers. When all other factors are held constant, men who teleworked in the last week spent the same amount of time in housework – regardless of whether they worked at home or on-site – whereas non-teleworking men spent less. In contrast, women who worked on-site – whether or not they teleworked in the last week – spent the same amount of time in housework compared to those who teleworked from home.^Note 

Parents who teleworked at home spent more time caring for children

Teleworking is often touted as a tool to help parents reconcile competing work and family demands, given their responsibility for caring for children (Chung & van der Lippe, 2020; Wray, 2021). In recent studies on telework using time use data in the U.S., the gender gap in time with children narrows (Lyttelton et al., 2022; Pabilonia & Vernon, 2022, 2023). In particular, teleworking is linked to increased time with children for fathers (Carlson et al., 2021; Pabilonia & Vernon, 2022; Wray, 2021).

Indeed, teleworking at home was associated with more time in childcare activities for parents – those with at least one household child under 18 years old. Parents who teleworked from home spent 35 minutes more on childcare activities than non-teleworkers and 23 minutes more than on-site teleworkers, once accounting for sociodemographic and job characteristics (Table 1).

This difference in childcare time was primarily driven by fathers. Fathers who teleworked from home spent over half an hour more in childcare than non-teleworkers and 22 minutes more than on-site teleworkers, when all else was held constant (Table 1). The difference for mothers in childcare time was not statistically significant once controlling for all characteristics, however.^Note 



Time spent in childcare as a primary activity, however, can underestimate the amount or types of time spent interacting with children (especially older children) as well as time where parents are supervising children (Folbre & Yoon, 2007; Wray et al., 2021). Indeed, previous research on telework more consistently finds large increases in secondary childcare, supervisory care, or time with children (Frazis, 2022; Lyttelton et al., 2023; Pabilonia & Vernon, 2022; Wray, 2021).

Parents who teleworked from home on the paid work diary day spent more co-present time – that is, time where children were present outside of childcare as a primary activity. WFH teleworker parents spent about 41 minutes more co-present time compared to non-teleworkers and 56 minutes more compared to on-site teleworkers, holding all other factors constant (Table 1).^Note  As a whole, then, WFH teleworkers are expected to spend nearly one hour more caring for children – whether co-present with children or actively engaging in childcare – on paid work diary days than non-teleworker or on-site teleworker parents, once accounting for all other factors (Table 1).^Note 

As both fathers and mothers who teleworked from home spent more time with children than the other groups of parents, adjusting for all factors, the gender gap in total time with children does not change based on telework status. At the same time, looking at the total time with children, rather than just time in childcare as a primary activity, illuminates some gendered differences in the types of care time. For example, mothers who teleworked at home spent about an hour more in co-present time with children, compared to non-teleworkers (Table 1), all else held equal. However, fathers who teleworked from home spent more time in both childcare and co-present time compared to non-teleworker fathers, all else held equal (Table 1).

No differences in paid work time by telework status once accounting for job characteristics

The evidence on how teleworking may be associated with paid work hours varies. Past research looking at self-reported or average work hours often finds that teleworking can lead to longer hours and overtime, as boundaries become blurred between work and home (Chung, 2022). Yet, recent time use research on teleworkers in the United States, both pre- and post-pandemic, finds that teleworkers spend less time in paid work on diary days when working from home (Frazis, 2022; Pabilonia & Vernon, 2022; Restrepo & Zeballos, 2022). However, even if the time spent in paid work time may be different, these studies do not measure productivity. Indeed, other research from earlier in the pandemic shows that most Canadians workers generally reported being at least as productive, if not more productive, when working at home (Mehdi & Morisette, 2021a).

Data table for Chart 3



Data table for chart 3
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for chart 3 On-site teleworkers, 95% confidence intervals, WFH teleworkers, lower bound and upper bound, calculated using differences in daily minutes units of measure (appearing as column headers).

	On-site teleworkers	95% confidence intervals		WFH teleworkers	95% confidence intervals
		lower bound	upper bound		lower bound	upper bound
	differences in daily minutes
Unadjusted time	-15.7Note *	-22.8	-8.5	-26.9Note *	-34.9	-19.0
Adjusted time - Sociodemographic characteristics	-14.7	-21.6	-7.7	-27.6Note *	-35.2	-20.0
Adjusted time - Sociodemographic and job characteristics	-3.9	-10.9	3.1	-6.6	-14.1	0.9
Note * significantly different (p < 0.05) from reference category (non-teleworkers) Return to note * referrer Note: “WFH” = work-from-home. Error bars represent the 95% confidence interval. The estimates presented here are the regression coefficients (in daily minutes) for telework status, with the reference category as non-teleworkers. The “unadjusted” difference is the mean difference (see also Appendix Table A.2). The “adjusted – sociodemographic characteristics” difference is estimated using an OLS linear regression model that controls for diary and sociodemographic characteristics. The “adjusted – sociodemographic and job characteristics” difference is estimated using an OLS linear regression model that controls for diary, sociodemographic, and job characteristics. See the Data, measures, and methods section for more details. For more details on the activities included in the category of paid work, see Appendix Table A.4. Source: Statistics Canada, Time Use Survey, 2022.

Chart 3 shows the difference in paid work time on the diary day for WFH teleworkers and on-site teleworkers compared to non-teleworkers (reference category). According to unadjusted mean differences in paid work time, WFH teleworkers work significantly less than non-teleworkers (a 27-minute difference) as do on-site teleworkers (a 16-minute difference) (Chart 3). Controlling for sociodemographic factors does not seem to explain any of this difference (Chart 3).

However, it is likely that these differences in paid work time are due to observed differences in job characteristics. For example, teleworkers are more likely to work in office jobs in select industries (Statistics Canada, 2024a) and are more likely to have flexible schedules (such as regular hours and the ability to vary the start and end times of work) (Appendix Table A.1).

Indeed, once controlling for differences in sociodemographic and job characteristics, there is no longer any statistically significant difference in paid work time (Chart 3). As a result, WFH teleworkers are not expected to work any more or less than on-site teleworkers or non-teleworkers once all else is held constant.

Start of text box 1

Multitasking during paid work time

During the COVID-19 pandemic, popular discourse on teleworking from home mostly focused on the (often negative) perception that teleworkers may be multitasking their paid work with other tasks. Multitasking – doing tasks simultaneously or alternating between them rapidly – is portrayed as a time-management strategy that allows individuals, especially mothers, to squeeze in the multiple demands of work and personal life (Offer & Schneider, 2011). But does the data on multitasking and time use support the popular image of the teleworker doing a load of laundry in between meetings, answering emails on the treadmill, or keeping an eye on their children while working?

To understand differences in multitasking, data on simultaneous activities from the 2022 TUS time diary is used (Appendix Table A.5). Respondents are asked “Were you doing anything else at the same time?” for all activities except essential sleep. Participation in multitasking activities (i.e., reporting the simultaneous activity at all during paid work time) is reported rather than the duration in daily minutes due to measurement limitations.^Note  Due to sample size restrictions, the analysis below groups together workers based on their work location on the diary day. Those who did paid work “at the workplace” include both non-teleworkers and on-site teleworkers (those who teleworked last week), and those that did work “at home” include WFH teleworkers.

Teleworkers who worked at home were more likely to multitask during their paid work time, compared to those who worked on-site at the workplace on the diary day. The probability of multitasking during paid work time was 56% for those who worked at home compared to 45% for those who worked at a workplace, when all sociodemographic and job characteristics were held constant. Women also remained more likely than men to multitask during paid work time, so the gender gap remained regardless of whether they worked at the workplace or at home (results not shown). 

Data table for Chart 4



Data table for chart 4
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for chart 4 At the workplace, 95% confidence intervals, At home, lower bound and upper bound, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).

	At the workplace	95% confidence intervals		At home	95% confidence intervals
		lower bound	upper bound		lower bound	upper bound
	percent
Eating or drinking	12.9	10.9	14.9	17.8Note *	14.6	21.0
Unpaid housework	2.9	1.5	4.3	9.6Note *	6.9	12.3
Unpaid care (parents only)Data table for chart 4 Note 1	2.5	1.3	3.7	13.1Note *	7.4	18.8
Socializing	12.6	10.4	14.8	6.8Note *	4.3	9.3
Leisure	6.4	5.0	7.8	10.6Note *	7.3	13.9
Note * significantly different (p < 0.05) from reference category (at the workplace) Return to note * referrer Note 1 The predicted probability for unpaid care activities during paid work is presented only for parents, i.e., those with at least one household child under the age of 18 years old, similar to other analyses for care in this study. Return to note 1 referrer Notes: Error bars represent the 95% confidence interval. The predicted probabilities presented above are estimated using separate logistic regression models for each simultaneous activity category, holding all covariates constant (see the Methods section for more details about the analytic strategy). Models control for all diary, sociodemographic, and job characteristics (see the Measures section for a complete list). For more details on the activities included in the simultaneous time use categories, see Appendix Table A.5. Source: Statistics Canada, Time Use Survey, 2022.

Some of the multitasking during paid work is expected and normal for both on-site work and work at home. For example, the most common activity to multitask was eating or drinking. Those who teleworked at home were 5 percentage points more likely that those who worked at the workplace to eat or drink during paid work, once accounting for sociodemographic and job characteristics (Chart 4). They were also more likely to do leisure activities simultaneously while working, such as reading, watching TV, or listening to music. In contrast, those who worked at the workplace were about 6 percentage points more likely to socialize – whether in-person or virtually – during paid work than those who worked at home (Chart 4), when all else was held equal.

Beyond common tasks such as eating or listening to music, one aspect of multitasking that is often linked to working from home is the ability to combine paid work and unpaid housework and care at home. Studies have shown that those who worked from home were more likely to multitask their job tasks and home or family tasks than those who worked at a workplace (Schieman & Young, 2015).

Indeed, this study also found that teleworking from home was associated with a higher likelihood of doing unpaid housework or care responsibilities simultaneously during paid work. Teleworkers at home were 7 percentage points more likely than those who worked at the workplace to do unpaid housework simultaneously with paid work, when all other characteristics are held equal (10% vs. 3%).

For parents specifically, those who worked at home were 10 percentage points more likely to multitask unpaid care during their paid work, controlling for all other factors. Holding all else constant, the predicted probability for doing unpaid care and paid work simultaneously was 13% for parents.

End of text box 1

Working at home was associated with more time sleeping and eating, but less time doing personal care

Past research on time use and teleworking suggests that the time saved on commuting may be reallocated toward self-care activities that could enhance work-life balance and well-being, such as more sleep and time in meals (Frazis, 2022; Pabilonia & Vernon, 2022; Restrepo & Zeballos, 2022).

Interestingly, working from home was associated with less time in personal care activities, such as personal hygiene, grooming, or getting dressed (Appendix Table A.4). Teleworkers from home spent 24 minutes less in personal care than non-teleworkers and 17 minutes less than on-site teleworkers, once accounting for sociodemographic and job characteristics. Past studies have speculated that this may be due to lower pressure on those working from home to spend time on these personal care activities, compared to those who must be on-site at an office or workplace (Frazis, 2022; Pabilonia & Vernon, 2022; Restrepo & Zeballos, 2022).

Working from home was also associated with more time spent in meals (or eating and drinking). On average, teleworkers who worked at home on the diary day reported about 9 minutes more time eating than non-teleworkers and 14 minutes more than on-site teleworkers, holding all else constant (Chart 5). There was no statistically significant difference between on-site teleworkers and non-teleworkers.

Data table for Chart 5



Data table for chart 5
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for chart 5 Non-teleworkers, 95% confidence intervals, On-site teleworkers, WFH teleworkers, lower bound and upper bound, calculated using adjusted
daily minutes units of measure (appearing as column headers).

	Non-teleworkers	95% confidence intervals		On-site teleworkers	95% confidence intervals		WFH teleworkers	95% confidence intervals
		lower bound	upper bound		lower bound	upper bound		lower bound	upper bound
	adjusted daily minutes
Personal care	57.1Note *	49.1	65.2	50.6Note *	42.4	58.7	33.3	25.9	40.7
Meals	65.3Note *	61.6	69.0	60.4Note *	53.9	66.9	74.5	65.0	84.0
Note * significantly different (p < 0.05) from reference category (WFH teleworkers) Return to note * referrer Note: “WFH” = work-from-home. Error bars represent the 95% confidence interval. The adjusted predicted daily minutes presented above are estimated using separate OLS linear regression models for each time use category, holding all covariates constant (see the Methods section for more details about the analytic strategy). Models control for all diary, sociodemographic, and job characteristics (see the Measures section for a complete list). For more details on the activities included in the categories of personal care and meals, see Appendix Table A.4. Source: Statistics Canada, Time Use Survey, 2022.

Finally, teleworkers who worked from home slept for about 23 minutes more compared to non-teleworkers and 19 minutes more than on-site teleworkers, once accounting for different sociodemographic and job characteristics (Appendix Table A.3). Although not examined in this study, US research suggests that this increase in sleep may also be due to waking hours shifting on days working from home, leading to later wake-up times (Pabilonia & Vernon, 2022).

More time in both passive and active leisure for teleworkers who worked at home

Teleworking from home may also facilitate more free time, which studies often link to time gained from not needing to commute. Past research shows that working at home is linked to more time in passive leisure, such as watching TV or using the computer (Pabilonia & Vernon, 2022; Frazis, 2022). The evidence on active leisure – such as exercising or playing sports – is less clear.

Overall, teleworking from home was associated with more leisure time compared to when working on-site. Teleworkers at home on the diary day spent about half an hour more in leisure activities, compared to both on-site teleworkers and non-teleworkers, holding all else equal (Chart 6). This greater amount of time in leisure was observed for passive leisure activities – such as reading, watching TV, or computer use – as well as active leisure activities – such as physically active activities like organized or recreational sports, exercise, or outdoor activities; or other active activities like hobbies, art, or playing games (see Appendix Table A.4).

Data table for Chart 6



Data table for chart 6
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for chart 6 Non-teleworkers, On-site teleworkers and WFH teleworkers, calculated using adjusted daily minutes units of measure (appearing as column headers).

	Non-teleworkers	On-site teleworkers	WFH teleworkers
	adjusted daily minutes
Active leisure	18.1Note *	19.1Note *	28.6
Passive leisure	86.7Note *	88.6Note *	109.4
Note * significantly different (p < 0.05) from reference category (WFH teleworkers) Return to note * referrer Note: “WFH” = work-from-home. The adjusted predicted daily minutes presented above are estimated using separate OLS linear regression models for each time use category, holding all covariates constant (see the Methods section for more details about the analytic strategy). Models control for all diary, sociodemographic, and job characteristics (see the Measures section for a complete list). Confidence intervals are presented in Appendix Table A.6. For more details on the activities included in the category of leisure, see Appendix Table A.4. Source: Statistics Canada, Time Use Survey, 2022.

Holding all other characteristics constant, WFH teleworkers are predicted to spend just under 2 hours (110 minutes) in passive leisure activities, whereas non-teleworkers and on-site teleworkers are predicted to spend about 1.5 hours (Chart 6). This is about 23 minutes more than non-teleworkers and 21 minutes more than on-site teleworkers, all else held constant. Most of this difference in passive leisure was due to TV-watching, specifically (Appendix Table A.3).

In addition, when working from home, teleworkers spent about 10 to 11 minutes more daily in active leisure activities when all else was held equal (Chart 6) compared to non-teleworkers and on-site teleworkers, respectively. Although the actual number of minutes allocated to active leisure activities was smaller, the relative increase in average time was larger (a 58% difference for active leisure versus a 26% difference for passive leisure for WFH teleworkers versus non-teleworkers).

Teleworkers who worked from home were more satisfied with their work-life balance

Although telework is often positioned as a tool for work-life balance, the relationship between the flexibility of working from home and well-being is in fact a “paradox” (Chung, 2022). On the one hand, telework can be a desirable job attribute – particularly those in jobs where telework is feasible. In this light, telework is framed as allowing workers to juggle demands of work and family or personal life, reduce long commutes and financial costs, and perhaps allocate time use differently in general, as described above.

On the other hand, working from home can lead to eroded boundaries – both physical and mental – between work and life, leading to increased role conflict or strain, especially with information and communication technologies (ICTs) that allow workers to be always reachable. Part of this is attributable to time use: working at home may lead to an encroachment of paid work into family life, or it can also expand the expectation and burden of unpaid housework and care, especially on women. How telework may be associated with work-life balance and time pressure, then, is complex (Charalampous et al., 2019; Chung & van der Lippe, 2020; Chung, 2022; Kim et al., 2019).

Data table for Chart 7



Data table for chart 7
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for chart 7 Non-teleworkers, 95% confidence intervals, On-site teleworkers, WFH teleworkers, lower bound and upper bound, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).

	Non-teleworkers	95% confidence intervals		On-site teleworkers	95% confidence intervals		WFH teleworkers	95% confidence intervals
		lower bound	upper bound		lower bound	upper bound		lower bound	upper bound
	percent
Very dissatisfied	3.2	2.2	4.1	3.4	2.2	4.6	1.8	1.1	2.4
Dissatisfied	13.9Note *	11.8	16.1	14.7Note *	11.1	18.2	8.8	6.8	10.8
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	27.0Note *	24.5	29.4	27.6Note *	24.4	30.8	21.1	17.9	24.3
Satisfied	39.5Note *	36.6	42.4	38.9Note *	34.8	42.9	43.0	39.8	46.2
Very satisfied	16.4Note *	14.0	18.8	15.6Note *	12.0	19.1	25.3	20.7	29.9
Note * significantly different (p < 0.05) from reference category (WFH teleworkers) Return to note * referrer Notes: “WFH” = work-from-home. Error bars represent the 95% confidence interval. The predicted probabilities presented above are estimated using an ordered logistic regression model with the outcome of satisfaction with work-life balance, holding all covariates constant (see the Methods section for more details about the analytic strategy). Models control for all diary, sociodemographic, and job characteristics (see the Measures section for a complete list). Source: Statistics Canada, Time Use Survey, 2022.

On average, teleworkers who worked from home on the diary day reported being more satisfied with their work-life balance compared to both on-site teleworkers and non-teleworkers (results for mean differences not shown here). Once adjusting for sociodemographic and job factors that may also be associated with work-life balance, this relationship remained largely the same. WFH teleworkers were 12 percentage points more likely than non-teleworkers and 14 points more likely than on-site teleworkers to be satisfied or very satisfied with their work-life balance, holding all else constant (Chart 7). This was primarily driven by the greater likelihood, when all else was held equal, of WFH teleworkers to be “very satisfied” and the lesser likelihood of being “dissatisfied”, compared to other groups of workers (Chart 7).

On-site teleworkers report higher levels of time pressure overall compared to both WFH teleworkers and non-teleworkers

An additional measure of well-being related to telework and time use is how teleworkers and non-teleworkers may differently experience time pressure. If working from home allows teleworkers to reallocate their commute time or better manage work and home demands, it is expected that levels of time pressure would be lower. In contrast, if working from home is associated with blurring between work and family roles as well as the pressure to multitask, it is possible there would be no difference – or even higher levels of time pressure.

Data table for Chart 8



Data table for chart 8
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for chart 8 Non-teleworkers, 95% confidence intervals, On-site teleworkers, WFH teleworkers, lower bound and upper bound, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).

	Non-teleworkers	95% confidence intervals		On-site teleworkers	95% confidence intervals		WFH teleworkers	95% confidence intervals
		lower bound	upper bound		lower bound	upper bound		lower bound	upper bound
	percent
Not enough time with family or friends	58.9Note *	55.3	62.4	66.1	59.5	72.7	55.8Note *	50.0	61.5
Cuts back on sleep	60.3Note *	56.8	63.7	64.2	56.9	71.4	49.5Note *	43.2	55.7
Constantly under stress	51.2Note *	47.7	54.8	59.4	52.9	65.8	50.7Note *	44.9	56.5
Note * significantly different (p < 0.05) from reference category (on-site teleworkers) Return to note * referrer Notes: “WFH” = work-from-home. Error bars represent the 95% confidence interval. The predicted probabilities presented above are estimated using separate logistic regression models for each measure of time pressure, holding all covariates constant (see the Methods section for more details about the analytic strategy). Models control for all diary, sociodemographic, and job characteristics (see the Measures section for a complete list). Source: Statistics Canada, Time Use Survey, 2022.

Interestingly, on-site teleworkers were most likely to feel time pressure across various dimensions than both WFH teleworkers and non-teleworkers. For example, once accounting for sociodemographic and job characteristics, on-site teleworkers were 10 percentage points more likely than WFH teleworkers and 7 percentage points more likely than non-teleworkers to be worried that they did not spend enough time with their family and friends (Chart 8).

On-site teleworkers were also 8 percentage points more likely to report constantly being under stress trying to accomplish more than they could handle compared to both non-teleworkers and WFH teleworkers, once controlling for all other factors. In addition, both on-site teleworkers and non-teleworkers were more likely than WFH teleworkers to report cutting back on sleep when they needed more time. Holding all else constant, on-site teleworkers were estimated to be 15 percentage points more likely than WFH teleworkers and 4 percentage points more likely than non-teleworkers to say they cut back on sleep.

The reasons for this difference in perceptions of time pressure for on-site teleworkers is not fully explained in this study. Research on the impacts of hybrid work is an emerging area of evidence (e.g., Bloom et al., 2023; Fan & Moen, 2023), especially as fewer employees work fully remotely compared to the beginning of the pandemic during lockdown restrictions. Future research is needed to investigate these ‘on-site’ teleworkers – who may be more likely to have hybrid schedules – including how the type of work they do may account for differing perceptions of time.

Conclusion

After a sharp increase in telework during the COVID-19 pandemic, many workers continued to work partly or exclusively from home in 2022 and 2023 (e.g., Statistics Canada, 2024a). Teleworking from home has the potential to shift the daily activities of workers and possibly enhance well-being, but it may also blur boundaries between work and home, leading to longer work hours, inequalities in work and care responsibilities, and decreased well-being (e.g., Chung & van der Lippe, 2020).

Using new data from the 2022 Time Use Survey, this study finds that teleworking is associated with how Canadian employees spend their days across a number of different dimensions of time use. These different patterns can be seen even after accounting for differences between teleworkers and non-teleworkers in terms of sociodemographic characteristics or the types of jobs held.

Notably, teleworkers who worked from home on the diary day saved more than an hour per day in commuting to and from paid work, compared to non-teleworkers and on-site teleworkers. Instead, WFH teleworkers spent more time sleeping and eating, doing active and passive leisure activities, and doing unpaid housework, once controlling for socioeconomic factors. In addition, parents who teleworked at home spent more time co-present with and actively caring for their children, all else equal. Further, there are no differences in paid work time, once accounting for the different types of jobs held by teleworkers and non-teleworkers. Those who worked at home were more likely to report any multitasking during their paid work activities, such as eating or doing unpaid work or care as a simultaneous activity, but were less likely to socialize simultaneously during work time.

Furthermore, teleworking at home is associated with higher work-life balance and lower levels of time pressure. For example, WFH teleworkers have higher predicted levels of satisfaction with their work-life balance on average compared to on-site teleworkers and non-teleworkers, once controlling for differences in sociodemographic and job characteristics.

Surprisingly, on-site teleworkers – who teleworked the week before the diary day, but worked on-site on the diary day – were more likely to have higher levels of time pressure than both non-teleworkers and WFH teleworkers. Accounting for differences in sociodemographic and job characteristics does not explain this association. The reasons for this difference are unclear. Perhaps the slightly longer commute time observed for on-site teleworkers may contribute to time pressure. Or, it is possible that on-site teleworkers are more likely to have hybrid schedules, and that the lack of stability in alternating between work and home may contribute to increased time pressure (e.g., see discussion in Fan & Moen, 2023). Future research should investigate more on the impacts of various hybrid work schedules on time strain and other measures of well-being.

There are several limitations of this study that should be noted. First, the 2022 TUS cannot fully distinguish the frequency of working from home, nor precisely identify hybrid and fully remote workers, due to the types of questions asked and to the reference to the “last week” in the survey. Second, as the sample size of teleworkers on diary days involving paid work is limited, further exploration of heterogeneity between different groups of teleworkers (e.g., by gender, age, racialized group, disability status, etc.) is not possible. Third, as diaries in the 2022 TUS are only collected from one respondent per household, it is not possible to explore whether the time use of others in the household are affected.

Fourth, this study does not examine the timing of the different activities. It is possible that WFH teleworkers shift time saved on commuting to other activities – such as sleep or childcare, as other research shows (e.g., Pabilonia & Vernon, 2022). When at home, teleworkers might also be able to do tasks like housework or exercise in between paid work or on breaks. Yet at the same time, paid work time is not different for WFH teleworkers. The blurred boundaries of teleworking may mean that paid work encroaches on home life (Chung & van der Lippe, 2020). For example, work may be more fragmented (Pabilonia & Vernon, 2022) – such as outside of ‘core hours’, in the early morning or later in the evening – than when working on-site. Finally, it is important to note that the analyses on simultaneous activities do not estimate for how long the multitasking lasted; future research is needed.

Overall, this study contributes to our knowledge of how the shifting reality of teleworking may impact the lives of Canadians. This study is the first using time use data in Canada to study telework since the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings presented here align broadly with similar patterns found in recent research from other countries such as the U.S. (Frazis, 2022; Pabilonia & Vernon, 2022; Restrepo & Zeballos, 2022). In all, once accounting for differences in the discrepant likelihood of teleworking for different groups and types of jobs, teleworking at home appears to be linked to different patterns of time in daily life.

Data, measures, and methods

Data

The 2022 Time Use Survey (TUS) is a cross-sectional survey with a target population consisting of non-institutionalized persons and non-residents of First Nations reserves, aged 15 and over, living in the 10 provinces. Data collection took place between July 2022 and July 2023. Responses were gathered by self-administered electronic questionnaires and computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI). The response rate of the survey was 31% and the full sample was 12,336 respondents.

The TUS collects a 24-hour diary that retrospectively collects all activities done by a respondent starting at 4 a.m. on a designated reference day (the “diary day”) and ending at 4 a.m. the next day. Activities had a minimum duration of 5 minutes. For each activity, information was collected on what the respondent was doing (“primary activity”), the duration in minutes, what else the respondent was doing (“simultaneous activity”), where it took place, and who else was present during the activity.

Sample

This study compares teleworkers to non-teleworkers using two separate measures from the 2022 Time Use Survey (see Measuring telework and time use for more details). First, in the survey questionnaire, questions about teleworking were asked to respondents whose main activity in the last week was working at a paid job^Note  and who were employees (not self-employed). Teleworkers are those who reported teleworking from home, a co-working space, or another location in the last week.^Note  Second, following recent studies on telework and time use data (e.g., Frazis, 2022; Lyttelton et al. 2022, 2023; Pabilonia & Vernon, 2022), the location of paid work^Note  on the diary day is identified from the time use diary.

Telework status is thus defined as three categories: 1) non-teleworkers, or those who did not report any teleworking in the last week and who did paid work at their workplace (or travelled on business) on the diary day^Note ; 2) “on-site” teleworkers, who teleworked in the last week but who did paid work on-site^Note  on the diary day; and 3) work-from-home (“WFH”) teleworkers, who teleworked in the last week and did paid work at home^Note  on the diary day.

Measures

This study examines several selected categories of time use as a primary activity, including: sleep, personal care, meals, paid work, housework, leisure (including active and passive activities), and transportation (including commuting to work and other transportation) (see Appendix Table A.4). Only time use categories that varied by telework status are presented. For parents, time with children is captured using three measures: childcare time (childcare as a primary activity), co-present time (when parents reported a household child of any age was present during activities other than sleep, personal care, or childcare), and total time (the sum of co-present time and childcare time).

This study also explores selected categories of simultaneous activities to measure multitasking, including: eating, unpaid housework, unpaid care, socializing, and leisure (see Appendix Table A.5 for details). As the 2022 TUS does not collect the exact amount of time in simultaneous activities, only participation in these activities is analyzed.

In addition, a number of variables are used in regression models (see Methods, below) to adjust for relevant differences in characteristics between groups that may be related to both the propensity to telework as well as time use patterns. First, diary characteristics include if the diary was collected in the summer, on a weekend, on an ‘atypical’ day, and the mode of collection (telephone interview and electronic questionnaire). Second, sociodemographic characteristics include gender^Note , age, presence of a spouse or partner in the household, parental status (i.e., having at least one own household child under 18 years old), educational attainment, racialized vs. non-racialized group, immigrant status, disability status^Note , rural area, and region of Canada. For analyses specifically focusing on parents, the age of the youngest child was also included. Third, job characteristics included having a regular schedule, having the flexibility to vary start and end times, usual paid work hours at all jobs, holding a single versus multiple jobs in the past 12 months, occupation (National Occupation Classification two-digit codes)^Note , and industry sector (North American Industry Classification System four-digit codes). Further details on the measurement of these variables, as well as the distribution of these characteristics in the analytic sample used in this study, are presented in Appendix Table A.1.

Methods

This study uses multivariate regression analyses to examine the associations between telework and time use, as well as telework and well-being. These models are used to control for compositional effects (e.g., differences in socioeconomic characteristics and job types) between groups, to attempt to isolate the link between telework status and time use – the primary research question of this study. As such, this study presents primarily these adjusted differences. Unadjusted mean differences for time use outcomes are presented in Appendix Table A.2 for reference.

Ordinary least squares (OLS) linear regression models^Note  were estimated separately for each time use category; where applicable, models were estimated separately by gender. Ordered logistic regression models were estimated for the outcome of work-life balance (Chart 7). Logistic regression models were estimated separately for each individual measure of time pressure (Chart 8). All models were estimated by sequentially adding in three blocks of variables: 1) diary characteristics, 2) sociodemographic characteristics, and 3) job characteristics (see Measures for details). The coefficients for the independent variable of interest, telework status, are summarized in Appendix Table A.3.

Models with all three blocks of variables were then used to predict adjusted estimates of the dependent variable, holding all control variables at mean values of the whole sample of all eligible workers.^Note  For time use outcomes, these adjusted estimates should be interpreted as predicted daily minutes for a WFH teleworker, on-site teleworker, or non-teleworker holding all other characteristics constant – that is, if these three groups of workers did not vary in terms of sociodemographic and job characteristics. In the study, this is often referred to as “accounting for,” “adjusting for,” “holding constant,” or “all else equal.”

This study focuses on presenting the adjusted predicted outcomes for two primary reasons. First, this facilitates the presentation and interpretation of results from numerous separate models. Second, the primary focus of this study is concerned with the association between telework status and time use or well-being, net of compositional effects. Presenting the predicted minutes also follows previous research on this topic using time use data (e.g., Lyttelton et al., 2022, 2023; Pabilonia & Vernon, 2022, 2023).

All estimates in this study used population weights and bootstrap weights from the TUS 2022. Following best practices at Statistics Canada, the sampling error of the estimate is reported through its 95% confidence interval (Statistics Canada, 2024c). This can be interpreted as such: if the survey was repeated many times, then 95% of the time (or 19 times out of 20), the interval would cover the true population value.

Appendix

     

References

Bloom, N., Han, R., & Liang, J. How hybrid working from home works out (NBER Working Paper no. 30292). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2022). Microeconometrics using Stata: Volume 1: Cross-Sectional and Panel Regression Methods (2nd ed., Vol. 1). Stata Press.

Carlson, D. L., Petts, R. J., & Pepin, J. R. (2021). Flexplace Work and Partnered Fathers’ Time in Housework and Childcare. Men and Masculinities 24(4):547–70.

Charalampous, M., Grant, C. A., Tramontano, C., & Michailidis, E. (2019). Systematically reviewing remote e-workers’ well-being at work: A multidimensional approach. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28(1), 51-73.

Clarke, S., & Hardy, V. (2022). Working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic: How rates in Canada and the United States compare.Economic and Social Reports, 2(8). Statistics Canada catalogue no. 36-28-0001.

Cornelissen, L. (2024). What is the connection between working from home and the languages used at work?Insights on Canadian Society. Statistics Canada catalogue no. 75-006-x.

Chung, H., & van der Lippe, T. (2020). Flexible Working, Work–Life Balance, and Gender Equality: Introduction. Social Indicators Research, 151, 365-381.

Chung, H. (2022). The Flexibility Paradox: Why Flexible Working Leads to (Self-) Exploitation. Bristol University Press, United Kingdom.

Fan, W., & Moen, P. (2023). Ongoing remote work, returning to working at work, or in between during COVID-19: What promotes subjective well-being?Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 64(1), 152-171.

Folbre, N., & J. Yoon. (2007). What Is Child Care? Lessons from Time-Use Surveys of Major English-Speaking Countries. Review of Economics of the Household, 5(3), 223– 48.

Frazis, H. (2022). Is telecommuting family friendly? Evidence from the American Time Use Survey. Journal of Time Use Research 17(1), 23-44.

International Labour Organization [ILO]. (2020). Defining and measuring remote work, telework, work at home and home-based work. COVID-19: Guidance for labour statistics data collection. ILO technical note, June 5.

Kim, J., Henly, J. R., Golden, L. M., & Lambert, S. J. (2019). Workplace flexibility and worker well-being by gender. Journal of Marriage and Family 82(3), 892-910.

Lyttelton, T., Zang, E., & Musick, K. (2022). Telecommuting and gender inequalities in parents’ paid and unpaid work before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Marriage and Family, 84(1), 230–249.

Lyttelton, T., Zang, E., & Musick, K. (2023). Parents’ work arrangements and gendered time use during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Marriage and Family, 85(2), 657–673.

Mehdi, T., & Morissette, R. (2021a). Working from home: Productivity and preferences. StatCan COVID-19: Data to Insights for a Better Canada. Statistics Canada, catalogue no. 45-28-001.

Mehdi, T., & Morissette, R. (2021b). Working from home in Canada: What have we learned so far? Economic and Social Reports, Economic and Social Reports, 1(10). Statistics Canada catalogue no. 36-28-0001.

Mehdi, T., & Morissette, R. (2022). The long-term wage growth of teleworkers before the COVID-19 pandemic. Economic and Social Reports, Economic and Social Reports, 2(5). Statistics Canada catalogue no. 36-28-0001.

Mehdi, T., & Morissette, R. (2024). Working from home and public transit use in Canada, 2016 to 2023. Economic and Social Reports, 4(1). Statistics Canada catalogue no. 36-28-0001.

Morissette, R., Deng, Z., & Messacar, D. (2021). Working from home: Potential implications for public transit and greenhouse gas emissions. Economic and Social Reports, 1(4). Statistics Canada catalogue no. 36-28-0001.

Morisette, R., Hardy, V., & Zolkiewski, V. (2023). Working Most Hours from Home: New Estimates for January to April 2022. Analytical Studies Branch Research Paper Series. Statistics Canada catalogue no. 11F0019M.

Moyser, M., & Burlock, A. (2018). Time use: Total work burden, unpaid work, and leisure. Women in Canada: A gender-based statistical report. Statistics Canada catalogue no. 89-503-X.

Offer, S., & Schneider, B. (2011). Revisiting the Gender Gap in Time-Use Patterns: Multitasking and Well-Being among Mothers and Fathers in Dual-Earner Families. American Sociological Review, 76(6), 809-833.

Pabilonia, S. W., & Vernon, V. (2022). Telework, Wages, and Time Use in the United States.Review of Economics of the Household 20, 687–734

Pabilonia, S. W., & Vernon, V. (2023). Who is doing the chores and childcare in dual-earner couples during the COVID-19 era of working from home? Review of Economics of the Household 21(2), 519-565.

Restrepo, B. J., & Zeballos, E. (2022). Work from home and daily time allocations: Evidence from the coronavirus pandemic. Review of Economics of the Household 2, 735-758.

Savage, K., & Turcotte, M. (2020). Commuting to work during COVID-19. StatCan COVID-19: Data to Insights for a Better Canada. Statistics Canada, catalogue no. 45-28-001.

Schieman, S., & Young, M. (2015). Who Engages in Work–Family Multitasking? A Study of Canadian and American Workers. Social Indicators Research 120, 741–767.

Shafer, K., Scheibling, C., & Milkie, M. A. (2020). The division of domestic labor before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada: Stagnation versus shifts in fathers’ contributions. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie, 57, 523-549.

Statistics Canada. (2024a). Research to Insights: Working from home in Canada. Statistics Canada catalogue no. 11-631-X.

Statistics Canada. (2024b). Labour Force Survey, February 2024. The Daily, March 8.

Statistics Canada. (2024c). Time Use 2022 Microdata User Guide.

Stewart, J. (2013). Tobit or Not Tobit? Journal of Economic and Social Measurement, 38(3), 263-290.

Turcotte, M. (2010). Working at home: An update. Canadian Social Trends no. 91. Statistics Canada catalogue no. 11-008-X.

Williams, R. (2012). Using the Margins Command to Estimate and Interpret Adjusted Predictions and Marginal Effects. The Stata Journal 12(2), 308-331.

Wray, D. (2021). More Time with the Family? Workplace Flexibility Policies and Fathers’ Time with Children. SocArXiv.

Wray, D., Ingenfeld, J., Milkie, M. A., & Boeckmann, I. (2021). Beyond childcare: Changes in the amount and types of parent–child time over three decades. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie, 58(3), 327-351.