Using latent profile analysis, a person-centered statistical technique that sorts individuals into subgroups with similar response patterns, the researchers identified three longitudinal profiles of mental well-being that differed mainly in level rather than in shape: a high profile with 134 participants (23.06 percent), a medium profile with 228 participants (39.02 percent), and a low profile with 221 participants (37.92 percent). The largest share of employees sat in the middle group throughout.

Repeated-measures analyses across the five time points found no significant overall changes in well-being, indicating time-invariant stability of the profiles. The only significant pairwise change appeared between the first measurement (T1, June/July 2019, before the pandemic) and the third (T3, June/July 2020, the first normalization phase), and only for the high well-being group, which showed a significant increase. By the final wave in late 2021, well-being across all three profiles sat at levels similar to those recorded in April 2020, at the height of the first wave.

This stability runs counter to a body of variable-centered research reporting worsened mental health in Germany and Austria during the same period, and it contrasts with person-centered studies from the pandemic’s first year that identified anywhere from two to five distinct mental health trajectories, including groups that recovered, declined or deteriorated steadily. The authors suggest the persistence of individual differences may reflect the adaptation theory of well-being, which holds that people differ in their well-being set points and tend to return to relatively stable levels as they adjust to major life events. Even one of the most prolonged crises in recent history, the findings imply, may not fundamentally reshape the well-being patterns that distinguish employees from one another.

Where the study becomes most informative is in its analysis of what predicted membership in the higher or lower profiles.

The results reveal a striking shift in which factors mattered. Before the pandemic, high qualitative underload at work and high emotional home demands consistently predicted a higher likelihood of belonging to lower well-being profiles, and these associations grew more pronounced during the pandemic. Colleagues’ support, a significant predictor before the pandemic, lost its predictive power entirely once remote work took hold, plausibly because reduced social contact made strong workplace connections harder to sustain. Meanwhile, three home-related factors emerged as significant for the first time: employees with higher home developmental possibilities, higher mental home demands and higher home social support during the pandemic were more likely to belong to the higher well-being subgroups.

The finding on mental home demands, which involve cognitive tasks such as planning family events and organizing household activities, appears counterintuitive but fits a broader pattern. The authors suggest that such demands can give structure and meaning to leisure time, keeping people occupied and reducing boredom. Home developmental possibilities, such as being able to develop talents during free time, may have benefited from freed-up commuting time that employees redirected toward activities like exercise, hiking and other leisure pursuits. Home social support, the researchers argue, may have compensated for the support employees could no longer draw from colleagues and supervisors, with those living with partners or families better positioned to adapt to work and non-work changes. Employees living alone, by contrast, faced greater loneliness and isolation during social distancing.

The crafting results add further nuance. Off-job crafting, in which people proactively shape their non-work time to meet psychological needs such as detachment, relaxation, mastery and autonomy, predicted belonging to higher rather than lower well-being profiles across all subgroups before the pandemic. During the pandemic, however, it only distinguished between the high and medium profiles, suggesting its protective relevance narrowed under restrictive conditions. Job crafting, the work-domain equivalent, showed no significant association with profile membership in either period, although wave-specific analyses revealed it gained predictive power from the second pandemic wave onward, possibly because employees had more opportunity to shape their work as routines became established. The authors interpret the weaker role of both crafting strategies as evidence that employees relied more on available resources, including social support and home-based activities, than on proactive self-regulation during the crisis.

The study has clear limitations that the authors acknowledge. Latent profile analysis is sample-specific, and the findings from German-speaking employees in three countries cannot be generalized to other cultures or to regions with different pandemic policies. The sample skewed toward Germany, with 85.81 percent of participants living there, and toward older workers, with an average age of 48.41 years. Attrition was substantial, with many participants dropping out during the pandemic, though the authors report that attrition analyses indicated only minor non-random sampling concerns.

For organizations navigating hybrid work, the practical message is that the non-work domain deserves at least as much attention as the job itself. The authors recommend family-supportive policies, flexible work arrangements that protect leisure time, boundary-management interventions that help employees separate work from private life, and in-office social days to provide the instrumental and emotional support that home environments cannot always supply, particularly for employees living alone. As remote and hybrid arrangements continue to blur the line between work and home, the study suggests that what happens outside working hours, from family support to skill-building hobbies, may be as decisive for mental well-being as anything that happens at the desk.

Subject of Research: Longitudinal mental well-being profiles of employees during the COVID-19 pandemic and their work and home demands, resources and crafting antecedents in Germany, Switzerland and Austria

Article Title: Mental well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic and its antecedents of crafting, work and home demands and resources: longitudinal profile analyses in Germany, Switzerland and Austria

Article References: Ho, K. L., de Bloom, J., Kerksieck, P., Mäkikangas, A., & F. Bauer, G. (2026). Mental well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic and its antecedents of crafting, work and home demands and resources: longitudinal profile analyses in Germany, Switzerland and Austria. Current Psychology, 45(21), 1662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-026-10217-2

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s12144-026-10217-2

Keywords: mental well-being, COVID-19 pandemic, remote work, latent profile analysis, job demands-resources model, off-job crafting, home social support, work-life boundaries, DACH region, longitudinal study, employee well-being, hybrid work