This systematic review examines the impact of work–family conflict on health behaviors, suggesting solutions to enhance well-being.
As family structures and workforce compositions evolve, individuals increasingly navigate multiple roles across work and family domains. Despite growing research interest, a comprehensive synthesis examining the relationship between work–family conflict and health behaviors remains absent. This systematic review and meta-analysis addresses this significant gap by quantifying associations between work–family conflict and five important health behaviors: sleep disturbances, smoking behaviors, alcohol consumption, physical activity levels, and healthy diet. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science) were searched. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed using forest plots, I2, Cochran’s Q-statistics, Funnel plots, and the Egger test, respectively. A total of 33 articles were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Work–family conflict had a small-to-medium positive association with sleep disturbances (r = 0.188; 95% CI [0.128, 0.247]); a negative association with healthy diet (r = −0.129; 95% CI [−0.219, −0.037]); and a modest and positive association with smoking behaviors (r = 0.082; 95% CI [0.033, 0.206]) and alcohol consumption (r = 0.074; 95% CI [0.039, 0.109]). The findings of this study suggest that individual, family, and organizational strategies reducing work–family conflict may facilitate the development and adoption of healthier behaviors, such as improving sleep and dietary practices. This study enhances understanding of work–family conflict’s relationship with health behaviors, bridging the management and occupational health psychology literature with the general and public health literature by systematically examining, for the first time, how work–family conflicts impair personal health behaviors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peng et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: