Thousands of Workers Tried a 4-Day Week—the Impact on Their Health Was Clear
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
A four-day workweek with no reduction in pay improves both workers' health and overall job performance and satisfaction, according to a new study.
Working norms were reshaped by the COVID-19 pandemic five years ago, making remote work a necessity for some amid lockdowns. But it also exposed widespread burnout and disengagement among workers across most markets.
In response, some companies began offering reduced hours with full pay. Initiatives like '4 Day Week Global' are aimed at reshaping post pandemic work to meet employees' needs without compromising their companies' interests.
The study—led by Boston College researchers Wen Fan and Juliet Schor—tracked 2,896 employees across 141 organizations worldwide over a six months period, to understand the effects of the new scheme on their physical and mental health.
The team found that workers whose days were cut by eight hours or more reported the most substantial improvements—which came in the form of reduced mental strain and improved physical health. Smaller reductions also had positive effects.
A stock image shows some work colleagues having a laugh over a cup of coffee at their desk.
A stock image shows some work colleagues having a laugh over a cup of coffee at their desk.
getty images
The trial included subjects in the United States, as well as Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. The researchers analyzed changes in burnout, fatigue, sleep quality and work performance resulting from the change to the working week.
Employees switching to a four-day week were compared with those at 12 companies that kept the traditional five-day model. Workers in the four-day trail reported higher levels of physical and mental well-being than those who worked five days a week.
A similar study was previously conducted in 2022 in the United Kingdom, where over 3,300 employees at 73 companies participated in a six-month trial aimed at testing the effectiveness and productivity of a four-day workweek.
It was found that the four-day workweek did not generate a loss of productivity—in fact, it actually improved productivity in some cases. While 46 percent of leaders reported stable levels of productivity, 34 percent said it "increased slightly."
The authors of the new study acknowledged some key limitations in their methodology, including the fact that the companies involved opted in voluntarily and that most were smaller firms based in English-speaking countries only.
The researchers recommend randomized, government-backed trials be conducted in future to assess shortened workweeks on a larger scale.
Do you have a health story to share with Newsweek? Do you have a question about the four-day workweek trial? Let us know via health@newsweek.com.
Reference
Fan, W., Schor, J. B., Kelly, O., & Gu, G. (2025). Work time reduction via a 4-day workweek finds improvements in workers' well-being. Nature Human Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02259-6
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Jerome Adams, ex-Trump surgeon general, says mRNA vaccine cuts are 'going to cost lives'
Jerome Adams, the U.S. Surgeon General under President Trump's first term, criticized the Department of Health and Human Services' move this week to cut funding for mRNA vaccine development. "I've tried to be objective & non-alarmist in response to current HHS actions – but quite frankly this move is going to cost lives," Adams said in a post on X on Aug. 5. He added, "mRNA technology has uses that go far beyond vaccines… and the vaccine they helped develop in record time is credited with saving millions." The HHS, now being led by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., said in a release on Aug. 5 it is cutting nearly $500 million at the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, which helps develop mRNA vaccine technology. Kennedy called the vaccine technology "ineffective" in a video posted on X Aug. 5. RFK Jr. defunds mRNA vaccine research. His anti-vax policies will kill people. Messenger RNA, or mRNA, is used in the two most common COVID-19 vaccines licensed in the United States, which were developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna during Trump's first administration and Adams' tenure as surgeon general. How do mRNA vaccines work? The COVID-19 vaccine works by instructing the body's immune system to recognize the virus and creating fighting antibodies to attack it. Messenger RNA, or mRNA, is a code that tells the body's cells to produce just a piece of the virus, the protein on the surface. The code is protected by a lipid coating, like a fat bubble. Once injected into the body, the vaccine releases the mRNA to program the cell to produce the spike proteins like those on the surface of SARS-CoV-2, the COVID-19 virus. Our immune system recognizes those vaccine-created spike proteins as invaders and creates antibodies to block future attacks from the virus. Messenger RNA vaccines contain only a fraction of the virus, so unlike some vaccines, they can't give people the disease they're trying to prevent or trigger allergies to eggs or other traditional vaccine ingredients. What does defunding mRNA technology mean? The most obvious consequence of defunding mRNA vaccine development is losing resources to continue improving the technology for vaccines that target infectious diseases, such as COVID-19 and the bird flu, and cancers, said Jeff Coller, Bloomberg Distinguished Professor of RNA biology and therapeutics at Johns Hopkins University. However, he also said it sends a 'chilling' message to vaccine companies about continuing this type of research in the United States. While they may be able to afford research without federal help, companies could be hesitant to pursue mRNA technology if there's a chance the Food and Drug Administration may not approve their vaccines. This could lead companies to move operations and marketing to other countries, which would not only make these therapies more expensive in the United States, but also displace it as 'the world leader in biotechnology,' Coller said. 'The rest of the world is doubling down on mRNA medicines. It's a fact, and the U.S. is going to lose the race,' Coller told USA TODAY on August 6. 'The decision coming from Kennedy is essentially destroying our dominance in the biotech space.' Contributing: Adrianna Rodriguez and Eduardo CuevasMelina Khan is a national trending reporter for USA TODAY. She can be reached at
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Vaccines hold tantalizing promise in the fight against dementia
Over the past two centuries, vaccines have been critical for preventing infectious diseases. The World Health Organization estimates that vaccination prevents between 3 million and 5 million deaths annually from diseases like diphtheria, tetanus, influenza, measles and, more recently, COVID-19. While there has long been broad scientific consensus that vaccines prevent or mitigate the spread of infections, there is new research suggesting that the therapeutic impact might go beyond the benefit of preventing infectious diseases. An April 2025 study published in the prominent journal Nature found tantalizing evidence that the herpes zoster – or shingles – vaccine could lower the risk of dementia in the general population by as much as 20%. We are a team of physician scientists with expertise in the clinical and basic science of neurodegenerative disorders and dementia. We believe that this study potentially opens the door to other breakthroughs in understanding and treating dementia and other degenerative disorders of the brain. A role for vaccines in reducing dementia risk? One of the major challenges researchers face when trying to study the effects of vaccines is finding an unvaccinated 'control group' for comparison – a group that is similar to the vaccine group in all respects, save for the fact that they haven't received the active vaccine. That's because it's unethical to assign some patients to the control group and deprive them of vaccine protection against a disease such as shingles. The Nature study took advantage of a policy change in Wales that went into effect in 2013, stating that people born on or after September 2, 1933, were eligible for the herpes zoster vaccination for at least a year, while those born before that cutoff date were not. The vaccine was administered to prevent shingles, a painful condition caused by the same virus that causes chickenpox, which can lie dormant in the body and be reactivated later in life. The researchers used the policy change as a natural laboratory of sorts to study the effect of shingles vaccination on long-term health outcomes. In a statistically sophisticated analysis of health records, the team found that the vaccine reduced the probability of getting dementia by one-fifth over a seven-year period. This means that people who received the shingles vaccine were less likely to develop clinical dementia over the seven-year follow-up period, and women benefited more than men. The study design allowed researchers to compare two groups without actively depriving any one group of access to vaccination. The two groups were also of comparable age and had similar medical comorbidities – meaning similar rates of other medical conditions such as diabetes or high blood pressure. Results from this and other related studies raise the possibility that vaccines may have a broader role in experimental therapeutics outside the realm of infectious diseases. These studies also raise provocative questions about how vaccines work and how our immune system can potentially prevent dementia. How vaccines might be protective One scientific explanation for the reduction of dementia by the herpes zoster vaccine could be the direct protection against the shingles virus, which may play a role in exacerbating dementia. However, there is also the possibility that the vaccine may have conferred protection by activating the immune system and providing 'trained immunity,' in which the immune system is strengthened by repeated exposure to vaccines or viruses. The study did not differentiate between different types of dementia, such as dementia due to Alzheimer's disease or dementia due to stroke. Additionally, researchers cannot draw any definitive conclusions about possible mechanisms for how the vaccines could be protective from an analysis of health records alone. The next step would be a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study – the 'gold standard' for clinical trials in medicine – to directly examine how the herpes zoster vaccine compares with a placebo in their ability to reduce the risk of dementia over time. Such studies are necessary before any vaccines, as well as other potential therapies, can be recommended for routine clinical use in the prevention of dementia. The challenges of untangling dementia Dementia is a major noncommunicable disease that is a leading cause of death around the world. A January 2025 study provided updated figures on lifetime dementia risk across different subsets of the U.S. population. The researchers estimate that the lifetime risk of dementia after age 55 is 42% – more than double earlier estimates. The dementia risk was 4% by age 75, and 20% by age 85, with the majority of risk occurring after 85. The researchers projected that the number of new cases of dementia in the U.S. would double over the next four decades from approximately 514,000 cases in 2020 to 1 million in 2060. Once considered a disease largely confined to the developed world, the deleterious effects of dementia are now apparent throughout the globe, as life expectancy increases in many formerly developing countries. While there are different forms of dementia with varying clinical manifestations and underlying neurobiology, Alzheimer's disease is the most common. Prospective studies that specifically test how giving a vaccine changes the risk for future dementia may benefit from studying patient populations with specific types of dementia because each version of dementia might require distinct treatments. Unfortunately, for the past two to three decades, the amyloid hypothesis of Alzheimer's disease – which posits that accumulation of a protein called amyloid in the brain contributes to the disorder – dominated the scientific conversation. As a result, most of the efforts in the experimental therapeutics of Alzheimer's disease have focused on drugs that lower the levels of amyloid in the brain. However, results to date have been modest and disappointing. The two recently approved amyloid-lowering therapies have only a minimal impact on slowing the decline, are expensive and have potentially serious side effects. And no drug currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for clinical use reverses the cognitive decline. Studies based on health records suggest that past exposure to viruses increase the risk of dementia, while routine vaccines, including those against tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis, pneumonia, shingles and others, reduce the risk. Innovation and an open mind There is sometimes a tendency among scientists to cling to older, familiar models of disease and a reluctance to move in more unconventional directions. Yet the process of doing science has a way of teaching researchers like us humility, opening our minds to new information, learning from our mistakes and going where that data takes us in our quest for effective, lifesaving therapies. Vaccines may be one of those paths less traveled. It is an exciting possibility that may open the door to other breakthroughs in understanding and treating degenerative disorders of the brain. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Anand Kumar, University of Illinois Chicago and Jalees Rehman, University of Illinois Chicago Read more: Whooping cough is making a comeback, but the vaccine provides powerful protection Until a coronavirus vaccine is ready, pneumonia vaccines may reduce deaths from COVID-19 Monkeypox vaccines: A virologist answers 6 questions about how they work, who can get them and how well they prevent infection Jalees Rehman receives funding from NIH. Anand Kumar does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment. Solve the daily Crossword
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
The Ultra-Processed Foods Adding Most Calories to US Diet
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Americans consume more than half their calories from ultra-processed food with burgers, sandwiches, sweet bakery products and savory snacks among the biggest contributors, according to a new federal report. The study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that Americans aged one year and older got an average of 55 percent of their daily intake from such food. While nutrition research has shown for years that ultra-processed foods make up a big chunk of the US diet, the CDC has for the first time confirmed those high levels of consumption, using dietary data collected from August 2021 to August 2023. Why it Matters The new CDC report used the most common definition of ultra-processed foods. based on the four-tier Nova system that classifies foods according to the amount of processing they undergo. Such foods tend to be "hyperpalatable, energy-dense, low in dietary fiber and contain little or no whole foods, while having high amounts of salt, sweeteners and unhealthy fats," the CDC report said. A CDC graph showing the top five sources of calories from ultra-processed foods among youth were sandwiches (including burgers), which contributed 7.6 percent of total calories, followed by sweet bakery products (6.3 percent), savory snacks... A CDC graph showing the top five sources of calories from ultra-processed foods among youth were sandwiches (including burgers), which contributed 7.6 percent of total calories, followed by sweet bakery products (6.3 percent), savory snacks (4.9 percent), pizza (4.7 percent), and sweetened beverages (3.9 percent) More Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Previous studies have linked ultra-processed food to obesity, diabetes and heart disease, but they haven't been able to prove that the foods directly cause those chronic health problems. One small but influential study found that even when diets were matched for calories, sugar, fat, fiber and micronutrients, people consumed more calories and gained more weight when they ate ultra-processed foods than when they ate minimally processed foods. While the CDC report noted a modest decline in consumption among adults (from 55.8 percent to 53 percent) and youth (from 65.6 percent to 61.9 percent) over the past decade, health officials caution that these foods remain a dominant source of calories in the American diet. The report has been published amid growing scrutiny of such foods with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr telling Fox earlier this year, "We are poisoning ourselves, and it's coming principally from these ultra-processed foods." What To Know The CDC report highlighted consumption of ultra-processed food was notably higher among youth (aged 1—18), who received nearly 62 percent of their daily calories from such foods, compared to 53 percent for adults. Among youth, the top sources of calories from ultra-processed foods were: Sandwiches (including burgers)—7.6 percent of total calories Sweet bakery products—6.3 percent Savory snacks—4.9 percent Pizza—4.7 percent Sweetened beverages—3.9 percent For adults, the leading contributors were: Sandwiches (including burgers)—8.6 percent of total calories Sweet bakery products—5.2 percent Sweetened beverages—4.4 percent Savory snacks—3.4 percent Breads, rolls, and tortillas—3.1 percent Analysis also showed consumption of ultra-processed foods was higher among lower income adults and among younger people, with adults 60 and older and young children consuming fewer calories from these sources. A CDC graph showing overall mean percentage of total calories consumed from ultra-processed foods among those age 1 year and older was 55 percent during August 2021—August A CDC graph showing overall mean percentage of total calories consumed from ultra-processed foods among those age 1 year and older was 55 percent during August 2021—August Centers for Disease Control and Prevention What People Are Saying Anne Williams, co-author of the report and CDC nutrition expert, said: "The results were not surprising," but added, "consumption of ultra-processed foods appeared to dip slightly over the past decade." Williams said she could not speculate on the reasons for the decline or whether consumption of less processed foods had increased. Andrea Deierlein, a nutrition expert at New York University who was not involved in the research, stated: "People are trying, at least in some populations, to decrease their intakes of these foods," highlighting possible growing awareness among Americans about the potential harms of ultra-processed food. What Happens Next U.S. health officials recently said there are concerns over whether current definitions of ultra-processed foods "accurately capture" the range of foods that may affect health. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Agriculture Department recently issued a request for information to develop a new, uniform definition of ultra-processed foods for products in the U.S. food supply. This article includes reporting from The Associated Press.
