Systematic review, 22 studies

Systematic review poster

A review of four day week trials in office based work, laid out as an A0 portrait board in journal style. The screening flow reconciles from 1,842 records to 22 included studies, and the central figure is not the effect but how the outcome was measured, because that is what the review actually found.

Create a poster with OneCraftA0 Portrait, printed at 841 by 1189 millimetres

The whole board

The poster at full size, exactly as it prints. Every number, citation and caption on it was written for this example, so the layout is being judged on real content.

NU
Reduced hours with no loss of pay: a systematic review of four day week trials in office based work
A. Lindqvist ¹, R. Mensah ¹, H. Tanaka ²
1 Centre for Work and Organisation, Northgate University · 2 Institute of Labour Economics, Brightwater
Abstract
Four day week trials are widely reported but rarely compared. We searched five databases for trials of a reduced working week with no reduction in pay in office based settings, published between 2015 and 2025, and screened 1,842 records against a pre-registered protocol. Twenty two studies covering 14,309 workers met the inclusion criteria. Reported output was maintained or improved in 18 of the 22, but only 6 measured output with anything other than self report, and only 3 had a concurrent comparison group. Sickness absence fell in 11 of the 13 studies that measured it, with a pooled reduction of 21%. The evidence on output is therefore weaker than the coverage suggests, while the evidence on absence and self reported burnout is more consistent. We rate the overall certainty as low for productivity and moderate for wellbeing outcomes. The strongest claim the evidence supports is that no trial found output falling, which is not the same as showing it holds.
Introduction
The claim that a four day week leaves output unchanged has moved from advocacy into policy, with pilot schemes now run by national governments and by large employers. The primary studies behind that claim are heterogeneous in almost every respect that matters: the length of the trial, whether pay was protected, whether hours were compressed or genuinely reduced, and what counted as output. A review that pools them without recording those differences would produce a number that means very little. We therefore set out to describe the evidence rather than to pool it into a single effect. Our questions were what has actually been measured, how it was measured, whether anything was compared against, and how much of the reported effect rests on workers rating their own productivity. The protocol was registered before screening began, and we recorded our extraction decisions as we made them so that a reader can disagree with a judgement without having to repeat the search. Where a report gave several outcomes we took the one the authors named as primary, and where none was named we took the first reported.
METHODS
Sources. Five databases plus grey literature from three national pilot programmes, searched to March 2025.
Eligibility. Reduced weekly hours with pay protected, office based work, at least 8 weeks, any comparison design.
Screening. Two reviewers screened independently; disagreements resolved by a third. Kappa was 0.84.
Extraction. Outcome, measurement method, comparison group, trial length and attrition, into a piloted form.
Certainty. GRADE applied per outcome. No meta-analysis of output was attempted given the measurement heterogeneity.
PARTICIPANT FLOW
Records identified
1,842
Duplicates
361
Titles screened
1,481
Full texts assessed
96
No pay protection
74
Studies included
22
Studies
Self report only
Manager rating
Objective output
Revenue or billing
0481216
Figure 1. Included studies by how output was measured. Self report dominates the evidence base.
Results
Twenty two studies covering 14,309 workers met the criteria. Output was reported as maintained or improved in 18, but the measurement behind that finding is thin: 16 relied on workers rating their own productivity, 6 used an objective count such as tickets closed or cases handled, and only 3 had a concurrent comparison group rather than a before and after design. Sickness absence was measured in 13 studies and fell in 11, with a pooled reduction of 21% (95% CI 12 to 29). Self reported burnout fell in 14 of 16. Attrition was low across the board, median 4.1%, which is expected when the intervention is a shorter week. Three studies reported an increase in work intensity within the remaining days, measured by self report in all three. Two reported that meeting time was cut rather than task time, which is a different mechanism with different limits on how far it travels. Trial length ranged from 8 weeks to 24 months, with a median of 26 weeks. The two longest trials both reported some regression toward baseline hours by the final quarter, and neither reported whether the reduced week was still formally in place at the end. Nine of the 22 studies were run or funded by an organisation advocating for the policy.
Discussion
The consistent findings in this literature are about how people feel and how often they are absent, not about how much they produce. That is not the same as saying output falls, and no study in the set found a clear drop. It means the confident public claim that output is unaffected rests on 3 studies with a comparison group and 6 with an objective measure. The pattern also has a plausible mechanism that reviews tend to skip. Where output held, it was often because meeting time was cut rather than because task work sped up, which limits how far the result should be expected to travel into roles where meetings are the work. Our review is limited to office based settings and to English language reports. The grey literature from pilot programmes is written by organisations with an interest in the result, and we kept it in rather than excluding it, because dropping it would have removed a third of the evidence and replaced a known bias with an unknown one. We did not attempt a pooled productivity estimate. Given that 16 of the 22 studies measured output by asking workers how productive they felt on a shorter week, we would treat any published pooled figure with caution.
1.Schor JB, et al. The four day week: assessing global trials. World Sociology 2024;12(2):119-148.
2.Delaney H, Casey C. The promise of a four day week: a critical appraisal. Human Relations 2022;75(1):6-35.

Block by block

What each block on the board is for, in the order a reader walks it.

Title band and authors
Journal style header with the review title, three authors and their affiliations, kept narrow so the abstract can run full width underneath.
Abstract across the width
The search, the yield, the headline finding and the certainty rating in one full width block, which is how a reader decides whether to keep reading.
Introduction
Why a pooled number would mislead here: the primary studies differ in trial length, pay protection, whether hours were compressed, and what counted as output.
Methods as a labelled protocol
Sources, eligibility, screening with the kappa, extraction, and the certainty approach. The protocol registration is named because reviewers look for it.
Screening flow
A PRISMA style spine: 1,842 records identified, 361 duplicates, 1,481 screened, 96 full texts, 74 excluded for no pay protection, 22 included. Every step reconciles.
How output was measured
16 self report, 8 manager rating, 6 objective and 3 revenue (a study can use more than one measure, so the bars sum past 22). Whether a study had a comparison group is stated in the results text, not in the chart.
Results
What was found, what it rests on, and the three studies reporting increased work intensity within the remaining days.
Discussion and references
The gap between what is claimed publicly and what the evidence supports, the grey literature question, and two references in the footer band. The three references are invented for this fictional study, because the reference block is required on this layout; on your board, replace them with your sources.
How to adapt this board
PRISMA counts go into the flow, in the order the guideline gives them, because a reviewer checks that path first and stops reading if it does not reconcile. The chart is for what the studies are rather than what they found: measurement types, designs, settings or years, whichever explains the spread. Certainty goes per outcome in the results text, one clause each, since a review that reports certainty only in aggregate is not saying anything a reader can use. Keep the three reference slots for the protocol, the guideline and the single most important included study.

What makes this board work

The figure shows the weakness

The chart counts studies by how output was measured: 16 self report, 6 objective, 3 with a comparison group. That single figure carries the review conclusion better than any pooled effect could.

Certainty is rated per outcome

Low for productivity, moderate for wellbeing. A review that gives one overall verdict hides the fact that the evidence is much stronger for some outcomes than others.

It refuses a pooled number

The discussion states why no pooled productivity estimate was attempted and that any published one should be treated with caution. Saying what you did not do, and why, is stronger than a number nobody can interpret.

Questions people ask

What goes on a systematic review poster?

The question, the databases and dates, the eligibility criteria, a PRISMA style flow from records to included studies, the synthesis, the certainty rating and the limits. Registration details usually sit near the methods.

Do I need a PRISMA diagram?

For a systematic review, yes. It answers how many records were found, how many were excluded and at which stage, in a form reviewers can check at a glance.

What if the studies are too different to pool?

Say so and describe them instead. This board reports what was measured and how, rather than forcing a meta-analysis across incompatible outcome measures.

How many references fit on a poster?

This layout carries two in the footer band. A poster is not the place for a full reference list; put the rest behind the QR code and cite only what the board argues from.

Where do the PRISMA numbers go?

In the six node flow: records identified, duplicates and excluded on screening in the aside, screened, full text assessed, included, and analysed. The counts must reconcile exactly, and the aside carries the exclusion reasons with their counts.

How many references fit?

Three on the board, auto numbered. A review with 22 included studies cannot list them all on a poster, so the three slots go to the protocol registration, the guideline followed and the most important included study; the full list goes behind the QR code.

What if I cannot pool the studies?

Say why in results, and chart what the studies are instead of what they found. This board charts how output was measured across the 22 studies, which explains the heterogeneity better than a forest plot with no pooled line would.

Build your own in about a minute

The button below opens the generator with this use case already described. Change the wording to match your own, generate, then edit anything you like.

Make my systematic review poster

Other poster examples

Materials science poster

A materials science poster is read composition first, so this A0 portrait example puts the weight percent line at the top of its methods protocol where a metallurgist looks for it. Two charts split the two properties: tensile results in one, hardness and the measured silicon length in the other, with the 14 percent strength gain as the key number.

Undergraduate research poster

An undergraduate research poster does not need big numbers, it needs honest ones arranged in the standard scientific order. This A0 portrait example shows a four week audit of a 50 cent reusable cup discount at two campus cafes: 4,860 sales observed, use rising from 12.4 to 29.1 percent, and a conclusion that explicitly declines to claim causation.

Psychology research poster

The strongest psychology research poster leads with its question and answers it in the first sentence of results. This A0 portrait example asks whether ten minutes of paced breathing before an exam lowers test anxiety, and answers with the number: 5.7 points lower with a 95% CI of -8.4 to -3.0, in a pre registered two arm experiment with 204 students analysed.

Want the steps in the builder? Read Add charts and diagrams, then choose the template, theme and size. For everything this generator can do, see the poster maker.

Sources

Written and checked by the OneCraft team. Last checked .