On-the-Job Recovery on Health- and Work-Related Outcomes: A Systematic Literature Review

On-the-Job Recovery on Health- and Work-Related Outcomes: A Systematic Literature Review

Farah Shazlin Johari

Faculty of Business and Management University Technology MARA, Malaysia

*Corresponding author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.909000795

Received: 30 September 2025; Accepted: 05 October 2025; Published: 30 October 2025

ABSTRACT

Recovery-related research has received tremendous attention due to its beneficial role in employees’ health and well-being. While mounting evidence of recovery-related research has concentrated on recovery activities after work hours or during leisure times, most studies attempted to overlook the recovery role in the work settings. Indeed, recovery can occur during work breaks and have a considerable impact on reducing fatigue, sleep problems, stress symptoms, as well as improving creativity and performance. Thus, to advance the comprehensive recovery research, a systematic review of on-the-job recovery is required to gain a deeper grasp of the topic. The systematic review aims to address (1) common work settings where on-the-job recovery occurs, (2) different forms of on-the-job recovery activities and strategies, and (3) the study’s variables for on-the-job recovery and its impacts, with an emphasis on health- and work-related outcomes. These insights can serve as the comprehensive review of recovery at work.

Keywords: on-the-job recovery, recovery activities, recovery strategies, systematic literature review

INTRODUCTION

For decades, recovery has been extensively discussed in the work stress literature due to its beneficial role in alleviating the adverse effect of demands on employees’ health and well-being. Recovery from work is defined as the reversal of stressful processes triggered by adverse occurrences at work through the restoration of resources, such as energy (Meijman & Mulder, 1998), notably during non-work hours such as free evenings or weekends. Employees who engage in recovery are no longer subjected to massive demands at work, and their functional systems can return to pre-stressor levels in order to perform their work optimally (Demerouti et al., 2009; Bosch et al., 2018). Some studies show that recovery during leisure times helps to buffer the adverse effects of demands on emotional exhaustion, depression, fatigue, and sleep quality (de Jonge et al., 2018; Garrick et al., 2014; Yulita et al., 2020), while at the same time possessing beneficial effects in boosting work engagement, creativity, and performance (Sonnentag et al., 2017; Seibel et al., 2021).

Other research found that recovery during work breaks allows employees to restore energy and maintain vigor, reduce fatigue, and improve job satisfaction as well as performance (Albulescu et al., 2022; Hunter & Wu, 2015; Vaziri et al., 2023). Thus, the recovery process does not necessarily occur during their leisure times but can even be completed during regular working hours within the work setting (Hunter & Wu, 2015; Vaziri et al., 2023). As such, recovery-related research can be divided into two categories: (1) off-the-job recovery, which typically occurs during non-work hours and outside settings such as during leisure time, free evenings, or weekends, and (2) on-the-job recovery, which takes place during regular work hours and work settings including lunchtime breaks, micro-breaks, and formal work breaks.

Most recovery-related research has focused on non-work hours or leisure activities, rather than on how recovery occurs during regular work hours at work (de Bloom, Kinnunen, & Korpela, 2014; Rhee & Kim, 2016). Indeed, there has been a promising trend in on-the-job recovery research, with some researchers concentrating on specific recovery activities that employees engage in during their work breaks (Bennett et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2019), such as relaxation (e.g., progressive muscle relaxation), social (e.g., chatting with colleagues), and cognitive (e.g., cyberloafing non-work matters) activities (Sonnentag et al., 2017). Other researchers have employed different forms of on-the-job recovery strategies to investigate how effective break experiences are in reducing the adverse effect of job demands (Shi et al., 2021). As such, a review of the synthesis on employees’ break activities and strategies is necessary (Chan et al., 2022), as the field of this knowledge remains limited and warrants more investigation.

Therefore, the aim of the current study is to conduct a review of the existing literature on the on-the-job recovery activities and strategies. This review seeks to provide a more comprehensive understanding of recovery that occurs at work and to offer better insights for future investigations into on-the-job recovery. To fill the gaps in prior studies, the researcher first investigates sample selection by geographical region and research methodology for on-the-job recovery. Second, the researcher examines the common work settings, on-the-job recovery activities, and strategies that occur at work. Finally, the researcher looks into the study’s variables for on-the-job recovery and its effects, focusing on health- and work-related outcomes.

METHOD

Design

The current study conducted a systematic literature review using relevant criteria as recommended by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). It has five subsections: search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, eligibility, data abstraction and analysis.

Search Strategy

In September 2025, a systematic search strategy was developed through three electronic databases, namely Scopus, Web of Science, and Sage. The search process used keywords from the titles and abstracts, including “on-the-job recovery,” “recovery activities,” “recovery strategies,” “break,” “lunch break,” and “microbreak.” This approach yielded 29 documents from Scopus, 19 documents from Web of Science (WOS), and 46 documents from Sage databases (see Figure 1). After removing duplicates (3 articles), 91 articles were retained for abstract reading.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The initial inclusion criterion was document type, with a concentration on research articles published in peer-reviewed journals and using empirical data as primary sources. Furthermore, the second inclusion criterion focused on the articles published in the English language. Articles published in other languages are excluded. The third requirement for inclusion was concerned with a six-year timeline, with dates ranging from 2020 to 2025. Another criterion for inclusion addressed the selection of samples, which included university students and employees from various occupations. The final criterion was articles published in the fields of social sciences, psychology, and business management.

The exclusion criteria included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, chapter-in-books, conceptual papers, non-English research publications, and samples that were not students or employees, and articles not published in the fields of social sciences, psychology and business management, as detailed in Table 1. Overall, 30 documents were removed based on these criteria, leaving only 41 documents eligible for further consideration in the current review.

Table 1: Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Eligibility

In total, 41 articles were prepared for the third stage. Eligibility is a method that manually includes or excludes articles based on the authors’ specific criteria. At this stage, the titles, abstracts, and main contents of the publications were rigorously examined to confirm that they met the inclusion criteria and were adequate to achieve the study’s objectives.

Data Abstraction and Analysis

The remaining articles were evaluated, reviewed, and analyzed following the eligibility process. The data were extracted to identify significant themes and sub-themes by reading titles, abstracts, and main content of the articles (in-depth). During the review process, answers were sought by the following: (a) sample selection; (b) study region; (c) research design; (d) work settings; (e) on-the-job recovery activities (f) on-the-job recovery strategies, and (g) the study’s variables and outcomes. After reviewing the abstracts of 41 articles, 20 were excluded because they were irrelevant to the research objectives. These eliminated articles did not assess recovery activities or recovery experiences in the work setting. Following a thorough review of the full texts, only 12 articles remained. Tables 2-5 contain summaries for each article included in this review.

Figure 1: Flow diagram for the systematic literature review process

RESULTS

General findings

Accordingly, only 12 on-the-job recovery research were included in the current review (see Table 2), with the majority conducted in a western context, specifically the United States, followed by Germany, Finland, and Spain. Only one study was relatively conducted in each country in an Eastern context, including South Korea, Japan, and Turkey. For the study’s sample selection, most of the employees were selected from relatively diverse occupations, such as nurses, teachers, and construction and services workers. Some studies were conducted among university students. Meanwhile, most on-the-job recovery research was conducted using experimental design, followed by cross-sectional studies, interviews, diary studies, and ecological momentary intervention (EMI), as detailed in Table 3.

On-the job recovery settings, activities and strategies

Table 4 summarizes the on-the-job recovery settings, activities, and strategies. In terms of on-the-job settings, the majority of studies focused on the work break (42%); however, these studies did not specify when recovery activities occurred within these breaks on work hours. Several studies looked at recovery activities during lunch break (17%), micro-break (17%), and rest break (8%). Other studies were conducted on-the-recovery within-workday (25%), either during micro-breaks, lunch breaks, or rest breaks, without specifying which.

Table 2: Sample selection and study region

Table 3: Research design

The review article details the pairing of numerous recovery activities with other on-the-job activities (see Table 4). The majority of the studies implemented numerous relaxation and mindfulness activities, such as uninterrupted rest breaks (Sagherian & Thomas, 2023), sitting for mindfulness meditation (Diaz-Silveria et al., 2023), short audio-guided mindfulness meditations (Riedl et al., 2024), quality of lunchtime naps (Yun & Beehr, 2023), progressive muscle relaxation (Hoover et al., 2022), and napping and other-related relaxation systems (Singh et al., 2020). Some investigations paired relaxation and mindfulness activities with physical activities (Bennett et al., 2020), aerobic exercise (Diaz-Silveira et al., 2023), stationary bike exercise (Hoover et al., 2022), and boxing sessions (Singh et al., 2020).

Several research studies have also adopted similar non-social media activities, such as relaxation activity, nutrition-intake activity, social activity, and cognitive activity (Cheng & Choo, 2021; Bennett et al., 2020; Saito & Tanaka). While, another study concentrated on social media break activities such as relaxation and mastery micro-break content (Conlin et al., 2021), social media break activities (Cheng & Choo, 2021), and cyberloafing on non-work-related online activities (Kwala & Agovi, 2025).

A range of recovery strategies have been implemented, with the majority of the studies employing experimental and intervention designs in which employees are randomly assigned to specific on-the-job recovery activities (Bennett et al., 2020; Hoover et al., 2022; Diaz-Silveira et al., 2023; Singh et al., 2020; Conlin et al., 2021; Riedl et al., 2024). Other strategies require employees to complete a self-reported questionnaire about their break activities during their work break or within the workday, either through a single-point data collection or a series of daily assessments (Cheng & Choo, 2021; Kwala & Agoyi, 2025; Sagherian & Thomas, 2023; Virtanen et al., 2021; Yun & Beehr, 2023). Another two investigations used semi-structured interview strategies to inquire about employees’ on-the-job recovery break activities during the workday (Bennett et al., 2020; Saito & Tanaka, 2024). In summary, table 4 includes detailed explanation for each on-the-job recovery strategy.

On-the-job recovery research’s variables and outcomes

Table 5 summarizes the quantitative study’s variables and outcomes for on-the-job recovery research. As referring to the table, most studies are emphasizing on-the-job recovery activities (67%) as the main predictors in predicting employees’ health- and work-related outcomes. Only 33% of studies incorporated job demands, including daily emotional and mental demands, as independent variables in their analyses. Meanwhile, the study’s findings mostly predicted employees’ health-related outcomes such as fatigue (Sagherian & Thomas, 2023; Diaz-Silveria et al., 2023; Singh et al., 2020; Hoover et al., 2022), recovery experiences (e.g., psychological detachment) (Cheng & Choo; Rield et al., 2024; Hoover et al., 2022; Diaz-Silveria et al., 2023), and psychological resources (Bennett et al., 2020; Hoover et al., 2022). Other studies have predicted work-related outcomes such as performance (Singh et al., 2020; Conlin et al., 2021), vigour (Singh et al., 2020), and afternoon creativity (Yun & Beehr, 2023). Furthermore, for mediation and moderation variables, some studies focused primarily on on-the-job recovery break activities, recovery experiences, and workload in the association between the study’s independent and dependent variables.

DISCUSSION

The current review aims to improve understanding of on-the-job recovery activities and strategies that occur during working hours, as well as how they influence the stressor-strain-motivation associations. Despite the small number of publications assessed, the majority of investigations were conducted in a Western setting; nevertheless, there are some promising trends, with several studies completed in Asian settings, including in South Korea, Japan, and Turkey. The current study found that recent recovery-related research has shifted the trend from traditional cross-sectional design to more complicated research designs such as experimental and ecological momentary intervention and diary study designs. This trend has not only allowed for systematically investigating cause-and-effect relationships between variables (Winship & Morgan, 1999) but also enabled the reduction of the common method bias issues.

Table 4: Types of on-the-job recovery settings, activities, and strategies

Table 4: Types of on-the-job recovery settings, activities, and strategies (continue)

Table 4: Types of on-the-job recovery settings, activities, and strategies (continue)

Table 5: Quantitative study’s variables and outcomes

Table 5: quantitative study’s variables and outcomes (continue)

In terms of work break characteristics, the researcher found that most studies were emphasized on work breaks than micro-breaks, rest breaks, lunchtime break or intra-workday breaks. It is because work breaks are more formal, structured, and scheduled, allowing employees to be assigned with on-the-job recovery activities. Formal breaks might include morning and afternoon tea breaks, lunch breaks, and any other breaks that the organization formally arranges or allows employees to take on their own (Trougakos & Hideg, 2009). Interestingly, the reviewed research included a wide range of on-the-job recovery activities and strategies ranging from relaxation and mindfulness activities, followed by physical activities and non-social media break activities, as well as social media content or break activities. This is because recovery encompassed several dimensions such as physical, emotional, and cognitive experiences. Relaxation and mindfulness, for example, improve mental detachment; physical activities replenish bodily resources; and non-social media and social media breaks may meet cognitive or social needs, allowing employees to temporarily divert their attention away from massive job demands at work (Ejlertsson et al., 2021).

Furthermore, the researcher found that the study’s variables involved in on-the-job-recovery investigations mostly predicted health-related outcomes such as fatigue, sleep quality, stress symptoms, and attention problems. This is because recovery is primarily concerned with reversing or alleviating the physiological and psychological strains caused by stressful events or demands experienced at work.

Implications For Managers and Organizations

The study’s findings offer several practical implications. First, managers might design flexible work schedules that allow employees to take micro-breaks, rest breaks, work breaks, or short physical activity breaks within the workday. This flexibility helps employees personalize recovery time for their immediate recuperation due to constant job demands at work. Second, the management should promote a variety of recovery activities such as progressive muscle relaxation, mindfulness, deep breathing exercises, stationary bike exercise, social media breaks, or even social connection during breaks to improve employees’ recovery. The varied alternatives make recovery adaptable to different employee preferences and physical abilities. Finally, the management may include recovery activities into organizational wellness programs, such as offering napping areas, relaxation areas, or guided meditation sessions for employees to access during breaks at work.

Limitations

Some study’s limitations need to be addressed. The current reviews focused on only a limited number of publications, as the researchers are more interested in exploring recovery activities and strategies that commonly occurred in the work settings instead of during off-job times. While most recovery-related research was focused on the recovery activities after work hours, this review could restrict the researcher from uncovering recovery activities that are implemented outside work settings. Second, the current reviews also specifically specified the timeline within the six recent years in the literature, which could potentially limit or exclude the potential studies that are relevant to the on-the-job recovery context. Perhaps future reviews should extend the timelines that include all relevant recovery-related studies. Finally, the researcher included a mix of sample selections, which consists of employees from diverse professions and university students, due to limited publications available based on specific criteria. Future reviews should at least differentiate employees between professions and sectors as well as students.

CONCLUSION

The current review offers a systematic literature evaluation to better understand the role of on-the-job recovery activities and strategies on the stressor-strain-motivation associations. Through the reviewing process, the majority of studies were conducted using experimental designs with diverse samples from various professions, notably in a Western context. Although the current review focused extensively on on-the-job recovery activities and strategies that occur within the workday, more relevant studies from prior literature should be included to improve the comprehensiveness and understanding of the role of on-the-job recovery. The current study implies that more research should be undertaken in an Eastern context to improve knowledge of the cultural factors that may contribute to disparities in how employees perceive recovery and its consequences.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest related to the publication of this paper.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used in the current investigation are publicly available, as indicated in the reference list. All data extracted from the listed studies are accessible from the respective author on reasonable request.

REFERENCES

1. Albulescu, P., Macsinga, I., & Raţiu, L. C. (2022). “Give me a break!” A systematic review and meta-analysis of micro-breaks during work. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 847097. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.847097
2. Bennett, A. A., Gabriel, A. S., & Calderwood, C. (2020). Examining the interplay of micro-break durations and activities for employee recovery: A mixed-methods investigation. Journal of occupational health psychology, 25(2), 126–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000168
3. Bosch, C., Sonnentag, S., & Pinck, A. S. (2018). What makes for a good break? A diary study on recovery experiences during lunch break. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91(1), 134–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12187
4. Chan, P. H. H., Howard, J., Eva, N. & Tse, H. H. M. (2022). A systematic review of at-work recovery and a framework for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43(6), 640-662. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2677
5. Cheng, Y.-S., & Cho, S. (2021). Are social media bad for your employees? Effects of at-work break activities on recovery experiences. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 96, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2021.102957
6. Conlin, A. L., Hu, X. J., & Barber, L. K. (2021). Comparing relaxation versus mastery microbreak activity: A within-task recovery perspective. Psychological Reports, 124(1), 248-265. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294119900347
7. de Bloom, J., Kinnunen, U., & Korpela, K. (2014). From restorative environments to restoration in work. Intelligent Buildings International, 6(3), 175–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508975.2014.895679
8. de Jonge, J., Spoor, E., Sonnentag, S., Dormann, C., & van den Tooren, M. (2018). Short-term and long-term effects of off-job activities on recovery and sleep quality: A two-wave panel study among healthcare employees. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(9), 1889. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15091889
9. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
10. Díaz-Silveira, C., & Alcover, C. M. (2023). Differential efficacy of physical exercise and mindfulness during lunch breaks as internal work recovery strategies: A daily study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(10), Article 7654. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20107654
11. Ejlertsson, L. (2021). Recovery at work as a health-promoting process [Doctoral thesis, Lund University, Faculty of Medicine]. Lund University. https://portal.research.lu.se/en/publications/recovery-at-work-as-a-health-promoting-process
12. Hoover, A., Riedl, E. M., & Scholz, U. (2022). An experimental test of resource recovery from physical and relaxation work break activities. Stress and Health, 38(3), 477-489. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.3145
13. Hunter, E. M., & Wu, C. (2015, August 10). Give Me a Better Break: Choosing Workday Break Activities to Maximize Resource Recovery. Journal of Applied Psychology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000045
14. Kwala, A. F., & Agoyi, M. (2025). The influence of cyberloafing on workplace outcomes: A study utilizing the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) theory. SAGE Open, 15(1), Article 21582440251327521. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251327521
15. Meijman, T. F., & Mulder, G. (1998). Psychological aspects of workload. In P. J. D. Drenth, H. Thierry, & C. J. de Wolff (Eds.), New handbook of work and organizational psychology: Volume 2: Work psychology (pp. 5–34). Psychology Press.
16. Rhee, Y., & Kim, S. Y. (2016). Validity verification of a Korean version of recovery scale (client assessment summary) for alcoholics. Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial Cooperation Society, 17(11), 386–394. https://doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2016.17.11.386
17. Riedl, E. M., Kubiak, T., & Wendsche, J. (2024). Short mindfulness meditations during breaks and after work in everyday nursing care: A simple strategy for promoting daily recovery, mood, and attention? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000405
18. Sagherian, K., & Thomas, S. (2023). Nurses’ rest breaks and fatigue: The roles of psychological detachment and workload. Western Journal of Nursing Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/01939459231189787
19. Saito, H., & Tanaka, M. (2024). Fostering employee well-being and workplace recovery in the hospitality industry: The role of supportive break times at work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.johp.2024.04.001
20. Seibel, S., et al. (2021). A diary study over five days showed morning recovery and anticipation of leisure time positively related to work engagement. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(18), 9560. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18189560
21. Shi, Y., Niu, Q., Gong, Y., & Zhou, W. (2021). Job crafting promotes internal recovery state, especially in employees with high self-control demands: A diary study. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 730849. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.730849
22. Singh, U., Ghadiri, A., & Weimar, D. (2020). “Let’s have a break”: An experimental comparison of work-break interventions and their impact on performance. Journal of Business Research, 112, 128-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.028
23. Sonnentag, S., Stephan, U., Wendsche, J., de Bloom, J., Syrek, C., & Vahle-Hinz, T. (2021). Recovery in occupational health psychology and human resource management research: An interview with Prof. Sabine Sonnentag and Prof. Ute Stephan. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 35(2), 274–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/23970022211004599
24. Trougakos, J. P., & Hideg, I. (2009). Momentary work recovery: The role of affective rumination and positive work reflection. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75(3), 329–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.06.005
25. Vaziri, H., Hassan, A., Kort, S., & Sierksma, A. (2023). Short breaks during the workday and employee-related outcomes: A daily diary study. Stress and Health. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941251317632
26. Virtanen, A., Van Laethem, M., de Bloom, J., & Kinnunen, U. (2021). Drammatic breaks: Break recovery experiences as mediators between job demands and affect in the afternoon and evening. Stress and Health, 37(4), 801–818. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.3041
27. Winship, C., & Morgan, S. L. (1999). The estimation of causal effects from observational data. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 659-706. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.659
28. Yun, M., & Beehr, T. (2023). Eating versus sleeping: Lunchtime meals and naps relation to afternoon creativity at work. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 15(4), 1319-1335. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12438
29. Zhu, Z., Kuykendall, L., & Zhang, X. (2019). The impact of within-day work breaks on daily recovery processes: An event-based pre-/post-experience sampling study.