Familydemic cross country and gender dataset on work and family outcomes during covid-19 pandemic

ABSTRACT Here we present the Familydemic Cross Country and Gender Dataset (FCCGD), which offers cross country and gender comparative data on work and family outcomes among parents of

dependent children, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. It covers six countries from two continents representing diverse welfare regimes as well as distinct policy reactions to the

pandemic outbreak. The FCCGD was created using the first wave of a web-based international survey (Familydemic) carried out between June and September 2021, on large samples of parents (aged

20–59) living with at least one child under 12 in Canada, Germany, Italy, Poland, Sweden, and the US. While individual datasets are not available due to country-level restriction policies,

the presented database allows for cross-country comparison of a wide range of employment outcomes and work arrangements, the division of diverse tasks of unpaid labour (housework and

childcare) in couples, experiences with childcare and school closures due to the pandemic and subjective assessments of changes to work-life balance, career prospects and the financial

situation of families (234 variables). SIMILAR CONTENT BEING VIEWED BY OTHERS THE EFFECT OF LEAVE POLICIES ON INCREASING FERTILITY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW Article Open access 08 August 2022

CORESIDENCE: NATIONAL AND SUBNATIONAL DATA ON HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND COMPOSITION AROUND THE WORLD, 1964–2021 Article Open access 31 January 2024 A LONGITUDINAL ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF

MULTIDIMENSIONAL PRECARIOUS EMPLOYMENT ON THE MENTAL HEALTH OF MEN AND WOMEN Article Open access 16 December 2024 BACKGROUND & SUMMARY The COVID-19 pandemic has been highly disruptive to

work and family life. Many workers were laid off, unemployment rates increased, and workers faced reduced hours1,2. Further, gender gaps in employment increased as mothers decreased work

hours more steeply than fathers3,4. Work was also transformed as an increasing number of organisations and workers adopted remote work as a strategy5,6. At the same time, working parents

found themselves with increased childcare responsibilities during the workday as daycare centres, and schools closed7. Country differences in childcare policy responses had the potential to

impact work-family reconciliation as well as educational outcomes8. As with employment, there have been notable gender differences in housework and childcare responsibilities. Several

studies have shown an increase in women’s, and particularly mothers’, domestic labour during lockdowns9,10. Yet, there has also been evidence that an increasing number of couples shared

housework and childcare equally compared to before the pandemic11. Since the outbreak of the pandemic, numerous studies have been carried out that aimed at assessing the changes in the work

and family lives of parents in different countries (e.g., Study on Parents’ Divisions of Labor during COVID-19 in the US, Covid19 Gender In(equality) Survey in the Netherlands, and the

SParWell survey in Italy)7,11,12. However, the majority of them are either narrowed to single countries only1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25 or to limited

subgroups of countries in one continent26,27. The result is a lack of cross-country datasets that would enable wider comparisons. The majority of pandemic-related datasets are also based on

purely convenience samples, substantially deviating in structure from benchmark populations. Moreover, virtually only the short-term consequences of the pandemic have been explored (i.e.,

the first lockdown period and shortly thereafter), providing limited knowledge into how families adapt and thrive in new and challenging conditions over the longer term. The dimension of the

current pandemic—given its duration and pervasiveness—cannot be usefully compared to short-term shocks. Furthermore, the available large cross-country datasets that cover the first year of

the pandemic do not include comprehensive sets of questions that enable comparative overviews of diverse aspects of work and family lives of mothers and fathers that were affected during the

COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in regard to distributions of detailed childcare and housework tasks and time children have spent at home due to diverse pandemic-related reasons. As a

result, researchers face difficulties making cross-country comparisons of the work and family outcomes for parents during the COVID-19 pandemic22,23,24,25,28. The FCCGD29 presented here aims

to address this gap as it enables researchers to make cross-country comparisons of diverse aspects of the work and family lives of parents of dependent children (having at least one child

under 12) across six countries: Canada, Germany, Italy, Poland, Sweden and the US. The FCCGD29 data can also be useful for cross-validating results from previous pandemic surveys conducted

in these countries2,4,11,12,13,16,18,21,22,24,28,30. The dataset covers a wide range of work and family related topics, including: * 1. Division of five different childcare related tasks in

couples of partnered mothers and fathers of dependent children before the pandemic (February 2020; retrospective data) and for the moment of the survey (June-September 2021); * 2. Division

of seven different housework related tasks in couples of partnered mothers and fathers of dependent children before the pandemic (February 2020; retrospective data) and for the moment of the

survey (June-September 2021); * 3. Employment status of mothers and fathers of dependent children before the pandemic (February 2020; retrospective data) and for the moment of the survey

(June-September 2021); * 4. Reasons for not working among mothers and fathers of dependent children before the pandemic (February 2020; retrospective data) and for the moment of the survey

(June-September 2021); * 5. Minimum, maximum, median and mean number of hours worked by (self-)employed mothers and fathers of dependent children before the pandemic (February 2020;

retrospective data) and for the moment of the survey (June-September 2021); * 6. Access to and use of flextime among employed mothers and fathers for the moment of the survey (June-September

2021); * 7. Access to, use and frequency of home office among employed mothers and fathers of dependent children before the pandemic (February 2020; retrospective data) and for the moment

of the survey (June-September 2021); * 8. Willingness to work from home among mothers and fathers for the moment of the survey (June-September 2021); * 9. Subjective uncertainty about job

stability among employed mothers and fathers for the moment of the survey (June-September 2021); * 10. Time a preschool child/children in the family was/were out of usual childcare

arrangement due to unavailability of childcare during the pandemic (excluding holidays); * 11. Time a school-aged child/children in the family was/were out of school due to school closure

during pandemic (excluding holidays); * 12. Subjective change in work-life balance among (self)employed mothers and fathers during the COVID-19 pandemic; * 13. Subjective change in career

prospects among mothers and fathers during the COVID-19 pandemic; * 14. Subjective change in financial situation among mothers and fathers during the COVID-19 pandemic. It should be noted

that any data that refers to an earlier period than the moment of the survey is retrospective and therefore relies on the memory of respondents about the events that happened up to even 1.5

years before the data collection. Therefore, these responses must be treated with caution. For each question with categorical responses we provide shares of each response for the population

of mothers, fathers and parents in total by country to whom the question was addressed. For each numerical question, we provide descriptive statistics—minimum and maximum values, the median,

the mean, and standard deviation—for each country and by gender. For each question we also report the share of missing values. The FCCGD29 consists of 234 variables in total. The five

figures below (Figs. 1–5) show exemplary cross-country (and gender) comparisons using just six variables from this dataset. METHODS CREATION OF THE FCCGD The FCCGD29 has been created using

the Familydemic Harmonised Dataset (hereafter FHD), i.e., the harmonised individual data collected via the Familydemic Survey (https://familydemic.wnpism.uw.edu.pl/about/) between June 2021

and September 2021. The survey was conducted on large quota random samples of mothers and fathers living with at least one child under 12 years old from national, certified opt-in panels in

all six countries under the study. In order to adjust for deviations from the benchmark population statistics, we have used post-stratification (analytical) weights to calculate the shares

of responses for each categorical variable and descriptive statistics for each numerical variable in FCCGD29. Weights were calculated based on Random Iterative Method (RIM weighting), using

country specific structures of the population of parents with at least one child under 12, according to gender, age and education, derived from: the European Union Labour Force Survey

(EU-LFS) 2020 data for Germany, Poland and Italy; from the 2020 Euromod data for Sweden; from the 2016 Census for Canada; and from the 2021 Current Population Survey (CPS) for the US.

FAMILYDEMIC SURVEY DESIGN AND TESTING The development of the Familydemic Survey was a collective endeavour, initiated and led by Anna Kurowska (University of Warsaw) and carried out between

April 2020 and May 2021. The international team of researchers, who worked on the development of the final English version of the questionnaire, included Anna Kurowska, Anna Matysiak

(University of Warsaw), Sylvia Fuller (University of British Columbia), Andrea Doucet (Brock University), Ann-Zofie Duvander (Stockholm University), Cassandra Engeman (Stockholm University),

Richard J. Petts (Ball State University), Gayle Kaufman (Davidson College), Thordis Reimer (University of Hamburg), Shirley Gatenio Gabel (Fordham University) and in later stages also

Daniele Vignoli (University of Florence) and Raffaele Guetto (University of Florence). Several other researchers helped our team develop the questionnaire between September 2020 and April

2021, and their names appear in the Acknowledgements section. Several questions were designed on the basis of diverse existing, well-established studies from before the pandemic, covering a

large array of questions related to the work and family nexus, such as: Generations and Gender Survey, International Social Survey Programme, European Social Survey, European Values Study,

World Values Survey, Understanding Societies, GESIS Panel, Statistics Canada’s Longitudinal International Survey of Adults, and Canadian Quality of Work and Economic Life Study. Also, recent

academic discussions on using retrospective questions in COVID-19 studies were formative in our thinking about the type of questions being used in the Familydemic Survey31. The English

version of the questionnaire was translated into national languages by a trained academic translator in Italy and a professional translating service in Poland; then, the translations were

double-checked by the national team members. The Swedish team included bilingual and native speakers in both English and Swedish who worked together to translate the survey instrument and

responses with help also from graduate research assistants. In Germany, the questionnaire was translated by Thordis Reimer and double-checked by two other researchers, as well as in an

online translation tool (Deepl). In Canada, the survey was administered in both official languages; English and French. The English version of the survey was translated into French by the

Angus Reid Group with assistance from Sophie Mathieu. In all countries that translated the questionnaire to a national language, the phrasing of specific questions were checked using

existing translations in other international surveys that also used these questions. We have applied two-stage testing of the final version of the questionnaire. Initially, the English

version of the questionnaire was tested on a group of approximately 15 researchers from the field of work and family studies across countries in the study. Then, the translated versions of

the questionnaire were tested on convenience samples of parents—up to 20 in each country. Some countries added a small number of additional country-specific questions to their national

versions of the Familydemic Survey. RECRUITMENT OF RESPONDENTS IN THE FAMILYDEMIC SURVEY Each of the participating countries hired a certified national research agency to acquire an

appropriate national sample of respondents with dependent children. The agencies used quota random sampling (random samples with additional quotas applied to secure adequate representation

of the population in the sample by crucial socio-demographic characteristics) from large and constantly verified (opt-in) panels. Canada, Germany, Sweden and the US each aimed at acquiring a

sample of a minimum of 2,000 respondents per country, from the group of parents aged 20–59, with at least one child aged under 12 (including single parents). Poland and Italy aimed at

sampling a minimum of 7,000 respondents respectively from the adult population aged 20–59. The samples from Poland and Italy consisted of parents with children under 12 (at least 2,000 in

each country), parents with at least one child aged 12 or more, and the childless. However, the data referring to these two latter groups are not included in the FCCGD29 because comparative

data does not exist for the other countries. In Canada, the Angus Reid Group ran an online survey with 4,685 participants (parents with at least one child under the age of 12) from August 20

to September 6, 2021. Survey respondents came from Angus Reid’s opt-in online panel (the Angus Reid Forum) of Canadians, which is recruited through targeted ads and partnerships with

non-governmental and charitable organisations to ensure diversity, and subject to frequent verification checks for identity, contact information, and demographic characteristics. A sample

matrix was created that was designed to be representative of the population, with additional quotas to ensure minimum targets were reached for the province of residence, LGBTQ, visible

minority (non-Indigenous respondents identifying as non-white), and Indigenous, Black, South Asian, and Asian respondents. Participants from this matrix were then randomly selected to

receive email invitations to complete the survey, receiving a small monetary incentive for doing so. Recruitment in Canada’s three northern Territories (the Yukon, Nunavut, and Northwest

Territories) was attempted via telephone recruitment, but it proved to be too difficult because of the length of the survey, recruitment challenges, and cost. Therefore, the sample is

limited to ten provinces, which is typical in Canadian online surveys. In Germany, the online survey was operated by LimeSurvey, a free online survey software. The team hired Respondi, an

ISO-certified opt-in online panel provider with a large and diverse pool of people willing to take part in online surveys, who are remunerated for doing so. Respondents were selected

according to information on panelists (according to the sample criteria). A sample of 2,500 was agreed, limited to parents who live in Germany and have at least one child under the age of 12

(2,445 questionnaires were returned). Quotas were set in terms of gender (50/50), age, education and German federal state residence shares in population. Programming and hosting of the main

questionnaire and delivery of the screening and quota questions were carried out by the WiSo Research Laboratory at the University of Hamburg. The survey was conducted in June 2021. The

data set for Germany contains 2,426 respondents. In Italy, data were collected between July and September 2021 by the national survey company Demetra, which is well-known in Italian academic

circles for its high-quality and rigorous data collection. A sample of 5,000 people aged 20–59 plus an oversampling of approximately 2,000 parents with at least one child under 12 was

agreed. The online sampling scheme imposed national quotas by age group, gender, education, macro-region of residence, presence of children and age of the youngest child (N = 7,080). Quota

sampling ensures that the final sample is virtually distributed as the country benchmark given by the statistics provided by the Italian National Institute of Statistics. The Swedish team

hired Novus, a major and reputable survey company in Sweden. Through Novus, they obtained an online panel, where panelists are randomly selected for surveys and proportioned according to the

general population. Novus maintains a panel of over 50,000 randomly recruited panel members and is generally representative regarding age, gender and region. For the Familydemic Survey, a

random sample of respondents aged 20–59 having at least one child under 12 was selected and a total of 2,683 responses were received. The survey was fielded from the 15th to 29th of

September 2021, which is one month after schools and preschools had opened after the summer holidays. Respondents received a small incentive by participating in collecting points towards

gift certificates. In the US, the survey was conducted in partnership with Qualtrics. Qualtrics hosts an opt-in online panel of over 100,000 survey panelists. To ensure high-quality data,

panelists must regularly update their information, are restricted in the number of surveys they can take, and are monitored in their responses to socio-demographic questions for consistent

responses. Qualtrics randomly selects and proportions panelists according to the general population to provide as representative of a sample as possible. Quota constraints included gender,

education, and race. The survey was fielded in July 2021, and the study was restricted to parents living in the United States with at least one child under age 12. A total of 2,383 parents

completed the US survey. In Poland, the survey was conducted in cooperation with the National Research Panel Ariadna (_Ogólnopolski Panel Badawczy Ariadna_) which hosts an opt-in online

panel of over 150,000 active panelists aged 15 and over, with verified profiles. The National Research Panel holds a certificate from the Interviewer Quality Control Programme (_Program

Kontroli Jakości Ankieterów_) and works according to the standards of ICC/ESOMAR International Code on Market and Social Research. A quota random sample of respondents was selected from the

online panel. Quota constraints included age, gender, education and area of residence. A total of 11,183 respondents aged 20–59 completed the Polish survey in the second half of June 2021,

out of which 4,188 were parents of children aged under 12. In Table 1 below, we summarise the sample size of parents with at least one child below the age of 12 for each country, the

proportion of data that was included after harmonisation in the Familydemic Harmonized Dataset (after all cleaning and harmonising procedures were performed), the means and standard

deviations for age and number of children, gender ratio and the share of highly educated respondents (with Master’s degree or higher) in the sample (with no weights applied). ETHICAL

COMPLIANCE The Familydemic Questionnaire and study protocol were approved by the Ethical Committee at the University of Warsaw (_Komisja Rektorska ds. Etyki Badań Naukowych z Udziałem

Człowieka_) as well as Davidson College’s Institutional Review Board, the Swedish Ethics Review Authority (_Etikprövningsmyndigheten_), the Behavioural Review Ethics Board at the University

of British Columbia, the Social Science Research Ethics Board at Brock University, the Social Ethics Board at Dalhousie University, the Research Ethics Board at the University of Guelph and

the Ethical Committee (_Commissione Etica_) of the University of Florence. The collection of the Familydemic Survey data complies with all ethical regulations of public opinion survey data.

Participants have been informed of the purpose of the study and consented to share their data. Individual data has been entirely anonymized. All respondents agreed to the respective privacy

policy before they answered the questionnaire. The individual data from the Familydemic Survey is stored on secured servers at the universities and research agencies that participated in the

project. The individual datasets, as well as FHD, due to restrictions in several countries (including Sweden, with the most restrictive policies) cannot be provided in Open Access to the

public. However, the FCCGD29 has been allowed to be made accessible in Open Access format to researchers worldwide. Figure 6 shows the entire process from initiation of the Familydemic

Project to the creation of FCCGD29. DATA RECORDS The raw dataset presented here (FCCGD29) is available in open access (under CC-By Attribution 4.0 International licence) in xls format to be

downloaded from the Open Science Framework (OSF) platform (direct link: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MJFZ3). TECHNICAL VALIDATION We applied a two-stage process of data cleaning in order

to arrive at a reliable FCCGD29. First, each country’s individual dataset was cleaned by the company who had run the survey in that particular country and also by the country team of

researchers responsible for collecting data following the instructions of the coordinator of the Familydemic Project. All country datasets were checked for errors and inconsistencies. All

country teams flagged the missing data using two categories: _justified missings_ in cases when respondents were purposely not the addressees of the question (as a result of purposely and

consistently applied filters in the online Familydemic Questionnaire) and _unjustified missings_ in cases when respondents should have responded to a particular question and did not do it

for different reasons. Second, the Polish team was responsible for comparing all initially cleaned country datasets, harmonising and merging them into FHD. We identified six issues at this

stage: * 1) Some country samples included some respondents that were out of the target population - e.g., were older than 59 or younger than 20 or had the youngest child older than 12 (very

rare cases); * 2) Some differences in how variable values were coded were found (e.g. in one country Yes/No answers were coded as 1/0 and in others as 1/2); * 3) Some countries were missing

some of the questions from the Familydemic Questionnaire and some had included additional country-specific questions; * 4) There were some differences in the sets of response options

provided for respondents in some countries; * 5) In the US some questions were not made obligatory for respondents and this resulted in some unjustified missings in answers; * 6) In some

countries filters were different than in others for some questions, resulting in unjustified missings. To arrive at a reliable cross-country comparative dataset (FCCGD29) that would be

comparable across countries, we decided to deal with these problems in the following ways: * 1) The respondents from outside of the target population were dropped from the sample. In this

regard 9 observations in Germany were dropped because respondents were older than 59 and 1 observation in Sweden was dropped because this person was younger than 20. * 2) The issue of

differences in the coding of variable values was easily resolved by careful recoding (harmonisation) of variables and double-checking this process with country teams. * 3) The variables

which were entirely missing in one of the countries and could not be created using other information from the country data, were not included in the FCCGD29. Some missing variables were

retrieved using data from other questions. For example, we faced missing data on the pre-pandemic partnership status of respondents in some countries, but we were able to handle this missing

information using information on respondents’ current marital status and the information from a separate question that asked respondents if their partnership status had changed since the

onset of the pandemic. * 4) In the case of a diverging set of answers for a particular variable we checked carefully if the proper set of answers could be derived for each country by merging

some answers. It was possible in many cases as diverging versions of answers were usually the result of one of the countries providing respondents with more detailed responses than in other

countries. One of the examples is the question about the highest achieved educational level of respondents - in Germany the set of answers contained more detailed categories. The variables

for which responses could not be harmonised are not included in the FCCGD29. * 5) We decided not to include variables with significant numbers of unjustified missings in some countries in

the FCCGD29 as we could not handle this problem post factum. As a result, the presented FCCGD29 consists only of the data retrieved from fully comparable variables in FHD across all

participating countries without any non-random and significant number of missing values. The variables included in FCCGD29 should not be confused with the variables included in FHD, although

they are directly related through the questions they refer to from the Familydemic Survey. In the file with FCCGD29 available at the OSF platform, for the sake of transparency, we also

provide the sample characteristics by country according to crucial socio-demographic characteristics (before applying weights to the data): gender, age, education, labour market status and

ISCO-08 1 digit code (major group) for occupation. USAGE NOTES The data describe key work and family indicators by gender and country, providing a plethora of opportunities to explore

multiple facets related to work and parenting during the pandemic. The dataset is valuable for scholars interested in accessing key information about work and family experiences and

comparing these experiences across genders in the particular countries included. The availability of identical indicators collected at a similar time across a diverse range of countries that

vary in their institutional arrangements and pandemic responses also facilitates unique cross-national comparisons not possible with other data sources. The data can potentially be used to

study numerous issues related to work-family experiences of parents of young children during the pandemic, including but not limited to the following: * 1) Mothers and fathers’ pre-pandemic

perceptions of parental divisions of five childcare tasks and seven housework tasks to divisions later in the pandemic. While numerous studies documented changes in household divisions of

labour in the first wave of the pandemic30,32,33, there has been less research documenting divisions later in the pandemic. Data from this later time-point will be valuable for scholars

interested in assessing the persistence of early-pandemic shifts in particular countries and comparing across countries. The potential research questions to be addressed using FCCGD29 could

be for example: How has the increase in time spent on childcare and on household tasks during the pandemic differed across countries (United States, Canada, Germany, Italy, Sweden and

Poland) and gender for parents of children under 12? Have the changes in the division of household and childcare responsibilities in the longer perspective (over a year) been similar or

different across diverse countries in Europe (Germany, Italy, Sweden and Poland) and North America (the United States & Canada)? Which specific tasks became more equally (less equally)

distributed and how? What are the gender differences across these countries in the perception of changes to the division of unpaid labour in the family among parents of children under 12? *

2) Comparisons of the nature and degree of changes in employment patterns, including changes in hours of work, employment status (e.g. employed, on-leave, unemployed) and working from home.

While good quality data can be found on these indicators for some individual countries, operationalization of indicators varies, making cross-country comparisons problematic. Our data

provide a unique source of harmonised data on these key variables collected during a common time frame. Information on employment patterns can in turn be contextualised with comparisons of

differences across countries in reported barriers to employment and pandemic-related disruptions to schooling and childcare arrangements. Some potential research questions to be addressed

using FCCGD29 include: How has the mean number of hours worked changed after about 1.5 years since the outbreak of the pandemic among parents of children under 12, across genders and

countries (United States, Canada, Germany, Italy, Sweden and Poland)? Has the frequency of working from home among those with access to it already before the pandemic increased during the

pandemic across countries (United States, Canada, Germany, Italy, Sweden and Poland) and genders and between employees and self-employed parents? How did the perception of job insecurity

differ among employed mothers and fathers of children under 12 in the United States, Canada, Germany, Italy, Sweden and Poland in mid-2021? * 3) Indicators of family and individual

well-being including perceived changes in financial situation, perceptions of career prospects, and work-life balance in June-Sept 2021 compared to before the pandemic. Comparable indicators

on these important aspects of well-being can add insight into the consequences of cross-country and gender differences in changes to work-family and care arrangements. The potential

research questions to be addressed using FCCGD29 could be for example: How many working fathers and mothers of children under 12 across countries (United States, Canada, Germany, Italy,

Sweden and Poland) experienced deterioration in their work-life balance during the pandemic? How does the gender gap in career prospects for working mothers and fathers of children under 12

differ across countries? * 4) Incidence and frequency of children in pre-school and school-age staying at home due to lockdowns and school closures during the pandemic. This data provides

comparative information on the potential childcare and schooling burden experienced by parents in the six countries due to the pandemic-related lockdowns. The potential research questions to

be addressed using FCCGD29 could be for example: What share of parents of children under 7 in different countries (United States, Canada, Germany, Italy, Sweden and Poland) experienced a

lack of access to childcare that they usually used during the first 15 months of the pandemic? How long were their children out of childcare due to childcare closures related to the

pandemic? How long was at least one child at school age at home due to school closures during the pandemic in different countries (United States, Canada, Germany, Italy, Sweden and Poland)?

It is important to note that the countries included in the dataset vary in their institutional arrangements, with sub-national jurisdictions determining key responses in some countries. In

Canada, for example, school closures varied across and within provinces such that country-level data on time children were out of school due to closures will not perfectly capture the

situation in any particular area, but rather provides an aggregate picture of outcomes that vary across regions. While obviously not as versatile as full microdata, tabular data derived from

surveys can provide critical descriptive information to researchers, policy-makers, and other members of the public. Indeed, the value of providing open access to aggregated cross-tabular

data on key variables is highlighted by the fact that major statistical agencies around the world commonly devote substantial resources to providing this type of data access (e.g. Statistics

Canada’s CANSIM tables, OECD or Eurostat’s Data Browsers). Finally, the FCCGD29 data can also be useful for cross-validating results from previous pandemic surveys conducted in the six

countries covered by our survey. CODE AVAILABILITY The STATA do-file with codes used to create tables needed for creation of the presented dataset (FCCGD29) from FHD is available at

https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MJFZ3. The process of harmonisation and merging of the country’s individual datasets in order to create FHD has been recorded in a STATA do-file and is

available upon request from Anna Kurowska. We used STATA 17 for this purpose. Due to country-specific policy restrictions, the FHD cannot be made available to the public. REFERENCES *

Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., Hendren, N. & Stepner, M. How did COVID-19 and stabilization policies affect spending and employment? A new real-time economic tracker based on private

sector data. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 27431. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27431/w27431.pdf (2020). * Su, C., Dai, K., Ullah, S. & Andlib,

Z. COVID-19 pandemic and unemployment dynamics in European economies. _Econ. Res.-Ekon. Istraz._ https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2021.1912627 (2021). Article  Google Scholar  * Collins, C.,

Landivar, L. C., Ruppanner, L. & Scarborough, W. J. COVID-19 and the gender gap in work hours. _Gender Work Organ._ 28, 101–112, https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12506 (2021). Article 

Google Scholar  * Qian, Y. & Fuller, S. COVID-19 and the gender employment gap among parents of young children. _Can. Public. Pol._ 46, S89–S101, https://doi.org/10.3138/cpp.2020-077

(2020). Article  Google Scholar  * Raghavan, A., Demircioglu, M. A. & Orazgaliyev, S. COVID-19 and the new normal of organizations and employees: An overview. _Sustainability-Basel_. 13,

https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111942 (2021). * van Zoonen, W. _et al_. Factors influencing adjustment to remote work: Employees’ initial responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. _Int. J. Env.

Res. Pub. He_. 18, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136966 (2021). * Yerkes, M. A. _et al_. ‘Intelligent’ lockdown, intelligent effects? Results from a survey on gender (in)equality in paid

work, the division of childcare and household work, and quality of life among parents in the Netherlands during the COVID-19 lockdown. _PLOS ONE._

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242249 (2020). Article  Google Scholar  * Blum, S. & Dobrotić, I. Childcare-policy responses in the COVID-19 pandemic: Unpacking cross-country

variation. _Eur. Soc._ 23, S545–S563, https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2020.1831572 (2021). Article  Google Scholar  * Waddell, N., Overall, N. C., Chang, V. T. & Hammond, M. D. Gendered

division of labor during a nationwide COVID-19 lockdown: Implications for relationship problems and satisfaction. _J. Soc. Pers. Relat._ 38, 1759–1781,

https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407521996476 (2021). Article  Google Scholar  * Yaish, M., Mandel, H. & Kristal, T. Has the economic lockdown following the COVID-19 pandemic changed the

gender division of labor in Israel? _Gender Soc._ 35, 256–270, https://doi.org/10.1177/08912432211001297 (2021). Article  Google Scholar  * Carlson, D. L., Petts, R. J. & Pepin, J. R.

Changes in US parents’ domestic labor during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. _Sociol Inq._ 92, 1217–1244, https://doi.org/10.1111/soin.12459 (2021). Article  Google Scholar  *

Guetto, R., Pirani, E. & Lodetti, P. The wellbeing of single parents in Italy before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. _Rivista Italiana di Economia Demografia e Statistica._ LXXV,

121–132 (2021). Google Scholar  * Petts, R. J., Carlson, D. L. & Pepin, J. R. A gendered pandemic: Childcare, homeschooling, and parents’ employment during COVID-19. _Gender Work Organ._

28(S2), 515–534, https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12614 (2021). Article  Google Scholar  * Chung, H., Birkett, H., Forbes, S. & Seo, H. COVID-19, flexible working, and implications for

gender equality in the United Kingdom. _Gender Soc._ 35, 218–232, https://doi.org/10.1177/08912432211001304 (2021). Article  Google Scholar  * Craig, L. & Churchill, B. Dual-earner

parent couples’ work and care during COVID-19. _Gender Work Organ._ 28, 66–79, https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12497 (2021). Article  Google Scholar  * Fuller, S. & Qian, Y. COVID-19 and

the gender gap in employment among parents of young children. _Gender Soc._ 35, 206–217, https://doi.org/10.1177/08912432211001287 (2021). Article  Google Scholar  * Collins, C., Landivar,

L. C., Ruppanner, L. & Scarborough, W. J. COVID-19 and the gender gap in work hours. _Gender Work Organ._ 28, 101–112, https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12506 (2020). Article  Google Scholar

  * Shafer, K., Milkie, M. A. & Scheibling, C. The division of domestic labor before & during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada: Stagnation versus shifts in fathers’ contributions.

_Can. Rev Sociol._ 57, 523–549, https://doi.org/10.1111/cars.12315 (2020). Article  Google Scholar  * Caringal-Go, J. F., Teng-Calleja, M., Bertulfo, D. J. & Manaois, J. O. Work-life

balance crafting during COVID-19: Exploring strategies of telecommuting employees in the Philippines. _Community, Work & Family_ https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2021.1956880 (2021). *

Parry, B. R. & Gordon, E. The shadow pandemic: Inequitable gendered impacts of COVID-19 in South Africa. _Gender Work Organ._ 28, 795–806, https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12565 (2020).

Article  Google Scholar  * Guetto, R., Vignoli, D. & Bazzani, G. Marriage and cohabitation under uncertainty: The role of narratives of the future during the COVID-19 pandemic. _European

Societies._ 23, (sup1), 674–S688, https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2020.1833359 (2021). Article  Google Scholar  * Blackburn, A. M. & Vestergren, S., the COVIDiSTRESS II Consortium.

COVIDiSTRESS diverse dataset on psychological and behavioural outcomes one year into the COVID-19 pandemic. _Sci. Data._ 9, 331, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01383-6 (2022). Article 

CAS  Google Scholar  * Brouard, S. _et al_. ‘Citizens’ attitudes under Covid19’, A cross-country panel survey of public opinion in 11 advanced democracies. _Sci. Data._ 9, 108,

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01249-x (2022). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Osorio-Saez, E. M. _et al_. Survey data on the impact of COVID-19 on parental engagement across 23

countries. _Data in Brief_. 35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2021.106813 (2021). * Aristovnik, A., Keržič, D., Ravšelj, D., Tomaževič, N. & Umek, L. Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on

life of higher education students: Global survey dataset from the first wave. _Data in Brief_. 39, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2021.107659 (2021). * Seck, P. A., Encarnacion, J. O.,

Tinonin, C. & Duerto-Valero, S. Gendered impacts of COVID-19 in Asia and the Pacific: Early evidence on deepening socioeconomic inequalities in paid and unpaid work. _Fem. Econ._ 1-2,

117–132, https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2021.1876905 (2021). Article  Google Scholar  * Obioma, I. F., Jaga, A., Asekun, W. A. & Bark, A. S. H. Gendered share of housework and the

COVID-19 pandemic: Examining self-ratings and speculation of others in Germany, India, Nigeria, and South Africa. _J. Soc Issues_. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12507 (2022). * Prochazka, J.

_et al_. Data on work-related consequences of COVID-19 pandemic for employees across Europe. _Data in Brief_. 32, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2020.106174 (2020). * Kurowska, A. _et al_.

Familydemic cross country and gender dataset on work and family outcomes during COVID-19 pandemic. _Open Science Framework_ https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MJFZ3 (2022). * Kreyenfeld, M.

& Zinn, S. Coronavirus and care: How the coronavirus crisis affected fathers’ involvement in Germany. _Demogr. Res._ 44, 99–124, https://www.jstor.org/stable/27032906 (2021). Article 

Google Scholar  * Hipp, L., Bünning, M., Munnes, S. & Sauermann, A. Problems and pitfalls of retrospective survey questions in COVID-19 studies. _Surv. Res. Methods-Ger._ 14(2), 109–114,

https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2020.v14i2.7741 (2020). Article  Google Scholar  * Fodor, É., Gregor, A., Koltai, J. & Kováts, E. The impact of COVID-19 on the gender division of childcare

work in Hungary. _Eur. Soc._ 23, (sup1), S95–S110, https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2020.1817522 (2021). Article  Google Scholar  * Zoch, G., Bächmann, A.-C. & Vicari, B. Who cares when

care closes? Care-arrangements and parental working conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. _Eur. Soc._ 23, (sup1), S576–S588, https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2020.1832700

(2021). Article  Google Scholar  Download references ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was supported in part by the National Science Centre in Poland under grant nr 2020/37/B/HS5/02703

(coordination of the Familydemic Project, conduct of the survey in Poland, harmonisation, merging and cleaning of FHD dataset, writing the Data Descriptor by Anna Kurowska). The Canadian

survey was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) through the Reimagining Care/Work Policies Partnership project (grant number 895-2020-1011) with

Andrea Doucet as Principal Investigator and Sylvia Fuller as Co-Investigator. Fielding of the survey in Sweden was paid for by a grant from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

(SO2021-0028) with support also from FORTE: Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare (2019-00337). Funding for the German survey was provided by the COVID-19 Funds,

University of Hamburg, the Gender Promotion Funds of the Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, University of Hamburg, and the Centre for Sustainable Society Research (CSS),

University of Hamburg. Funding for the Italian survey was provided by Raffaele Guetto and Daniele Vignoli’s personal research fundings at the University of Florence. Funding for the US

survey was provided by Davidson College and Fordham University. The authors are grateful to Heejung Chung, Anke Plagnol, Shireen Kanji and Anna Escobedo Caparros for their useful comments at

the initial stages of the development of the Familydemic Questionnaire and to Melissa Milkie for her comments to some of the questions in the latest stages of creating of the Familydemic

Questionnaire. The Polish team is particularly grateful to Kamil Matuszczyk for his support in testing the Polish version of the survey in June 2021. The Swedish team is grateful to Simon

Helperin and Ida Johansson who translated the survey instrument and survey responses and prepared the Swedish data for cross-national harmonisation. The Canadian team thanks members of the

Reimagining Care/Work Policies project who assisted with piloting and adapting the survey for diverse Canadian families — Kim de Laat, Karen Foster, Eva Jewell, Donna Lero, Sophie Mathieu,

and Melissa Milkie; students Manlin Cai, Jessica Falk, Alyssa Gerhart, Rachel McLay, Siqi Qin, and Christina Treleaven; and Project Manager, Jennifer Turner. The Italian team thanks Eleonora

Miaci who assisted with translating and adapting the survey. The members of the University of Florence Population and Society Unit are also gratefully acknowledged for testing and

commenting on several versions of the questionnaire. The entire team is also grateful to Jennifer Turner for her work on editing the final version of the text. AUTHOR INFORMATION AUTHORS AND

AFFILIATIONS * Faculty of Political Science and International Studies; Interdisciplinary Centre for Labour Market and Family Dynamics (LabFam), University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland Anna

Kurowska, Ilyar Heydari Barardehi & Tsegachew Degu Kasegn * Department of Sociology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada Sylvia Fuller * Department of Sociology, Ball State

University, Muncie, USA Richard J. Petts * Department of Sociology, Davidson College, Davidson, USA Gayle Kaufman * Department of Sociology and Women’s and Gender Studies, Brock University,

St. Catharines, Canada Andrea Doucet * Swedish Institute for Social Research, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden Cassandra Engeman * Faculty of Economic Sciences; Interdisciplinary

Centre for Labour Market and Family Dynamics (LabFam), University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland Anna Matysiak * Department of Statistics, Computer Science, Applications, University of Florence,

Florence, Italy Raffaele Guetto & Daniele Vignoli * Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany Thordis Reimer * Mid Sweden University,

Sundsvall, Sweden; Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden Ann-Zofie Duvander * Graduate School of Social Service, Fordham University, New York, USA Shirely Gatenio Gabel Authors * Anna

Kurowska View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Ilyar Heydari Barardehi View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed 

Google Scholar * Sylvia Fuller View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Richard J. Petts View author publications You can also search for this

author inPubMed Google Scholar * Gayle Kaufman View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Andrea Doucet View author publications You can also

search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Cassandra Engeman View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Anna Matysiak View author

publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Raffaele Guetto View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Thordis

Reimer View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Tsegachew Degu Kasegn View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed 

Google Scholar * Daniele Vignoli View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Ann-Zofie Duvander View author publications You can also search for

this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Shirely Gatenio Gabel View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar CONTRIBUTIONS Anna Kurowska initiated,

planned and coordinated the entire Familydemic Project. Anna Kurowska, Anna Matysiak, Thordis Reimer, Raffaele Guetto, Daniele Vignoli, Andrea Doucet, Sylvia Fuller, Shirley Gatenio Gabel,

Gayle Kaufman, Richard J. Petts, and Cassandra Engeman worked together on the development of the survey instrument. Anna Kurowska and Anna Matysiak surveyed the process of conducting the

Familydemic Survey by Ariadna in Poland; Raffaele Guetto and Daniele Vignoli supervised the Familydemic Survey performed by the company Demetra in Italy; Andrea Doucet and Sylvia Fuller

supervised the implementation of the survey in Canada; Sylvia Fuller supervised students in the data cleaning processes in Canada; Gayle Kaufman, Richard J. Petts, Cassandra Engeman, and

Shirley Gatenio Gabel supervised the Familydemic Survey performed by Qualtrics in the US. In Sweden, Ann-Zofie Duvander and Cassandra Engeman supervised the implementation of the survey by

Novus and worked with students to clean the data in preparation for harmonisation. Tsegachew Degu Kasegn under supervision of and in cooperation with Anna Kurowska harmonised and merged the

country datasets; Ilyar Heydari Barardehi under supervision of and in cooperation with Anna Kurowska performed data cleaning in the merged dataset and calculated the data needed for creation

of the presented FCCGD. All authors took part in finalising the text of this Data Descriptor, either by co-writing it with Anna Kurowska (Sylvia Fuller, Richard J. Petts, Gayle Kaufman,

Cassandra Engeman, Thordis Reimer, Tsegachew Degu Kasegn, Ilyar Heydari Barardehi, Raffaele Guetto) or by consulting on it (Andrea Doucet, Ann-Zofie Duvander, Daniele Vignoli, Shirley

Gatenio Gabel and Anna Matysiak). Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to Anna Kurowska. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Correspondence to Anna Kurowska. ETHICS DECLARATIONS

COMPETING INTERESTS The authors declare no competing interests. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PUBLISHER’S NOTE Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps

and institutional affiliations. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS OPEN ACCESS This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,

adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons

license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a

credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted

use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Reprints and permissions ABOUT

THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Kurowska, A., Barardehi, I.H., Fuller, S. _et al._ Familydemic Cross Country and Gender Dataset on work and family outcomes during COVID-19 pandemic. _Sci

Data_ 10, 2 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01880-8 Download citation * Received: 02 August 2022 * Accepted: 30 November 2022 * Published: 03 January 2023 * DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01880-8 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not

currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative