Should office workers spend fewer hours at their computer? A systematic review of the literature
- 1Department of Public and Occupational Health, Institute for Research in Extramural Medicine (EMGO), VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- 2TNO Quality of Life, Hoofddorp, The Netherlands
- 3Institute for Fundamental and Clinical Human Movement Sciences (IFKB), Faculty of Human Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Correspondence to: S IJmker Body@Work TNO VUmc, Institute for Research in Extramural Medicine (EMGO), Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands; s.ijmker{at}vumc.nl
- Accepted 20 October 2006
- Published Online First 9 November 2006
Abstract
Worldwide, millions of office workers use a computer. Reports of adverse health effects due to computer use have received considerable media attention. This systematic review summarises the evidence for a relationship between the duration of work time spent using the computer and the incidence of hand–arm and neck–shoulder symptoms and disorders. Several databases were systematically searched up to 6 November 2005. Two reviewers independently selected articles that presented a risk estimate for the duration of computer use, included an outcome measure related to hand–arm or neck–shoulder symptoms or disorders, and had a longitudinal study design. The strength of the evidence was based on methodological quality and consistency of the results. Nine relevant articles were identified, of which six were rated as high quality. Moderate evidence was concluded for a positive association between the duration of mouse use and hand–arm symptoms. For this association, indications for a dose–response relationship were found. Risk estimates were in general stronger for the hand–arm region than for the neck–shoulder region, and stronger for mouse use than for total computer use and keyboard use. A pathophysiological model focusing on the overuse of muscles during computer use supports these differences. Future studies are needed to improve our understanding of safe levels of computer use by measuring the duration of computer use in a more objective way, differentiating between total computer use, mouse use and keyboard use, attaining sufficient exposure contrast, and collecting data on disability caused by symptoms.
Footnotes
-
↵* ICC >0.6 or κ >0.4 for test–retest reliability or interobserver reliability. Additionally, for self-reports: ICC >0.6 or κ >0.4 or r >0.75 for agreement with observation or direct measurement.
-
↵† ICC >0.6 or κ >0.4 for test–retest reliability. Additionally for self-reports, in the case of using scales: Cronbach’s α >0.7 for the majority of scales used.
-
↵‡ ICC >0.6 or κ >0.4 or r >0.75 for test–retest reliability or interobserver reliability, or if (modified) Nordic questionnaire was used.15–17
-
Published Online First 9 November 2006
-
Funding: This article was prepared as part of a PhD project within the framework of the Body@Work TNO VUmc Research Centre. This study was supported by the VU University Medical Centre and TNO Quality of Life Fund Body@Work TNO VUmc. No external funding was obtained for this article.
-
Competing interests: None.
