Top

Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Review

Digitally connected work and its consequences for strain – a systematic review

Authors: Sabrina Zolg, Barbara Heiden, Britta Herbig

Published in: Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

Background

Evolving digitization has an impact not only on the organization of work, but also on the health of employees. Dealing with new technologies, integrating new processes and requirements into work, and restructuring tasks among others are demands that can be stressful and impair health.

Objectives

Our aim was to identify (clusters of) working conditions associated with digitally connected work and to analyze their relations with strain, that is, health and well-being outcomes.

Methods

Between May and October 2019, a search string was used to systematically search six databases (EMBASE, Medline, PSYNDEX, PsycInfo, SocIndex, WISO) for German and English texts according to the PEO scheme. The methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Design.

Results

14 studies were identified. Despite the search string containing latest technologies, we identified mostly studies from the 1980s/90s. To aggregate findings, a categorization of work factors (cognitive demands, social factors, organizational factors, environmental factors) and health factors (motivation/satisfaction, reduced well-being/affective symptoms, physiological parameters/somatic complaints) is introduced. The most frequently identified work factors belong to the category of cognitive demands. For health factors, motivation/satisfaction was identified most often. 475 associations were found in total.

Conclusions

This systematic review provides an overview of work and health factors that have been studied between 1981 and 2019. Recent texts frequently study individualized health factors (e.g., life satisfaction) whereas objective physiological measurement data and objective survey methods such as workplace analysis are not used. This latter approach was predominantly found in the older studies. In order to obtain a comprehensive picture, however, it is worthwhile to use a combination of these subjective and objective approaches for future studies in this field.

Alioth A, Udris I. Fragebogen zur subjektiven Arbeitsanalyse (SAA). Zürich: Arbeitsmaterial am Lehrstuhl für Arbeits- und Betriebspsychologie; 1977.

Allen TD, Johnson RC, Kiburz KM, Shockley KM. Work–family conflict and flexible work arrangements: deconstructing flexibility. Pers Psychol. 2013;66(2):345–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12012.CrossRef

Andrews FM, Withey SB. Developing measures of perceived life quality: results from several national surveys. Soc Indic Res. 1974;1(1):1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00286419.CrossRef

Andries F, Bijleveld CJH, Pot FD. Working conditions and mental strain of automation personnel. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 1991;3(4):363–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447319109526021.CrossRef

Armstrong-Stassen M. Reactions of older employees to organizational downsizing the role of gender, job level, and time. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2001;56(4):234–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/56.4.P234.CrossRef

Arntz M, Gregory T, Zierahn U: The risk of automation for jobs in OECD countries: A comparative analysis. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers Nr. 189. Paris; 2016.

Axtell C, Wall T, Stride C, Pepper K, Clegg C, Gardner P, et al. Familiarity breeds content: the impact of exposure to change on employee openness and well-being. J Occup Organ Psychol. 2002;75(2):217–31. https://doi.org/10.1348/09631790260098596.CrossRef

Axtell CM, Fleck SJ, Turner N. Virtual teams: collaborating across distance. Int Rev indus and organ Psychol. 2004;19:205–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470013311.ch7.CrossRef

Ayyagari R, Grover V, Purvis R. Technostress: technological antecedents and implications. MIS Q. 2011;35(4):831–58. https://doi.org/10.2307/41409963.CrossRef

10.

Baethge A, Rigotti T. Interruptions to workflow: their relationship with irritation and satisfaction with performance, and the mediating roles of time pressure and mental demands. Work & Stress. 2013;27(1):43–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2013.761783.CrossRef

11.

Bakker AB, Demerouti E. The job demands-resources model: state of the art. J Manag Psychol. 2007;22(3):309–28. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115.CrossRef

12.

Barber LK, Santuzzi AM. Please respond ASAP: workplace telepressure and employee recovery. J Occup Health Psychol. 2015;20(2):172–89. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038278.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Berg-Beckhoff G, Nielsen G, Ladekjær Larsen E. Use of information communication technology and stress, burnout, and mental health in older, middle-aged, and younger workers - results from a systematic review. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2017;23(2):160–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/10773525.2018.1436015.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Boswell WR, Olson-Buchanan JB. The use of communication technologies after hours: the role of work attitudes and work-life conflict. J Manag. 2007;33(4):592–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307302552.CrossRef

15.

Bouchard TJ: Field research methods: interviewing questionnaires, participant observation, systematic observations, unobstrusive measures. In Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology edited by Dunnette MD. Chicago; 1976.

16.

Bradburn N. The structure of psychological well-being. Chicago; 1969.

17.

Brenner SO, Östberg O: Working conditions and environment after a participative automation project. Int J Ind Ergon 1995, 15:379–387. doi: 10.1016/0169-8141(94)00084-G, 5.

18.

Brod C. Managing technostress: optimizing the use of computer technology. Pers J. 1982;61(10):753–7.PubMed

19.

Brougham D, Haar J. Smart technology, artificial intelligence, robotics, and algorithms (STARA): employees’ perceptions of our future workplace. J Manag Organ. 2018;24(2):239–57. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2016.55.CrossRef

20.

Brown R, Duck J, Jimmieson N. E-mail in the workplace: the role of stress appraisals and normative response pressure in the relationship between e-mail stressors and employee strain. Int J Stress Manag. 2014;21(4):325–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037464.CrossRef

21.

Brynjolfsson E, McAfee D. The second machine age: work, Progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. New York; 2014.

22.

Carayon P: Healthy and efficient work with computers and information and communications technology—are there limits? SJWEH 2007, (Suppl 3):10–16.

23.

Carayon P, Smith MJ: Work organization and ergonomics. Appl Ergon 2000, 31:649–662. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-6870(00)00040-5, 6.

24.

Cascio WF, Montealegre R. How technology is changing work and organizations. Annu Rev Organ Psych Organ Behav. 2016;3(1):349–75. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062352.CrossRef

25.

Cavanaugh MA, Boswell WR, Roehling MV,Boudreau JW: An empirical examination of self-reported work stress among U.S. managers. J. Appl. Psycho. 2000, 85:65–74.

26.

Chatman JA, Spataro SE. Using self-categorization theory to understand relational demography-based variations in people’s responsiveness to organizational culture. Acad Manag J. 2005;48(2):321–31. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.16928415.CrossRef

27.

Chesley N. Information and communication technology use, work intensification and employee strain and distress. Work Employ Soc. 2014;28(4):589–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017013500112.CrossRef

28.

Christensen CM. The Innovator's dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston; 1997.

29.

Claussner C, Müller W. Arbeitsgestaltung und Arbeitserleben in der flexiblen automatisierten Fertigung - Analyse eines Beispiels aus dem VEB Kombinat Carl Zeiss JENA. Z Hyg. 1989;35(8):464–7.

30.

Corbett JM. A psychological study of advanced manufacturing technology: the concept of coupling. Behav Inform Tech. 1987;6(4):441–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449298708901855.CrossRef

31.

Dainoff MJ, Hurrell JJ, Happ A: A taxonomic framework for the description and evaluation of paced work. In Machine pacing occupational stress edited by Salvendy G, Smith MJ. London; 1981:185–190.

32.

Dainoff MJ, Happ A, Crane P. Visual Fatigue in VDT Operators. Hum Factors. 1981;23(4):421–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872088102300405.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Davenport TH, Kirby J: Just how smart are smart machines? MIT Sloan Manag. Review 2016, 57:21–25. http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/just-how-smart-are-smart-machines.

34.

Day A, Paquet S, Scott N, Hambley L: Perceived information and communication technology (ICT) demands on employee outcomes: the moderating effect of organizational ICT support. J Occup Health Psychol 2012, 17(4):473–491. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0029837.

35.

Derks D, Bakker AB. Smartphone use, work-home interference, and burnout: a diary study on the role of recovery. Appl Psychol: An Intern Review. 2014;63(3):411–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00530.x.CrossRef

36.

Diebig M, Müller A, Angerer P. Psychische Belastungen in der Industrie 4.0. Eine selektive Literaturübersicht zu (neuartigen) Belastungsbereichen. ASU Arbeitsmed Sozialmed Umweltmed. 2017;52:832–9.

37.

Diener ED, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S. The satisfaction with life scale. J Pers Assess. 1985;49(1):71–5. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Dijkstra A, van der Grinten MP, Schlatmann MJT, de Winter CR. Functioning in the work situation. Leiden: In Dutch Institute of Preventive Health care; 1986.

39.

DIN EN ISO 6385: Grundsätze der Ergonomie für die Gestaltung von Arbeitssystemen. Berlin; 2016.

40.

Dragano N, Lunau T. Technostress at work and mental health: concepts and research results. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2020;33(4):407–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0000000000000613.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Duradoni M, Innocenti F, Guazzini A: Well-Being and Social Media: A Systematic Review of Bergen Addiction Scales. Future Internet 2020, 12 (24). https://doi.org/10.3390/fi12020024.

42.

European Commission: Guidance on risk assessment at work. Luxembourg; 1996.

43.

Eyrolle H, Cellier JM. The effects of interruptions in work activity: field and laboratory results. Appl Ergon. 2000;31(5):537–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-6870(00)00019-3.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Fischer T, Riedl R. Technostress research: a nurturing ground for measurement pluralism? Commun Assoc Inf Syst. 2017;40(17):375–401. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.04017.CrossRef

45.

Franke F. Is work intensification extra stress? J Pers Psych. 2015;14(1):17–27. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000120.CrossRef

46.

Frankenhaeuser M: Stress at work. Threat, challenge, opportunity. In Dignity at work edited by Stockholm E. 1985:128–139.

47.

Frankenhaeuser M, Johansson G. Stress at work: psychobiological and psychosocial aspects. Appl Psychol. 1986;35(3):287–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1986.tb00928.x.CrossRef

48.

Fransella F, Bannister D. A manual for repertory grid technique. London; 1977.

49.

Ghislieri C, Molino M, Cortese CG. Work and organizational psychology looks at the fourth industrial revolution: how to support workers and organizations? Front Psychol. 2018;9:2365. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02365.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

50.

Glaser J, Seubert C, Hornung S, Herbig B. The impact of learning demands, work-related resources, and job stressors on creative performance and health. J Pers Psychol. 2015;14(1):37–48. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000127.CrossRef

51.

Goldberg DP. The detection of psychiatric illness by questionnaire. Oxford; 1972.

52.

Goldberg DP: Manual of the general health questionnaire. Windsor; 1978.

53.

Gottschall K, Voß G. Entgrenzung von Arbeit und Leben: zum Wandel der Beziehung von Erwerbstätigkeit und Privatsphäre im Alltag. München; 2000.

54.

Graf B, Antoni CH. The relationship between information characteristics and information overload at the workplace - a meta-analysis. Europ J Work Organ Psychol. 2021;30(1):143–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2020.1813111.CrossRef

55.

Greenhaus J, Parasuraman S, Wormley W. Effects of race on organizational experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes. Acad Manag J. 1990;33(1):64–86. https://doi.org/10.5465/256352.CrossRef

56.

Grundke R, Jamet S, Kalamova M, Keslair F, Squicciarini M. Skills and global value chains: a characterization. Technology and Industry Working Papers: OECD Science; 2017/05.

57.

Hacker W, Iwanowa A. Das Tätigkeitsbewertungssystem (TBS) – ein Hilfsmittel beim Erfassen potentiell gesundheits- und entwicklungsfördernder objektiver Tätigkeitsmerkmale. Psy Praxis. 1983;2:104–13.

58.

Hacker W, Schönfelder E. Analyse und Bewertung der Arbeitsteilung und -kombination sowie der Mensch-Rechner-Funktionsteilung bei Arbeitstätigkeiten mit Bildschirmtechnik. Wiss Z Techn Univ Dresden. 1985;34(5/6):79–84.

59.

Hackman JR, Oldham GR: Development of the job diagnostic survey. J. Appl. Psychol. 1975, 60(2):159–170. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0076546.

60.

Harris K, Marett K, Harris R. Technology-related pressure and work–family conflict: Main effects and an examination of moderating variables. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2011;41(9):2077–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00805.x.CrossRef

61.

Hickson D, Pugh D, Pheysey D. Operations technology and organizational structure: an empirical reappraisal. Adm Sc Quarterly. 1969;14(3):378–97. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391134.CrossRef

62.

Hoeck K, Hess H. Der Beschwerdefragebogen – BFB. Berlin; 1975.

63.

Humphrey SE, Nahrgang JD, Morgeson FP. Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: a meta- analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007;92(5):1332–56. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1332.CrossRefPubMed

64.

Iwanowa A, Hacker W: Kurzverfahren zur Arbeitszufriedenheit. (Forschungsbericht Bd. 46). TU Dresden, Institut für Allgemeine Psychologie und Methoden der Psychologie; 1997.

65.

Jackisch D, Richter PG. Psychophysiologische Beanspruchungsuntersuchungen bei Bildschirmarbeit – zum Zusammenhang zwischen aktuellen und langfristigen Beanspruchungsfolgen, deren Ursache-Wirkungsbeziehung und Prozeßcharakter. Wissen Z Tech Univ Dresden. 1989;38:33–8.

66.

Karasek RA. Job demands, job decision latitude and mental strain: implications for job redesign. Adm Sci Q. 1979;24(2):285–306. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392498.CrossRef

67.

Kaufmann I, Pornschlegel H, Udris I. Arbeitsbelastung und Beanspruchung. In Belastungen und Stress bei der Arbeit edited by Zimmermann L, Reinbek. 1982:13–48.

68.

Kelloway E, Gottlieb B, Barham L. The source, nature, and direction of work and family conflict: a longitudinal investigation. J Occup Health Psychol. 1999;4(4):337–46. https://doi.org/10.1037//1076-8998.4.4.337.CrossRefPubMed

69.

Kopetz, H: Simplicity is complex: foundations of cyber-physical system design. Springer. 2019. DOI: https://doi-org.emedien.ub.uni-muenchen.de/10.1007/978-3-030-20411-2, 2019.

70.

Körner U, Müller-Thur K, Lunau T, Dragano N, Angerer P, Buchner A. Perceived stress in human–machine interaction in modern manufacturing environments—results of a qualitative interview study. Stress Health. 2019;35(2):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2853.CrossRef

71.

La Torre G, Esposito A, Sciarra I, Chiapetta M. Definition, symptoms and risk of technostress: a systematic review. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2018;92(1):13–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-018-1352-1.CrossRefPubMed

72.

Lazarus RS. Psychological stress and the coping process. New York; 1966.

73.

Lazarus RS, De Longis A, Folkman S, Gruen R. Stress and adaptional outcomes. The problem of confounded measures. Am Psychol. 1985;40(7):770–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.40.7.770.CrossRefPubMed

74.

Lohani M, Payne BR, Strayer DL: A Review of Psychophysiological Measures to Assess Cognitive States in Real-World Driving. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2019, 13(57). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00057.

75.

Marsland AL, Walsh C, Lockwood K, John-Henderson NA. The effects of acute psychological stress on circulating and stimulated inflammatory markers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain Behav Immun. 2017;64:208–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2017.01.011.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

76.

Martin L, Omrani N. An assessment of trends in technology use, innovative work practices and employees’ attitudes in Europe. Appl Econom. 2015;47(6):623–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2014.978072.CrossRef

77.

Maslach C, Jackson SE. The measurement of experienced burnout. J Occ Behav. 1981;2(2):99–113. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030020205.CrossRef

78.

Matern B: Spezielle Arbeits- und Ingenieurspsychologie. Bd.3: Psychologische Arbeitsanalysen. Berlin; 1983.

79.

Mattioli S, Zanardi F, Baldasseroni A: Search strings for the study of putative occupational determinants of disease. Occup Environ Med 2010, 67:436–443. https://dx.doi.org/10.1136%2Foem.2008.044727, 7, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2008.044727.

80.

McNair DM, Lorr M, Droppelman LF: Manual: profile of mood states. San Diego; 1971.

81.

Merten F, Gloor P. Too much e-mail decreases job satisfaction. Procedia – Soc. Behav Sci. 2010;2(4):6457–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.04.055.CrossRef

82.

Meyer JP, Allen NJ, Smith CA: Commitment to organizations and occupations: extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. J Appl Psychol 1993, 78 (4):538–551. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.538.

83.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA group: preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8(5):336–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007.CrossRefPubMed

84.

Moldaschl M, Voß G. Subjektivierung von Arbeit. München; 2003.

85.

Montealgre R, Cascio W. Technology-driven changes in work and employment. Commun ACM. 2017;60(12):60–7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3152422.CrossRef

86.

Nehring R. Beitrag zur Analyse und Bewertung von Arbeitstätigkeiten – Entwicklung eines Verfahrens zur subjektiven Tätigkeitsbewertung. Dresden: Techn. Univ., Sektion Arbeitswissenschaften; 1982.

87.

Nitsch JR: Die Eigenzustandsskala (EZ-Skala) – ein Verfahren zur hierarchisch mehrdimensionalen Befindlichkeitsskalierung. In Beanspruchung im Sport edited by Nitsch JR, Udris, I. Bad Homburg; 1976.

88.

Oborski P. Man-machine interactions in advanced manufacturing systems. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 2004;23(3–4):227–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-003-1574-5.CrossRef

89.

OECD: OECD Employment Outlook 2017, OECD publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/empl_outlook-2017-en.

90.

Oztemel E, Gursev S. Literature review of Industry 4.0 and related technologies. J. Intell. Manuf. 2020;31:127–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-018-1433-8.CrossRef

91.

Palm E, Glaser J, Heiden B, Herbig B, Kolb S, Nowak D, et al. Zusammenspiel von organisationalen Normen, individuellen Präferenzen und arbeitsbezogenem Entgrenzungsverhalten mit Konflikten zwischen Arbeits- und Privatleben. Wirtschaftspsychologie. 2016;18(2):44–54.

92.

Paulsson K, Sundin L. Learning at work - a combination of experience based learning and theoretical education. Behav Info Technol. 2000;19(3):181–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/014492900406173.CrossRef

93.

Peake JM, Kerr G, Sullivan JP. A critical review of consumer wearables, mobile applications, and equipment for providing biofeedback, monitoring stress, and sleep in physically active populations. Front Physiol. 2018;9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.00743.

94.

Petropoulos G: The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Employment. In The Fourth Industrial Revolution: Opportunities and Threats Work and Welfare edited by O'Reilly J, Neufeind M, Ranft F.. London; 2018:119–132.

95.

Plath HE, Richter P. Ermüdung – Monotonie – Sättigung – Stress. Berlin: Verfahren zur skalierten Erfassung erlebter Beanspruchungsfolgen; 1984.

96.

Plath HE, Richter P. Der BMS-II-Erfassungsbogen. Psychol Praxis Suppl. 1986:64–70.

97.

Ragu-Nathan TS, Tarafdar M, Ragu-Nathan BS, Tu Q. The consequences of technostress for end users in organizations: conceptual development and empirical validation. Inf Sys Research. 2008;19(4):417–33. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1070.0165.CrossRef

98.

Rau R: Handlungssicherheit bei der Dispatchertätigkeit im Elektroenergieverorgungssystem – eine psychophysiologische Untersuchung. Frankfurt/M.; 1994.

99.

Rau R. Einzelfallanalysen zur Bewertung von Handlungssicherheit in komplexen, automatisierten Systemen. Z Arbeits- und Organisationspsychol. 1996;40:75–86.

100.

Rau R. Learning opportunities at work as predictor for recovery and health. Europ J Work Orga Psychol. 2006;15(2):158–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320500513905.CrossRef

101.

Redden ES, Elliott LR, Barnes MJ: Robots: the new teammates. In The Psychology of Workplace Technology edited by Coovert MD, Thompson LF. N Y; 2014:185–208.

102.

Reeves M, Levin S, Fink T, Levina A: Taming complexity. Harv Bus Rev 2020, January–February:113–119.

103.

Remes J, Mischke J, Krishnan M. Solving the productivity puzzle: the role of demand and the promise of digitization. International Productivity Monitor, Centre for the Study of Living Standards. 2018;34:28–51.

104.

Richardson KM, Thompson CA. High tech tethers and work-family conflict: a conservation of resources approach. Engineering Manag Research. 2012;1(1):29–43. https://doi.org/10.5539/emr.v1n1p29.CrossRef

105.

Richter PG, Leuteritz PM, Glatz B. Langzeiterfassungsbogen (LEB) – Anleitung zu einem strukturierten Interview. Dresden: Techn. Univ. Sektion Arbeitswissenschaften; 1983.

106.

Riedl R, Kindermann J, Auinger A, Javor A. Technostress from a neurobiological perspective. System breakdown increases the stress hormone cortisol in computer users. Business Inf Sys Engineering. 2012;4(2):61–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-012-0207-7.CrossRef

107.

Rohmert W, Landau K: Das arbeitswissenschaftliche Erhebungsverfahren zur Tätigkeitsanalyse (AET). Bern; 1979.

108.

Rudolph E, Schönfelder E, Hacker W. Tätigkeitsbewertungssytem für geistige Arbeit mit/ohne Rechnerunterstützung (TBS-GA). Berlin; 1983.

109.

Rutenfranz J, Kylian H, Schmidt KH, Klimmer F, Bubser R, Brandenburg U. Belastungs- und Beanspruchungsanalysen bei Überwachungstätigkeiten in einer vollautomatisierten Fertigung. Z Hyg. 1989;35(8):457–64.

110.

Salazar-Concha C, Ficapal-Cusi P, Boada-Grau J, Camacho L. Analyzing the evolution of technostress: a science mapping approach. Heliyon. 2021;7(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06726.

111.

Seibt A, Friedrichsen G, Geist HW, Schurig HU, Roehner J. Untersuchungen zur Beanspruchung durch Schichtarbeit unter den Bedingungen automatisierter Fertigung. Z Hyg. 1988;34(7):409–12.

112.

Sirriyeh R, Lawton R, Gardner P. Reviewing studies with diverse designs: the development and evaluation of a new tool. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012;18(4):746–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01662.x.CrossRefPubMed

113.

Soucek R, Moser K. Coping with information overload in email communication: evaluation of a training intervention. Comput Hum Behav. 2010;26(6):1458–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.04.024.CrossRef

114.

Stellman JM, Klitzman S, Gordon GC, Snow BR: Work environment and the well-being of clerical and VDT workers. J Organ Behav 1987, 8(2):95–114. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3000364, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030080202.

115.

Tarafdar M, Tu Q, Ragu-Nathan BS, Ragu-Nathan TS. The impact of Technostress on role stress and productivity. J Manag Inf Sys. 2007;24(1):301–28. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240109.CrossRef

116.

Tarafdar M, Cooper C, Stich JF. The technostress trifecta - techno eustress, techno distress and design: theoretical directions and an agenda for research. Inf Sys J. 2019;29(1):6–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12169.CrossRef

117.

Umans T, Kockum M, Nilsson E, Lindberg S. Digitalisation in the banking industry and workers subjective well-being: contingency perspective. Int J Workplace Health Manag. 2018;11(6):411–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-05-2018-0069.CrossRef

118.

Van de Ven A, Delbecq A. A task contingent model of work unit structure. Admin Sc Quarterly. 1974;19(2):183–97. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393888.CrossRef

119.

Van Ruysseveldt J, Verboon P, Smulders P: Job resources and emotional exhaustion. The mediating role of learning opportunities. Work & Stress 2011, 25(3):205–223. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/02678373.2011.613223.

120.

Warr P. Work environment and mental health. New York; 1987.

121.

Warr PB, Cool JD, Wall TD. Scales for the measurement of some work attitudes and aspects of psychological well-being. J Occup Psychol. 1979;52(2):129–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1979.tb00448.x.CrossRef

122.

Zam – Zentralinstiut für Arbeitsmedizin der DDR (Eds.): Arbeitsmedizinische Tauglichkeits- und Überwachungsuntersuchung. Teil 1 und 2. Berlin; 1980.

123.

Zammuto RF, Griffith TL, Majchrzak A, Dougherty DJ, Faraj S. Information technology and the changing fabric of organization. Organ Sci. 2007;18(5):749–62. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0307.CrossRef

124.

Zuboff S. In the age of the smart machine: the future of work and power. New York; 1988.

Title: Digitally connected work and its consequences for strain – a systematic review
Authors: Sabrina Zolg
Barbara Heiden
Britta Herbig
Publication date: 01-12-2021
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6673
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12995-021-00333-z

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Digitally connected work and its consequences for strain – a systematic review

Abstract

Background

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Powered air-purifying respirators used during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic significantly reduce speech perception

Genome-wide mRNA profiling identifies the NRF2-regulated lymphocyte oxidative stress status in patients with silicosis

Exposures to 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid with or without endotoxin upregulate small cell lung cancer pathway

Application of impedance measurement to investigate in vitro inhalation toxicity of bacteria

New methods for assessing secondary performance attributes of sunscreens suitable for professional outdoor work

Sleep-time physiological recovery is associated with eating habits in distressed working-age Finns with overweight: secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial