Health-related consequences of the type and utilization rates of electronic devices by college students.
Comfort
Ergonomics
Posture
Sedentary
Smartphone
Student
Tablet
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 11 2021
01 11 2021
Historique:
received:
13
11
2020
accepted:
06
10
2021
entrez:
2
11
2021
pubmed:
3
11
2021
medline:
5
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
College students are leading an evolution of device use both in the type of device and the frequency of use. They have transitioned from desktop stations to laptops, tablets, and especially smartphones and use them throughout the day and into the night. Using a 35-min online survey, we sought to understand how technology daily usage patterns, device types, and postures affect pain and discomfort to understand how knowledge of that pain might help students avoid it. Data were analyzed from 515 students (69.5% male) who completed an internet-delivered survey (81.3% response rate). Participants ranked smartphones as their most frequently used technology (64.0%), followed by laptops and tablets (both 53.2%), and desktop computers (46.4%). Time spent using smartphones averaged over 4.4 h per day. When using their devices, students were more likely to adopt non-traditional workplace postures as they used these devices primarily on the couch or at a chair with no desk. Recent trends in wireless academic access points along with the portability of small handheld devices, have made smartphones the most common link to educational materials despite having the least favorable control and display scenario from an ergonomic perspective. Further, the potential impact of transitions in work environments due to COVID-19 may further exacerbate ergonomic issues among millions highlighting the need for such work to be carried out.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
College students are leading an evolution of device use both in the type of device and the frequency of use. They have transitioned from desktop stations to laptops, tablets, and especially smartphones and use them throughout the day and into the night.
METHODS
Using a 35-min online survey, we sought to understand how technology daily usage patterns, device types, and postures affect pain and discomfort to understand how knowledge of that pain might help students avoid it. Data were analyzed from 515 students (69.5% male) who completed an internet-delivered survey (81.3% response rate).
RESULTS
Participants ranked smartphones as their most frequently used technology (64.0%), followed by laptops and tablets (both 53.2%), and desktop computers (46.4%). Time spent using smartphones averaged over 4.4 h per day. When using their devices, students were more likely to adopt non-traditional workplace postures as they used these devices primarily on the couch or at a chair with no desk.
CONCLUSION
Recent trends in wireless academic access points along with the portability of small handheld devices, have made smartphones the most common link to educational materials despite having the least favorable control and display scenario from an ergonomic perspective. Further, the potential impact of transitions in work environments due to COVID-19 may further exacerbate ergonomic issues among millions highlighting the need for such work to be carried out.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34724921
doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-11975-3
pii: 10.1186/s12889-021-11975-3
pmc: PMC8559143
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1970Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Nat Med. 2021 Jan;27(1):136-140
pubmed: 33442014
Ann Rheum Dis. 2014 Jun;73(6):975-81
pubmed: 24665117
Am J Med. 2000 Nov;109(7):586-8
pubmed: 11063961
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Oct 23;10:CD008570
pubmed: 30350850
Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 2008 May;35(5-6):670-8
pubmed: 18215187
BMC Public Health. 2018 Oct 29;18(1):1208
pubmed: 30373542
J Phys Ther Sci. 2018 Oct;30(10):1293-1300
pubmed: 30349167
BMC Public Health. 2017 Sep 18;17(1):721
pubmed: 28923052
Ergonomics. 2012;55(10):1166-79
pubmed: 22849301
Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2019 Jun;11(6):565-570
pubmed: 31213311
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2016 Jun;35:42-8
pubmed: 27124085
J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2013;26(4):389-95
pubmed: 23948826
Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2006 Nov;80(2):98-108
pubmed: 16736193
Appl Ergon. 2014 Nov;45(6):1603-9
pubmed: 24934983
Am J Prev Med. 2016 Nov;51(5):816-824
pubmed: 27745681
Man Ther. 2016 Dec;26:47-53
pubmed: 27479091
Scand J Psychol. 2000 Sep;41(3):231-41
pubmed: 11041305
Ergonomics. 2001 May 15;44(6):614-48
pubmed: 11373024
Ergonomics. 2007 Feb;50(2):261-74
pubmed: 17419158
Am J Pharm Educ. 2020 Aug;84(8):ajpe7875
pubmed: 32934386
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012 Aug;112(8):2891-902
pubmed: 22143842
Work. 2007;28(3):231-8
pubmed: 17429149
Am J Ind Med. 2004 Sep;46(3):297-303
pubmed: 15307128
Work. 2016 Nov 22;55(3):663-671
pubmed: 27768002
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013 Jan 04;14:8
pubmed: 23289824
Am J Ind Med. 2002 May;41(5):383-92
pubmed: 12071491
J Behav Addict. 2017 Dec 1;6(4):699-707
pubmed: 29099234
J Pak Med Assoc. 2018 Apr;68(4):682-688
pubmed: 29808072