BACKGROUND:

Symptoms from the eyes are common among computer users. Knowledge is scarce about these problems, however.

OBJECTIVES:

The aim was to study risk-factors, incidence and persistence of eye-symptoms among professionally active computer users.

METHODS:

This was a questionnaire based prospective study where 1283 males and females from different professions and companies answered a baseline questionnaire about individual factors and working conditions, e.g. duration of daily computer work, comfort of screen work, psychosocial factors. Subjects were at baseline and 10 follow-ups asked about the number of days with eye-symptoms during the preceding month.

RESULTS:

The incidence-rate of symptoms persisting minimum three days was 0.38/person-year. A multivariate Hazard-ratio model showed significant associations with extended continuous computer work, tasks with high demands on eye-hand coordination, low level of control, visual discomfort, female sex and nicotine use. Eye-symptoms at baseline was a strong risk factor for new symptoms.

CONCLUSION:

The incidence of eye-symptoms among professional computer users is high and related to both individual and work-related factors. The organization of computer work should secure frequent breaks from near-work at the computer screen. The severity of vision-related problems could in field studies be quantified by asking for the persistence of symptoms.

Objective. Sedentary behavior is an independent risk factor for obesity, diabetes, and all cause mortality. With adults in occupational settings spending two thirds or more of their time in sedentary behavior, novel strategies are required to intervene with occupational sitting. To investigate whether or not use of sit-stand desks and awareness of the importance of postural variation and breaks are associated with the pattern of sedentary behavior in office workers.

Method. The data came from a cross-sectional observation study of Swedish call centre workers. Inclinometers recorded ‘seated’ or ‘standing/walking’ episodes of 131 operators over a full work shift. Differences in sedentary behavior based on desk type and awareness of the importance of posture variation and breaks were assessed by non-parametric analyses.

Results. 90 (68.7%) operators worked at a sit-stand desk. Working at a sit-stand desk, as opposed to a sit desk, was associated with less time seated (78.5 vs 83.8%, p=0.010), and less time taken to accumulate 5 minutes of standing/walking (36.2 vs 46.3 minutes, p=0.022), but no significant difference to sitting episode length or the number of switches between sitting and standing/walking per hour. Ergonomics awareness was not associated with any sedentary pattern variable among those using a sit-stand desk.

Conclusion. Use of sit-stand desks was associated with better sedentary behavior in call centre workers, however ergonomics awareness did not enhance the effect. Further investigation into how best to intervene with occupational sitting is required.

Personal computers are used by a majority of the working population in their professions. Little is known about risk-factors for incident symptoms from the eyes among professional computer users. The aim was to study the incidence and risk-factors for symptoms from the eyes among professional computer users. This study is a part of a comprehensive prospective follow-up study of factors associated with the incidence of symptoms among professional computer users. 1531 computer users of different professions at 46 companies were invited, whereof 1283 answered a baseline questionnaire (498 men; 785 women) and 1246 at least one of 10 monthly follow-up questionnaires. The computer work-station and equipment were generally of a good standard. The majority used CRT displays. During the follow-up period 329 subjects reported eye symptoms. The overall incidence rate in the whole study group was 0.38 per person-year, 0.23 in the subgroup of subjects who were symptom free at baseline and 1.06 among subjects who reported eye symptoms at baseline. In the bivariate analyses significant associations were found with all explanatory variables, except BMI. The reduced multivariate model showed significant associations with extended computer work, visual discomfort (dose-response), eye symptoms at baseline (higher risk), sex (women=higher risk) and nicotine use. The incidence of eye problems among professional computer users is high and related to both individual and work-related factors.

In a clear and accessible presentation, Occupational Physiology focuses on important issues in the modern working life. Exploring major public health problems such as musculoskeletal disorders and stress, this book explains connections between work, well-being, and health based on up-to-date research in the field. It provides useful methods for risk assessments and guidelines on arranging a good working life from the perspective of the working individual, the company, and society as a whole.

The book focuses on common, stressful situations in different professions in work life. Reviewing bodily demands and reactions in eight selected common but contrasting job types, the book explains relevant physiology in a novel way. Rather than being structured according to organs in the body, the book accepts the complex physiology of typical jobs and uses this as an entry. In addition to physiological facts, the book discusses risk factors for disorders and gives ideas on how to organize and design work and tasks so as to optimize health, work ability, and productivity.

Although many books cover physiology, they are based on a traditional anatomical structure (e.g., addressing the physiology of the cardiovascular system, the gastrointestinal system, and so forth) and require readers to synthesize this knowledge into real-life complex applications. Occupational Physiology is, instead, structured around a number of typical jobs and explains their physiology, as complex as they may be. This approach, while still presenting the physiology needed to understand occupational life, demonstrates how to use this information in situations encountered in practice.

Purpose: The aim of the present study was to assess variation in gross body posture amongst male and female call centre operators using whole-day registrations of seated and standing/walking periods, analyzed and described by a number of novel variables.

Methods: Body postures, identified as either seated or standing/walking, were recorded using inclinometers throughout an entire work shift for 43 male and 97 female call centre operators at 16 call centres. Data were analyzed using an extensive set of variables describing occurrence of postures, switches between postures, posture similarities across the day, and compliance with posture recommendations.

Results: The majority of the operators, both male and female, spent more than 80% of the shift in a seated posture. The average number of switches between seated and standing/walking or vice versa was 10.4 per hour. Female operators spent, on average, 11% of the day in periods of sustained sitting longer than 1 hour; male operators only 4.6% of the day (p=0.013). Only 38% of the operators followed current standard recommendations of having an uninterrupted break from seated work, lasting a minimum of 5minutes within a one hour of work and only 11% of operators had a 10 minute (or longer) uninterrupted break. Substantial variation between operators was observed in many variables. Since work tasks were essentially similar across operators and were expected to be similar across days, this indicates individual differences in working technique.

Conclusions: The dominance of seated work for extended periods indicates that efforts should be made at call centres to introduce more gross physical variation during the work day. Appropriate and effective initiatives for realizing this intervention need to be identified