Does Using Multiple Computer Monitors Affect Health and Productivity? A Systematic Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Multiple monitor configurations are used in office settings to promote increased productivity by providing more screen space. Our systematic review compiled literature to determine if office workers who use multiple computer monitor configurations have altered health and performance outcomes compared to the use of a single monitor. A secondary purpose was to compare the studies’ monitor configurations to purchasing trends. Finally, we compiled user preference results and methodological information, such as the tasks used and participant placement. Our systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (Gallagher, Cameron, De Carvalho, & Boule, 2018) a-priori and conducted and reported according to the PRISMA statement guidelines (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, & Group, 2010). Inclusion criteria were any study that assessed participants over the age of 18 years, looked at office work tasks, and assessed the use of either two or more monitors at a time in comparison to single monitor use. The primary outcomes were changes in health and performance-related variables. Secondary outcomes were user preference, the characteristics of the monitor configurations tested in the study, participant placement with respect to those monitors, and tasks used to assess configuration effectiveness. Two team members (KG & MB) independently screened the titles and abstracts to determine studies that potentially met the inclusion criteria. Justification for inclusion/exclusion was recorded on a standardized form. For all included studies, the independent reviewers separately extracted information and performed a risk of bias assessment. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion and if necessary, consultation with a third reviewer (DC). We included eighteen articles in the systematic review. Four studies were conducted in a field setting using workers’ real tasks and fourteen were conducted in a laboratory setting. Performance outcomes generally improved or remained the same with the use of multiple computer monitors versus a single monitor; however, results were shown to be influenced by the task involved. Health-related outcomes were less consistent and have not been investigated enough on multiple monitor configurations and larger displays. Head rotation from neutral is found with multiple monitor use. Muscle activity and discomfort measures need further assessment, especially for larger monitors. Future work should assess health and performance measures together to get a clear picture of the potential benefits and disadvantages of the monitor setup, be cognizant of the tasks and user placements chosen, consider recent purchasing trends when selecting monitors for research studies, and conduct field studies to assess the influence of monitor choice and placement on performance, and health and well-being.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».