The role of at home workstation ergonomics and gender on musculoskeletal pain

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The recent mandate for university faculty and staff to work-from-home (WFH) during the COVID-19 pandemic has forced employees to work with sub-optimal ergonomic workstations that may change their musculoskeletal discomfort and pain. As women report more work-related musculoskeletal discomfort (WMSD), this effect may be exacerbated in women.

OBJECTIVE:

The purpose of this study was to describe university employee at-home office workstations, and explore if at-home workstation design mediates the effect of gender on musculoskeletal pain.

METHODS:

University employees completed a survey that focused on the WFH environment, at home workstation design and musculoskeletal pain. Descriptive statistics and regression analysis were used to analyze the responses.

RESULTS:

61% of respondents reported an increase in musculoskeletal pain, with the neck, shoulders and lower back being reported most frequently. Women reported significantly greater musculoskeletal pain, but this relationship was significantly mediated by poor ergonomic design of the home workstation. Improper seat-height and monitor distance were statistically associated with total-body WMSD.

CONCLUSIONS:

WFH has worsened employee musculoskeletal health and the ergonomic gap between women and men in the workspace has persisted in the WFH environment, with seat height and monitor distance being identified as significant predictors of discomfort/pain.

Keywords

Work from home occupational musculoskeletal discomfort computer work anthropometric differences

1 Introduction

In March of 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic forced many workplaces across Canada to transition from typical in-person office work environments to working from home (WFH). At the peak of lockdown restrictions in April 2020, 41.6% of Canada’s workforce were WFH at least 50% of the time. By the winter of 2021 approximately one quarter of Canada’s workforce (4.8 million people) continued to work from home [1]. The abrupt transition to WFH meant that many were working without office seating, desktops, external monitors, and keyboards that met ergonomic guidelines. Often, WFH includes working on a single laptop in unconventional seating places such as kitchen tables, living room sofas, or even lying in bed [1 –3]. These atypical workstations may result in discomfort and increase the risk of work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSD) due to poor postures that are not suitable for extended work periods [2 –6].

While WFH, employees may work in hybrid spaces that merge some properly fitted ergonomic accessories and adaptations with necessary environmental compromises that may result in poor postures. For example, forward head flexion can result from computer monitors being low, as is the case for many laptop users, and lead to chronic pain in the cervical region of the spine [7 –10]. Changes to the horizontal distance of desktop equipment and accessories increase ranges of motion and poor posture of the shoulder and wrist that are associated with WMSD development [11, 12]. Unsupported forearms can contribute to prolonged slouching of the shoulders, particularly as muscles fatigue [5 , 14], and may result in back pain [10 , 15–17].

WMSD are widespread among office workers and cause significant decreases in employee productivity and quality of life [12 , 18–21]. However, some evidence suggests that women may be at an increased risk of developing neck and shoulder WMSD [22]. Women have been shown to adopt more static and non-neutral postures while performing a seated typing task, despite similar workstation designs [17 , 24]. When office workstation guidelines are met, gender differences remain in upper extremity normalized exertions, muscle activity and postures [24]. While many complex factors interact to cause ergonomic gender differences, anthropometry and physiology both have gender-specific effects on musculoskeletal fatigue, strength and force capacity [24 –26]. There is a need to identify if office workstation gender differences persist or worsen within the at-home work environment.

To evaluate computer workstations and the associated risk factors for WMSDs, office specific checklists like the OSHA [27] and the Rapid Office Strain Assessment (ROSA) [6] have been developed. Numerous studies have identified that self or remote assessments of computer workstations show moderate to low validity compared to trained professional assessments [28 –30]. However, due to COVID-19 restrictions and the need for social distancing, remote ergonomic evaluations remain a viable option to increase our understanding of at-home workstations [31, 32]. Therefore, using surveys with workstation posture and equipment images, similar to those within the ROSA, may be useful at describing common computer workstation risk factors that are impacting employees working from home and identify if there are any differences in risk exposure between groups of employees [33].

The purpose of this research project was to gain an understanding of the at-home workstation environment for university staff, administration and faculty using an online survey to address three objectives. The first objective was to describe current university at-home workstation environments. The second was to determine if there are gender differences in rates of work-related musculoskeletal discomfort and pain. The third objective was to develop a model to identify which at-home workstation ergonomic factors predict work-related musculoskeletal discomfort and pain.

2 Methods

2.1 Study design

This cross-sectional survey characterized the at-home workstations of university employees and identified potential gender effects of workstation design on body discomfort/pain. The survey was made available February 2021 to Dalhousie University (Halifax, Canada) staff, administration and faculty. This study received ethical approval from the Dalhousie University Research Ethics Board and informed consent was sought prior to survey participation.

2.2 Study population

This study was limited to staff, administration and faculty that were employed by Dalhousie University and primarily working from home with limited on-campus access to offices and laboratories since March 15th, 2020. This was an estimated population of 6000 individuals [34]. Participants were recruited using announcements in university newsletters, employment association social media, department level e-mails, and word of mouth.

2.3 Home workstation survey

Opinio survey software was used to develop and administer this survey which characterized at-home workstations and work-related musculoskeletal discomfort/pain. The survey used portions of previously validated ergonomic surveys and assessments, similar to other novel hybrid surveys used by researchers throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, to assess the evolving circumstances of WFH [32 , 36]. The survey was comprised of 25 separate questions that fell under four categories: Participant characteristics (5), WFH environment (7), home workstation ergonomics (11) and discomfort/pain (2 questions –1 with 9 body regions). All questions were either multiple choice, 5-point Likert scale or 10-point pain scale questions.

The first category, Participant characteristics focused on gender, employment group, employment years, full-time employment, and previous experience completing ergonomic surveys/checklists. The WFH environment category questions inquired about comfort while WFH, intentional and unintentional work breaks, changes in workday length since WFH, work productivity and effectiveness. Since these questions are external to the three objectives they will not be reported in the results.

The home workstation ergonomic category had two separate sections of questions. The first six questions in the home workstation ergonomic category asked about at-home workstation location, daily time at workstation, workstation seating, usage of mobile devices for work, and workstation posture and equipment characteristics. Remaining home workstation ergonomic questions assessed workstation desk height, chair height, chair configuration/arm rest, and monitor height and distance using a series of images. These images were based on the Rapid Office Strain Assessment (ROSA) [6]. Each workstation design question included an ideal ergonomic worker-workstation interaction, as well as 2–4 common workstation deviations from the ideal option.

Finally, the discomfort/pain section inquired about changes in work-related discomfort that have occurred since WFH, and the current status of employee musculoskeletal discomfort and pain within nine separate body regions (Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire) [37, 38]. Body region discomforts were measured using a 10-point pain scale, where 0 indicated no discomfort or pain, and 10 indicated the worst discomfort or pain imaginable [38 –41]. Responses from the home workstation ergonomic and discomfort/pain sections of the survey were used to inform objective 2 and 3.

2.4 Data analysis

There were 486 participants, 445 of which completed all survey questions. All collected data was incorporated into analyses unless otherwise stated, with the precise number of participants included in each analysis provided within the results. Descriptive statistics (counts and percentages) were used to describe participant characteristics and the current state of university employee at-home workspaces (objective 1). For objective 2, a mediation model was used to determine if a potential relationship between gender and discomfort/pain is mediated by workstation design (Fig. 1). Unfortunately, participants who preferred not to disclose their gender (8), and those that self-identified (4) could not be included in the analysis due to small sample sizes. Discomfort and pain scores were tallied for all nine body regions to obtain a single composite pain score for each participant. Workstation design responses were binarily categorized to an ideal worker-workstation (0) or any deviation from the ideal worker-workstation (1). The values were then tallied for each participant to obtain a single workstation design score, with higher values indicating more deviation from the ideal workstation design.

Fig. 1

Mediation model of the effects of gender and workstation score on the pain score. The workstation score (higher values indicated worse workstation design) mediated the effect of gender (women reporting increased pain) on pain score.

A total effect model was created where gender was used to predict the pain score. Then direct and indirect effects were calculated by entering both gender (predictor) and workstation design (mediator) scores into the regression model, with the outcome variable as pain score. To determine if the mediating (indirect) effect was significant, 95% bootstrap confidence intervals (CIs) were constructed. For all effects, if the 95% CIs excluded 0, the null hypothesis was rejected.

To determine which at-home workstation ergo-nomic factors contributed to musculoskeletal discomfort/pain (objective 3), the binary variables associated with each aspect of the home office (ideal worker-workstation or deviation from the ideal worker-workstation) were force entered into a regression model predicting musculoskeletal discomfort/pain. 95% bootstrapped CIs were used to determine whether the effect, as measured through the regression coefficient, of each workstation design aspect predicted the pain score.

3 Results

3.1 Participant characteristics

486 university employees participated in the study with 445 participants fully completing the survey. 466 (96%) of respondents were full time university employees, and 278 (57%), 92 (19%), 144 (30%) were administration, staff and faculty, respectively (Table 1).

Table 1
Participant characteristics

Men Women SI/DND^* Number (% of total)

Employment group

Administration 56 218 4 278 (57%)

Staff 10 82 0 92 (19%)

Faculty 49 88 7 144 (30%)

Prefer to not disclose 2 4 1 7 (1%)

Total: 486

Service tears

> 20 years 26 73 3 102 (21%)

10–20 years 36 97 6 139 (29%)

2–5 years 22 70 1 93 (19%)

5–10 years 16 71 2 89 (18%)

< 2 years 16 42 0 58 (12%)

Prefer to not disclose 0 5 0 5 (1%)

Total: 486

Previously completed office ergonomic

assessment/checklist

No 99 249 10 358 (74%)

Yes 17 108 2 127 (26%)

Total: 486

	Men	Women	SI/DND^*	Number (% of total)
Employment group
Administration	56	218	4	278 (57%)
Staff	10	82	0	92 (19%)
Faculty	49	88	7	144 (30%)
Prefer to not disclose	2	4	1	7 (1%)
				Total: 486
Service tears
> 20 years	26	73	3	102 (21%)
10–20 years	36	97	6	139 (29%)
2–5 years	22	70	1	93 (19%)
5–10 years	16	71	2	89 (18%)
< 2 years	16	42	0	58 (12%)
Prefer to not disclose	0	5	0	5 (1%)
				Total: 486
Previously completed office ergonomic
assessment/checklist
No	99	249	10	358 (74%)
Yes	17	108	2	127 (26%)
				Total: 486

^*Self identify/Did not disclose

3.2 Objective 1 –Describing the home workspace

315 participants (69%) reported working at a newly designated workstation since the start of the COVID-19 restrictions, 84 participants (18%) reported that they were working at a workstation that was present at home before the restrictions. The remaining 58 participants (13%) reported that they did not have a designated workstation. 54% of participants reported that their primary workstations were located in various rooms throughout their home (Table 2), and the remaining 46% had a specific home office. Of those participants who responded ‘Other’ to their work location, 9 participants reported working in the basement, 9 participants reported office-like spaces (e.g., den, study) and the remaining participants reported less traditional workspaces (e.g., craft room, shed, walk in closet). The majority of participants reported working at a computer for 7 hours or more a day, with 54% reporting longer workdays, 33% no change, and 13% shorter workdays while WFH compared to their previous in-person workdays prior to the pandemic (Table 2).

Table 2
Home workspace characteristics

Men Women SI/DND^* Number (% of total)

Workspace location

Home Office 59 148 3 210 (46%)

Dining Room 16 51 1 68 (15%)

Living Room 9 49 2 60 (13%)

Bedroom 12 40 2 54 (12%)

Kitchen 3 16 0 19 (4%)

Other 9 35 2 46 (10%)

Total: 457

Time at computer

3–5 hours 9 20 0 29 (6%)

5–7 hours 38 122 2 162 (36%)

7–9 hours 48 163 4 215 (47%)

> 9 hours 13 33 4 50 (11%)

Total: 456

Change in workday

> 2 hours shorter 2 3 0 5 (1%)

1–2 hours shorter 4 23 0 27 (6%)

< 1 hour shorter 5 23 1 29 (6%)

No Change 41 111 2 154 (33%)

< 1 hour longer 7 37 1 45 (10%)

1–2 hours longer 28 88 4 120 (26%)

> 2 hours longer 22 56 2 80 (17%)

Total: 460

	Men	Women	SI/DND^*	Number (% of total)
Workspace location
Home Office	59	148	3	210 (46%)
Dining Room	16	51	1	68 (15%)
Living Room	9	49	2	60 (13%)
Bedroom	12	40	2	54 (12%)
Kitchen	3	16	0	19 (4%)
Other	9	35	2	46 (10%)
				Total: 457
Time at computer
3–5 hours	9	20	0	29 (6%)
5–7 hours	38	122	2	162 (36%)
7–9 hours	48	163	4	215 (47%)
> 9 hours	13	33	4	50 (11%)
				Total: 456
Change in workday
> 2 hours shorter	2	3	0	5 (1%)
1–2 hours shorter	4	23	0	27 (6%)
< 1 hour shorter	5	23	1	29 (6%)
No Change	41	111	2	154 (33%)
< 1 hour longer	7	37	1	45 (10%)
1–2 hours longer	28	88	4	120 (26%)
> 2 hours longer	22	56	2	80 (17%)
				Total: 460

^*Self identify/Did not disclose

3.3 Objective 2 –Gender differences in work-related musculoskeletal pain

A total of 390 participants had a complete data set of answered questions describing their specific home workstation ergonomic design and musculoskeletal discomfort/pain. The total, direct and indirect effects of the mediation model are shown in Fig. 1. When entered into the model alone (total effect model), gender significantly predicted participants’ pain scores, β= 3.6, 95% CI [0.92, 6.2] with women reporting a higher pain score than men (Fig. 2a). Gender also predicted the workstation design score, β= 0.58, 95% CI [0.25, 0.92], with women having a higher (i.e., worse) workstation design score than men (Fig. 2b). When both gender and the workstation design score were entered into the model, the effect of gender was no longer significantly different from zero, β= 2.5, 95% CI [–0.12, 5.0]. Critically, the workstation design score predicted the pain score β= 1.87, 95% CI [1.1, 2.6] with higher pain scores associated with worse workstation design. Most importantly the indirect effect of workstation design was significantly different from zero β= 1.1, 95% Bootstrap CI [0.38, 1.89], indicating worse workstation design mediate the relationship between the participants’ gender and pain. In other words, women had worse workstation design which resulted in them reporting more musculoskeletal pain.

Fig. 2

A –Pain score plotted for men and women employees. Higher scores indicate worse total body pain. B –The average number of non-ergonomic factors (i.e., workstation design score) reported for men and women employees. Higher scores indicate worse WFH ergonomic design.

3.4 Objective 3 –Workstation aspects and musculoskeletal pain

61% of participants reported an increase in musculoskeletal discomfort/pain since starting to WFH, 30% reported no change and only 9% reported improved musculoskeletal pain. The areas of the body that participants most frequently reported at least a moderate level of pain were the neck, shoulders and lower back. The model significantly predicted musculoskeletal pain, F(6,389) = 6.3, p < 0.001, with all coefficients presented in Table 3. Seat height, β= 6.0, 95% Bootstrap CI [3.1, 9.0] and monitor distance, β= 3.3, 95% Bootstrap CI [0.50, 5.9] both significantly predicted musculoskeletal pain, with deviations from the ideal ergonomic design of each at-home workstation factor predicting higher pain. For the participants who reported a poor ergonomic seat height, 46% of participants said their seat height was too high and 54% said it was too low. For participants who reported poor ergonomic monitor distance, 66% said their monitor was too far away (greater than arm’s length) and 34% said it was too close (less than arm’s lengths). Note that for all at-home workstation ergonomic factors, poor ergonomic design resulted in numerically higher but not significantly different pain scores (Fig. 3).

Table 3
Coefficients for workstation factors associated with musculoskeletal pain and discomfort scores

Workstation variable β^** S.E. β 95% CI

Constant 21.6 1.5 [18.8, 24.6]^*

Desk height 2.3 1.5 [–0.5, 5.1]

Seat height 6.0 1.5 [3.1, 9.0]^*

Arm rest 1.5 1.6 [–1.4, 4.6]

Back support 0.0 1.7 [–3.5, 3.5]

Monitor height 3.1 1.5 [–0.09, 6.4]

Monitor distance 3.3 1.5 [0.5, 5.9]^*

Workstation variable	β^**	S.E. β	95% CI
Constant	21.6	1.5	[18.8, 24.6]^*
Desk height	2.3	1.5	[–0.5, 5.1]
Seat height	6.0	1.5	[3.1, 9.0]^*
Arm rest	1.5	1.6	[–1.4, 4.6]
Back support	0.0	1.7	[–3.5, 3.5]
Monitor height	3.1	1.5	[–0.09, 6.4]
Monitor distance	3.3	1.5	[0.5, 5.9]^*

^*95% CI demonstrates coefficient is significantly different from 0. ^**Positive values indicate poor ergonomic set up is associated with higher pain scores.

Fig. 3

Top Row, pain scores for good and poor ergonomic workstation design based on specific at-home workstation ergonomic factors. Bottom row, proportion of respondents reporting good or poor workstation design based on specific at-home workstation ergonomic factors.

4 Discussion

The present study sought to describe university employee at-home office workstations and explore if at home workstation design mediates the effect of gender on musculoskeletal pain. The first objective described the at-home workstation environment of university employees. Participants reported working from a wide range of areas in their home, and many did not have a home workstation prior to the COVID-19 WFH mandate. Participants typically worked more than 7 hours at a computer and over half of the participants reported a longer workday since the start of COVID-19. Most employee pain and discomfort scores increased since working from home. The second objective determined that women reported higher pain scores, but this effect was mediated by aspects of poor workstation design. This suggests that women have worse at-home workstations which contribute to them experiencing more musculoskeletal pain than men. The third objective associated total body discomfort and pain scores with workstation ergonomics. Most employees reported an increase in discomfort and pain since WFH. Seat height and monitor distance were the greatest predictors of musculoskeletal discomfort and pain.

4.1 Objective 1 –Variable WFH environments and longer workdays

The shift to at-home workstations forced most employees into makeshift workstations and spaces. Recent analyses have shown employees that have transitioned to WFH are working at less well-designed workstations, such as beds, dining tables and couches [2 , 43]. In the present sample, participants had approximately 11 months of WFH, and as a result just under half were working in a designated home office, while the remaining were working in other rooms around their home. Even in designated WFH office spaces, workers often use non-ergonomic desks, chairs, and accessories that could increase the risk for WMSD development [3, 32]. The variable workspaces in the present study may be poorly designed and potentially causing work-related musculoskeletal discomfort and pain.

Over 50% of all study participants reported working longer days while WFH than pre-pandemic work conditions and, for many, this work was conducted at a computer workstation for greater than 7 hours. The amount of time at a computer may be exacerbated by the COVID-19 WFH environment because university employees must meet and teach virtually. Prior to the COVID-19 WFH mandate, these activities would have occurred away from a computer workstation. More time spent in low intensity, repetitive tasks like computer work will increase the likelihood of fatigue-related musculoskeletal complaints [43 –45]. Also, prolonged sitting is associated with increased low back pain in some workers [17, 23]. Therefore, the longer work hours, combined with poor workstation environments, may explain some musculoskeletal discomfort in university employees.

4.2 Objective 2 –Women have worse WFH workstations and more pain

Both women and men in the present study reported WFH workstations that did and did not meet ergonomic guidelines. However, women reported workstations with poorer ergonomic design, which may be partially explained by postural gender differences. Women and men have been shown to adopt different biomechanical postures while performing the same occupational tasks. Women maintain more static, upright trunk postures compared to men, and sit closer to the edge of their office chair [17, 23]. Women also adopt less neutral upper extremity postures, higher ranges of motion at the shoulder and wrist, and increased normalized muscle activity while performing computer-related work tasks [24]. This may be linked to the higher development of musculoskeletal discomfort and pain in women, as low-level, repetitive muscle activity causes fatigue-related overuse WMSD [46 –48].

Anthropometric differences may also explain the gender differences in the present study. Women are generally shorter in stature than men, with shorter legs and wider hips relative to their body structure [49]. Smaller women are more likely to adopt less neutral upper extremity postures and greater upper extremity ranges of motion, even in workstations with ergonomically approved design [24]. During WFH, university employees rely on workstations and equipment available within their personal spaces and shared with other family members that may not be ergonomically designed. Resultantly, employees are using unconventional and non-adjustable desks, chairs and computing devices [2 , 32], that may increase the risk of developing a WMSD. Non-adjustable furniture prevents a worker from modifying their workstation to their own anthropometry. As an example, non-adjustable chair seat heights and pan depths are often higher and deeper, respectively, than recommended guidelines [50]. This will force smaller workers to shift forward in their chair to make foot contact with the floor, changing their interaction with the entire workstation. Resultantly, smaller workers, typically women, must adopt non-neutral back, neck, and upper extremity postures to compensate for the poor anthropometric fit of their WFH workstation [8 , 51]. Adopting these non-neutral postures over long workdays will increase the physical loads on the musculoskeletal system and cause higher rates of WMSDs while working from home.

4.3 Objective 3 –Seat height and monitor placement are associated with pain

More than half of study participants reported working in a room that was not a designated office, and experiencing increases in musculoskeletal pain. This finding suggests that a significant number of employees are using seats and computer workstations that are non-ergonomic [2 , 32], such as dining, kitchen and living room furniture. This furniture will lack the ergonomic adjustability necessary to fit the at-home workstation to the employee. Therefore, it is unsurprising that seat height was a significant predictor of pain in the present study. While computer monitor height was not a significant predictor, numerically it was the third largest contributor to pain. Improper seat height will change the worker interaction with their monitor, so these two variables are likely related and multi-collinear in our analysis. Computer monitor screens that are too low relative to their seat height cause a downward viewing angle and flexed neck posture [52, 53]. Poor ergonomic seat height has been found in office workers with WMSD [54]. Keyboard and monitor height relative to seated elbow-height is associated with increased WMSD exposure risk at the wrist and elbow [12], and pain and discomfort of the neck, shoulders, and arms [52 , 55–58]. The use of chairs with limited to no ergonomic adjustability in variable, at-home office spaces has likely caused seat height to be a significant contributor to musculoskeletal discomfort and pain in the present model.

Horizontal distance of the monitor was identified as a significant contributing factor to ratings of musculoskeletal pain and discomfort. Monitor distance will modify reach range, and the ranges of motion necessary for the upper extremity to interact with a keyboard or laptop. This is particularly important if the employee is using a laptop, which has been identified as a primary WFH computer source for many university employees [3, 32]. Increasing and decreasing the distance of a computer, keyboard, or other office items from the worker forces non-neutral back and arm postures [11 , 24]. Workers who must reach beyond a neutral upper body posture at their workstation to interact with their keyboard and computer monitor report greater amplitude and frequency of back, neck and shoulder WMSDs [12 , 58]. The horizontal position of a keyboard or laptop would be easily adjustable and may represent an ergonomic sacrifice made in favour of reducing discomfort related to other non-adjustable furniture and features within their at-home workstation, such as lack of arm supports or poorly fit seat pan depths.

The results show that musculoskeletal pain is associated with poorer WFH ergonomic workstations. The presence of WMSD, and differences between genders, cannot be solely explained by anthropometric and postural interactions with WFH workstations. But the results implicate at-home workstation design as a contributing factor in the development and persistence of WMSD. While the present model shows that seat height and monitor distance are significantly related to musculoskeletal pain in our sample, poor ergonomic workstation design for the other aspects of the workplace were also associated with numerically higher pain scores. It is therefore important to acknowledge that many ergonomic workstation factors are interdependent on each other. University employees would benefit from ergonomic training and recommendations to improve their at-home workstations and decrease the presence and degree of WMSD [3, 54].

4.4 Limitations and future directions

Some potential limitations of this study include the survey sample. More administrative employees than faculty responded, more women than men responded, and individuals who self-identified their gender could not be included in the mediation analysis due to small sample sizes. The survey was distributed within news emails, and by department heads, meaning that those who responded may not necessarily describe all persons currently utilizing home computer workstations at the university. There may be a selection bias, as those who chose to complete the survey may not be representative of all university faculty and staff WFH ergonomics and musculoskeletal discomfort and pain. However, the overall sample size was sufficient to create the models to predict musculoskeletal pain based on gender and workstation design. Future work may include exploring how different employee groups and other characteristics of the worker-workstation interaction affect WMSD.

A composite pain score was used in the models. Certain aspects of the at-home workstation may be more likely to contribute to pain in certain areas of the body, for which the model would not account. Home workstation ergonomic questions were limited to six questions and no more than six multiple-choice options for survey respondents. These options may not have applied well to some WFH workstations, and some participants may have even exited the survey if they felt the questions did not apply to them. Finally, the study relied on self-assessed, anonymous WFH ergonomics and perceived musculoskeletal discomfort and pain. Ratings of perceived musculoskeletal discomfort and pain, and perceived changes to this discomfort, can be subjective and vary between individuals. Self-reported ergonomic assessments have lower validity compared to in-person expert assessments, so the present results should be used cautiously to make general recommendations to the university population. However, self-report remains the one of the most viable options for ergonomic assessment of WFH workstations, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic.

5 Conclusion

The overall aim of this study was to describe at-home work environment of university employees, and explore if at-home workstation ergonomics changed the relationship between gender and musculoskeletal discomfort/pain. The results showed that participants spent the majority of their workday on a computer working in varied environments, which included home offices but also more non-traditional workspaces around the house. Overall women had higher musculoskeletal pain than men, but this effect was mediated by women having worse ergonomic setups for their at-home workstation. The specific aspects of the workspace that were associated with greater pain scores were the seat height and monitor distance. According to our model, external monitors and adjustable chairs may help reduce work related musculoskeletal pain, but it is important that workers are provided resources and training to properly implement ergonomic adjustments to improve their at-home workstation and subsequently their physical well-being.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge Janice MacInnis (Organizational Health, Department of Human Resources, Dalhousie University) for help with advertising the survey through university online information boards. We would also like to thank the department and division heads as well as the Dalhousie Faculty Association who promoted our survey to faculty and staff.

Conflict of interest

None to report.

References

Labour Force Survey. Statistics Canada: The Daily. December 2020. Retrieved April 27, 2020. Available from: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/210108/dq210108a-eng.htm

Davis

, Kotowski

, Daniel

, Gerding

. The Home Office: Ergonomic Lessons From the “New Normal. ” Ergonomics in Design. Ergonomics in Design. 2020;28(4):106480462093790.

Kotowski

, Davis

, Gerding

. Almost a Year In: Virtual Offices Remain an Ergonomic Trouble Spot.Work. (In Review) 2020.

Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. Office Ergonomics: OSH Answers. 2020. https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/ergonomics/office/

Punnett

, Bergqvist

. Visual Display Unit Work and Upper Extremity Musculoskeletal Disorders A Review of Epidemiological Findings. National Institute for Working Life. 1997.

Sonne

, Villalta

, Andrews

. Development and evaluation of an office ergonomic risk checklist: ROSA –Rapid office strain assessment. Applied Ergonomics. 2012;43:98–108.

Correia

, Ferreira

, Fernandez

, Reis

FJJ

. Association between text next and neck pain in adults. Spine. 2021;46(9):571–8.

Gold

, Driban

, Yingling

, Komaroff

, Characterization of posture and comfort in laptop users in non-desk settings. Applied Ergonomics. 2012;43(2):392–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2011.06.014

Hales

, Sauter

, Peterson

, Fine

, Putz-Anderson

, Schleifer

, Ochs

, Bernard

, Musculoskeletal disorders among visual display terminal users in a telecommunications company. Ergonomics. 1994;37(10):1603–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139408964940

10.

Shikdar

, Al-Kindi

, Office Ergonomics: Deficiencies in ComputerWorkstation Design. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics. 2007;13(2):215–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2007.11076722

11.

Kotani

, Barrero

, Lee

, Dennerlein

. Effect of horizontal position of the computer keyboard on upper extremity posture and muscular load during computer work. Ergonomics. 2007;50(9):1419–32.

12.

Marcus

, Gerr

, Monteilh

, Ortiz

, Gentry

, Edwards

, Ensor

, Kleinbaum

. A prospective study of computer users: II. Postural risk factors for musculoskeletal symptoms and disorders. Am J Indust Med. 2002;41:236–9.

13.

Amick III

, Robertson

, Derango

, Bazzani

, Moore

, Rooney

, Harrist

. Effect of Office Ergonomics Intervention on Reducing Musculoskeletal Symptoms. Spine. 2003;28(010):2706–11. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2005-858098

14.

Poochada

, Chaiklieng

. Ergonomic Risk Assessment among Call Center Workers. Procedia Manufacturing. 2015;3:4613–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.543

15.

Callaghan

, Dunk

. Examination of the flexion relaxation phenomenon in erector spinae muscles during short duration slumped sitting. Clinical Biomechanics. 2002;17(5):353–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0268-0033(02)00023-2

16.

Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. Work-related Musculoskeletal Disorders (WMSDs): OSH Answers. In Web page (p. 1) 2018. https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/diseases/rmirsi.html

17.

Dunk

, Callaghan

. Gender-based differences in postural responses to seated exposures. Clinical Biomechanics. 2005;20:1101–10.

18.

Gerr

, Marcus

, Monteilh

. Epidemiology of musculoskeletal disorders among computer users: lesson learned from the role of posture and keyboard use. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology. 2004;14:25–31.

19.

Moretti

, Menna

, Aulicino

, Paoletta

, Liguori

, Iolascon

. Characterization of home working population during COVID-19 emergency: A cross-sectional analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020;17(17):6284.

20.

Sohrabi

, Babamiri

. The effectiveness of ergonomics training program on musculoskeletal disorders, job stress, quality of work life and productivity in office workers. A quasi-randomized control trial study. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2021;17:1–15.

21.

Workplace Safety Insurance Board . By the Numbers: 2017 Statistical Report. WSIB Ontario. 2017. Available from: http://wsibstatistics.ca/images/S2_By%20The%20Numbers.pdf

22.

Punnett

, Bergqvist

. Musculoskeletal disorders in visual display unit work: gender and work demands. Occupational Medicine: State of the Art Reviews. 1999;14(1):113–24.

23.

Gregory

, Dunk

, Callaghan

. The comparison of muscle activation and lumbar spine posture during prolonged sitting on a stability ball and in an office chair. Human Factors. 2006;48(1):142–53.

24.

Won

, Johnson

, Punnett

, Dennerlein

. Upper extremity biomechanics in computer tasks differ by gender. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology. 2009;19:428–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2007.11.012

25.

Côté

. A critical review on physical factors and functional characteristics that may explain a sex/gender difference in work-related neck/shoulder disorders. Ergonomics. 2012;55(2):173–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2011.586061

26.

Lima

, Coelho

. Gender differences in associating musculoskeletal complaints, housework, electronic device usage and physical exercise for administrative workers. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics. 2021;25:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2021.1878695

27.

California Department of Industrial Relations. Easy Ergonomics: For Desktop Computer User. In California Department of Industry Relations Association and Occupational Health and Safety. 2005. Available from: www.dir.ca.gov/samples/search/query.htm

28.

Sonne

, Andrews

. The Rapid Office Strain Assessment (ROSA):Validity of online self-assessments and the relationship to worker discomfort. Occupational Ergonomics. 2012;10(4):83–101.

29.

Liebregts

, Sonne

, Potvin

. Photograph-based ergonomic evaluations using the Rapid Office Strain Assessment (ROSA). Applied Ergonomics. 2016;52:317–24.

30.

Mikkelsen

, Vilstrup

, Lassen

, Kryger

, Thomsen

, Andersen

. Validity of questionnaire self-reports on computer, mouse and keyboard usage during a four-week period. Occup Environ Med. 2007;64:541–7.

31.

Emerson

, Emerson Fedorczyk

. ComputerWorkstation Ergonomics: Current Evidence for Evaluation, Corrections, and Recommendations for Remote Evaluation. Journal of Hand Therapy. 2021 (in press).

32.

Gerding

, Syck

, Daniel

, Naylor

, Kotowski

, Gillespie

, Freeman

, Huston

, Daivs

. An assessment of ergonomic issues in the home offices of university employees sent home due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Work. 2021 (in press).

33.

Burdorf

. The role of assessment of biomechanical exposure at the workplace in the prevention of musculoskeletal disorders. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2010;36(1):1–2.

34.

Dalhousie University Public Sector Compensation Disclosure 2019-2020. Accessed April 27, 2021. Available from: https://www.dal.ca/news/2020/08/20/dalhousie-releases-publicsector-compensation-report-for-2019-20.html

35.

Aegerter

, Deforth

, Johnson

, Sjogaard

, Volken

, Luomajoki

, Dratva

, Dressel

, Distler

, Elfering

, Melloh

. No evidence for an effect of working from home on neck pain and neck disability among Swiss office workers: Short-term impact of COVID-19. European Spine Journal. 2021;4:1–9 (online ahead of print).

36.

Ekpanyaskul

, Padungtod

. Occupational Health Problems and Lifestyle Changes Among Novice Working-From-Home Workers Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic. Safety and Health at Work. 2021 (in press).

37.

Dawson

, Steele

, Hodges

, Stewart

. Development and Test-Retest Reliability of an Extended Version of the Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire (NMQ-E): A Screening Instrument for Musculoskeletal Pain. The Journal of Pain. 2009;10(5):517–26.

38.

Kuorinka

, Jonsson

, Kilbom

, Vinterberg

, Biering-Sørensen

, Andersson

, Jørgensen

. Standardised Nordic questionnaires for the analysis of musculoskeletal symptoms. Applied Ergonomics. 1987;18:233–7.

39.

De Looze

, Kuijt-Evers

LFM

, van Dieen

. Sitting comfort and discomfort and the relationships with objective measures. Ergonomics. 2003;46(10):985–97.

40.

Kee

, Lee

. Relationships between subjective and objective measures in assessing postural stresses. Applied Ergonomics. 2012;43(2):277–82.

41.

Messing

, Vézina

, Ève

, Ouellet

, Tissot

, Couture

, Riel

. Body maps: an indicator of physical pain for worker-oriented ergonomic interventions. Policy and Practice in Health and Safety. 2008;2:31–49.

42.

Dennerlein

. The state of ergonomics for mobile computing technology. Work. 2015;52:269–77.

43.

de Looze

, Bosch

, van Dieën

. Manifestations of Shoulder Fatigue in Prolonged Activities Involving Low-force Contractions. Ergonomics. 2009;52:428–37. doi:10.1080/00140130802707709

44.

Dennerlein

, Ciriello

, Kerin

, Johnson

. Fatigue in the Forearm Resulting From Low-level Repetitive Ulnar Deviation. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal. 2003;64:799–805. doi: 10.1080/15428110308984875

45.

Yung

, Wells

. Responsive upper limb and cognitive fatigue measures during light precision work: an 8-hour simulated micro-pipetting study. Ergonomics. 2017;60(7):940–56.

46.

Keir

, Sanei

, Holmes

. Task rotation effects on upper extremity and back muscles activity. Appl Ergon. 2011;42(6):814–9.

47.

Minn

, Cote

. Gender differences in sensorimotor characteristics associated with the performance of a manual dexterity task at shoulder height. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology. 2018;42:143–50.

48.

Yung

, Mathiassen

, Wells

. Variation of force amplitude and its effects on local fatigue. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012;112(11):3865–79.

49.

Cote

. A critical review on physical factors and functional characteristics that may explain a sex/gender difference in work-related neck/shoulder disorders. Ergonomics. 2012;55(2):173–82.

50.

BIFMA, Business and Institutional Furniture Manufacturers Association. Ergonomics Guideline for VDT (Video Display Terminal) Furniture used in Office Workspaces. G1-2002. Available from: www.bifma.org

51.

Dennerlein

, Johnson

. Changes in upper extremity biomechanics across different mouse positions in a computer workstation. Ergonomics. 2006;49(14):1456–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130600811620

52.

Gerr

, Monteilh

, Marcus

. Keyboard use and musculoskeletal outcomes among computer users. J Occup Relahbil. 2006;16:265–77.

53.

Starr

, Shute

, Thompson

. Relating Posture to Discomfort in VDT Use. J OccupMed. 1985;27:269–71.

54.

Rodrigues

MSM

, Leite

RDV

, Lelis

, Chaves

. Differences in ergonomic and workstation factors between computer office workers with and without reported musculoskeletal pain. Work. 2017;57:563–72.

55.

Bergqvist

, Wolgast

, Nilsson

, Voss

. Musculoskeletal Disorders Among Visual Display Terminal Workers: Individual, Ergonomic, and Work Organizational Factors. Ergonomics. 1995;38:763–76.

56.

Faucett

, Rempel

. VDT-related Musculoskeletal Symptoms: Interactions between Work Posture and Psychosocial Work Factors. Am J Ind Med. 1994;26:597–612.

57.

Hunting

, Laubli

, Grandjean

. Postural and Visual Loads at VDT Workplaces I. Constrained Postures. Ergonomics. 1981;24:917–31.

58.

Sauter

, Gottlieb

, Jones

, Dodson

, Rohrer

. Job and Health Implications of VDT Use: Initial Results of the Wisconsin-NIOSH Study. Communications of the ACM. 1983;26:284–94.