Literature DB >> 33672604

Is There a Sampling Bias in Research on Work-Related Technostress? A Systematic Review of Occupational Exposure to Technostress and the Role of Socioeconomic Position.

Prem Borle1, Kathrin Reichel2, Susanne Voelter-Mahlknecht1.   

Abstract

Technostress is a widespread model used to study negative effects of using information communication technologies at work. The aim of this review is to assess the role of socioeconomic position (SEP) in research on work-related technostress. We conducted systematic searches in multidisciplinary databases (PubMed, PubMed Central, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycInfo, PsycArticles) in June 2020 and independently screened 321 articles against eligibility criteria (working population, technostress exposure, health or work outcome, quantitative design). Of the 21 studies included in the narrative synthesis, three studies did not collect data on SEP, while 18 studies operationalised SEP as education (eight), job position (five), SEP itself (two) or both education as well as job position (three). Findings regarding differences by SEP are inconclusive, with evidence of high SEP reporting more frequent exposure to overall technostress. In a subsample of 11 studies reporting data on educational attainment, we compared the percentage of university graduates to World Bank national statistics and found that workers with high SEP are overrepresented in nine of 11 studies. The resulting socioeconomic sampling bias limits the scope of the technostress model to high SEP occupations. The lack of findings regarding differences by SEP in technostress can partly be attributed to limitations in study designs. Studies should aim to reduce the heterogeneity of technostress and SEP measures to improve external validity and generalisability across socioeconomic groups. Future research on technostress would benefit from developing context-sensitive SEP measures and quality appraisal tools that identify socioeconomic sampling biases by comparing data to national statistics.

Entities:  

Keywords:  digital divide; digitalisation; health inequalities; knowledge workers; occupational status; platform work; precarious labour; sampling bias; socioeconomic status; workplace well-being

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33672604      PMCID: PMC7924034          DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18042071

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health        ISSN: 1660-4601            Impact factor:   3.390


  30 in total

Review 1.  Automation: is it really different this time?

Authors:  Judy Wajcman
Journal:  Br J Sociol       Date:  2017-02-21

2.  Income non-reporting: implications for health inequalities research.

Authors:  G Turrell
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 3.710

3.  Selection bias of Internet panel surveys: a comparison with a paper-based survey and national governmental statistics in Japan.

Authors:  Satoshi Tsuboi; Honami Yoshida; Ryusuke Ae; Takao Kojo; Yosikazu Nakamura; Kunio Kitamura
Journal:  Asia Pac J Public Health       Date:  2012-06-28       Impact factor: 1.399

4.  Work as an Inclusive Part of Population Health Inequities Research and Prevention.

Authors:  Emily Quinn Ahonen; Kaori Fujishiro; Thomas Cunningham; Michael Flynn
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2018-01-18       Impact factor: 9.308

5.  The weirdest people in the world?

Authors:  Joseph Henrich; Steven J Heine; Ara Norenzayan
Journal:  Behav Brain Sci       Date:  2010-06-15       Impact factor: 12.579

6.  Digital labour and development: impacts of global digital labour platforms and the gig economy on worker livelihoods.

Authors:  Mark Graham; Isis Hjorth; Vili Lehdonvirta
Journal:  Transfer (Bruss)       Date:  2017-03-16

7.  Technostress Among University Teachers in Higher Education: A Study Using Multidimensional Person-Environment Misfit Theory.

Authors:  Xinghua Wang; Bo Li
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2019-08-06

8.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

Authors:  David Moher; Alessandro Liberati; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2009-07-21       Impact factor: 11.069

9.  Search strings for the study of putative occupational determinants of disease.

Authors:  Stefano Mattioli; Francesca Zanardi; Alberto Baldasseroni; Frederieke Schaafsma; Robin M T Cooke; Gianpiero Mancini; Mauro Fierro; Chiara Santangelo; Andrea Farioli; Serenella Fucksia; Stefania Curti; Francesco S Violante; Jos Verbeek
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2009-10-09       Impact factor: 4.402

10.  The social and health implications of digital work intensification. Associations between exposure to information and communication technologies, health and work ability in different socio-economic strata.

Authors:  Prem Borle; Franziska Boerner-Zobel; Susanne Voelter-Mahlknecht; Hans Martin Hasselhorn; Melanie Ebener
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  2020-10-21       Impact factor: 3.015

View more
  4 in total

1.  Healthy and Happy Working from Home? Effects of Working from Home on Employee Health and Job Satisfaction.

Authors:  Fiona Niebuhr; Prem Borle; Franziska Börner-Zobel; Susanne Voelter-Mahlknecht
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-01-20       Impact factor: 3.390

2.  The Dark Side and the Light Side of Technology-Related Stress and Stress Related to Workplace Innovations: From Artificial Intelligence to Business Transformations.

Authors:  Gabriele Giorgi; Antonio Ariza-Montes; Nicola Mucci; Antonio L Leal-Rodríguez
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-01-23       Impact factor: 3.390

3.  Digitalisation in Craft Enterprises: Perceived Technostress, Readiness for Prevention and Countermeasures-A Qualitative Study.

Authors:  Louisa Scheepers; Peter Angerer; Nico Dragano
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-09-09       Impact factor: 4.614

Review 4.  Overcoming the "Dark Side" of Technology-A Scoping Review on Preventing and Coping with Work-Related Technostress.

Authors:  Elisabeth Rohwer; Joelle-Cathrin Flöther; Volker Harth; Stefanie Mache
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-03-18       Impact factor: 3.390

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.