Health concerns in relation to type of staff, type of computer use and average single seating time

The independent sample t-test was conducted to see whether there was any difference between the types of staff in terms of top four health concerns of the descriptive analysis. Among four, neck body part of the teaching staff which has mean score (M=2.46, SD=.957) was statistically significantly different (t=2.737, df =205), two tailed (p=.007) than administrative staff on the same variable (M=2.15, SD=.820). This result indicated that teaching staff have more neck pain than administrative staff. Further, Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to see whether there was a statistically significant difference in top four health problems due to types of computer use. Among the top four health problems, neck health concern found to be statistically different between laptop computer and desktop computer (F = 5.582, p < .05). The Posthoc Tukey multiple comparisons test found that the mean for the laptop computer (M = 2.51) and desktop computer (M = 2.09) were statistically significantly different (p = .010). Furthermore, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to see whether there was a statistically significant difference in the top four health problems due to average single seating time spent with the computer.

Among the top four health problems, there was a statistically significant difference in eye health problem in RUB staff between 1.5 hour & below and 2 hours & above (F = 5.055, p < .05). The Posthoc Tukey multiple comparisons test found that the means for RUB staff from 1.5 hours & below (M = 2.41) and 2 hours & above (M

= 2.85) were statistically significantly different (p = .014). Similarly, there was also a statistically significant difference in neck health problem in RUB staff between 1.5 hours & below and 2 hours & above (F = 3.006, p <

.05). The Posthoc Tukey multiple comparisons test found that the means for RUB staff from 1.5 hours & below (M = 2.06) and 2 hours & above (M = 2.42) were statistically significantly different (p = .042).

5. Discussion

Through this study, it was possible to examine the current practice of computers and related health problems of teaching staff and administrative staff of 10 RUB constituent colleges based on ergonomics. The result of the health problems of CUS from both the quantitative and qualitative analysis indicated that there were not much significant health problems. However, the majority of the CUS have suffered between slight discomfort to moderate discomfort with eye strain, back pain, neck pain and shoulder pain. This finding was consistent with the finding of (Dorji et al, 2019; Kumah et al, 2016).

The result of the health problems in relation to type of staff indicated that teaching staff have suffered more in neck pain than the administrative staff among other health problems. Additionally, the health problems were examined in relation to type of computer use. The result indicated that, yet again, neck health problem was found to be a significant difference between laptop computer and desktop computer. Furthermore, the health problems were examined in relation to average single seating in front of the computers. The result indicated that there were eye health problems between 1.5 hour & below and 2 hours & above. Similarly, there was also a neck health problem between 1.5 hours & below and 2 hours & above. This study revealed that neck pain was the single most common significant difference in relation to type of staff, type of computer use and average single seating with computer. However, eye pain was found common only in the prolonged use of the computer. One reason for these pains was teaching staff being laptop computer users with the number 119 (73.0%) out of (n=163) computer users where it was not ergonomically designed for prolonged use, which means laptop are not positioned at eye level with arm’s length from the eye (University of Michigan. n.d). Due to this poor practice, it had resulted in neck and eye pain, particularly the teaching staff of RUB colleges.

Another reason was, the result of the average time spent during workdays which indicated that most of the staff spent 4 hour & above with computers which was confirmed by the qualitative data analysis. In addition to that they spent 2 hours & above with computers in a single seating. According to (Hedge, n.d), if people spent more than 4 hours working on computers, then they should consider implementing an ergonomic arrangement which is a good practice yet not seen in the RUB colleges. Other reasons that supported the finding was while evaluating

36 36

4.8 Health Concerns among Computer User Staff

The descriptive analysis indicated that top four body parts reported to suffer the most were eyes (M=2.71, SD=.964), back (M=2.41, SD=.919), neck (M=2.34, SD=.924), and shoulders (M=2.14, SD=.907) which were all scored between slight discomfort to moderate discomfort. Qualitative data analysis revealed that 65% of the partaker staff experienced health issues such as headache, eye strain, muscle pain, backache and neck pain in various intensities, while few of them also experienced fatigue due to prolonged sitting posture while working with the computer. However, the remaining 35% claimed that they did not experience any health issues related to computers.

4.9 Health concerns in relation to type of staff, type of computer use and average single seating time

The independent sample t-test was conducted to see whether there was any difference between the types of staff in terms of top four health concerns of the descriptive analysis. Among four, neck body part of the teaching staff which has mean score (M=2.46, SD=.957) was statistically significantly different (t=2.737, df =205), two tailed (p=.007) than administrative staff on the same variable (M=2.15, SD=.820). This result indicated that teaching staff have more neck pain than administrative staff. Further, Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to see whether there was a statistically significant difference in top four health problems due to types of computer use. Among the top four health problems, neck health concern found to be statistically different between laptop computer and desktop computer (F = 5.582, p < .05). The Posthoc Tukey multiple comparisons test found that the mean for the laptop computer (M = 2.51) and desktop computer (M = 2.09) were statistically significantly different (p = .010). Furthermore, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to see whether there was a statistically significant difference in the top four health problems due to average single seating time spent with the computer.

Among the top four health problems, there was a statistically significant difference in eye health problem in RUB staff between 1.5 hour & below and 2 hours & above (F = 5.055, p < .05). The Posthoc Tukey multiple comparisons test found that the means for RUB staff from 1.5 hours & below (M = 2.41) and 2 hours & above (M

= 2.85) were statistically significantly different (p = .014). Similarly, there was also a statistically significant difference in neck health problem in RUB staff between 1.5 hours & below and 2 hours & above (F = 3.006, p <

.05). The Posthoc Tukey multiple comparisons test found that the means for RUB staff from 1.5 hours & below (M = 2.06) and 2 hours & above (M = 2.42) were statistically significantly different (p = .042).

5. Discussion

Through this study, it was possible to examine the current practice of computers and related health problems of teaching staff and administrative staff of 10 RUB constituent colleges based on ergonomics. The result of the health problems of CUS from both the quantitative and qualitative analysis indicated that there were not much significant health problems. However, the majority of the CUS have suffered between slight discomfort to moderate discomfort with eye strain, back pain, neck pain and shoulder pain. This finding was consistent with the finding of (Dorji et al, 2019; Kumah et al, 2016).

The result of the health problems in relation to type of staff indicated that teaching staff have suffered more in neck pain than the administrative staff among other health problems. Additionally, the health problems were examined in relation to type of computer use. The result indicated that, yet again, neck health problem was found to be a significant difference between laptop computer and desktop computer. Furthermore, the health problems were examined in relation to average single seating in front of the computers. The result indicated that there were eye health problems between 1.5 hour & below and 2 hours & above. Similarly, there was also a neck health problem between 1.5 hours & below and 2 hours & above. This study revealed that neck pain was the single most common significant difference in relation to type of staff, type of computer use and average single seating with computer. However, eye pain was found common only in the prolonged use of the computer. One reason for these pains was teaching staff being laptop computer users with the number 119 (73.0%) out of (n=163) computer users where it was not ergonomically designed for prolonged use, which means laptop are not positioned at eye level with arm’s length from the eye (University of Michigan. n.d). Due to this poor practice, it had resulted in neck and eye pain, particularly the teaching staff of RUB colleges.

Another reason was, the result of the average time spent during workdays which indicated that most of the staff spent 4 hour & above with computers which was confirmed by the qualitative data analysis. In addition to that they spent 2 hours & above with computers in a single seating. According to (Hedge, n.d), if people spent more than 4 hours working on computers, then they should consider implementing an ergonomic arrangement which is a good practice yet not seen in the RUB colleges. Other reasons that supported the finding was while evaluating

36

the computer user’s behavior in terms of a)computer office arrangement, b)sitting posture in front of the computer, c)adjustment of physical interaction with the computer work, d)computer work with non-computer work and e)exercise at computer. It was found as poor practice as per the ergonomic guidelines (University of Michigan.

n.d). Multiple studies have also found that ergonomic related health problems are associated with: time spent on the computer, workload characteristics, working posture and human behavior while using the computer in their workstation (Chavda et al, 2013; Liu et al, 2013; University of Delaware, n.d).

6. Limitation

This study has addressed only the research questions stated. The result of the health concerns may likely to change if other health factors are considered such as health history, number of years of computer use and mental health of the computer user. However, such analysis was not done in the study since it doesn’t fall under the stated research question. Therefore, future researchers may consider those factors to get richer data pertaining to the health concerns.

7. Conclusion

This study has found that there were no exceeding significant health problems due to computer use. However, the majority of the CUS from the sample population reported having suffered slight discomfort to moderate discomfort with eye strain, back pain, neck pain, and shoulder pain. The study has also uncovered the variation and intensity of computer related health hazards in association to types of staff, workload characteristics, type of computer use and average single seating with computer. These variations were some of the main reasons for the above four health discomfort among others, and neck pain was the common significant difference in relation to the above associated factors, while eye pain was also found common in relation with the prolonged use of computers.

Since the RUB constituent colleges’ staff were exposed to certain ergonomic hazards and associated health problems, there is a need to create awareness of computer ergonomics practice particularly in terms of; a) frequency of computer usage, b) type of personal computer used and c) workload characteristics among staff of RUB colleges. It is recommended that the RUB colleges may initiate computer ergonomic arrangement and implementation by adopting computer ergonomic assessment policy and guidelines.

References

Centre for Bhutan Studies and GNH (2017). Happiness transforming the development landscape.

http://www.bhutanstudies.org.bt/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Happiness-transform_Final_with-cover.pdf Chavda, E., Parmar, S., & Parmar, M. (2013). Current practice of laptop computers and related health problems:

A survey based on ergonomics. International Journal of Medical and Public Health, 2(4), 1024-1026. doi:

10.5455/ijmsph.2013.120820131

Dorji, C., Kinley, K., & Rinchen, S.(2019). Current practice of computer and related health problems: A study of samtse college of education(SCE) office staff based on ergonomics. 1st International Conference on

Education in the Digital Ecosystem (ICEdDE 2019).

http://dpi-proceedings.com/index.php/dtssehs/article/view/33682

Feldman, B.J(2014). Why computer ergonomics are important. Surfing the net with kids.https://www.surfnetkids.com/tech/1283/why-computer-ergonomics-are-important

Gavgani, V. Z., Nazari, J., Jafarabadi, M. A., & Rastegari, F. (2013). Is librarians’ health affected by ergonomic factors at the workplace?, Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), 893.

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/893

Hedge (n.d). Ergonomics guidelines for computer workstation-10 steps for users.Remedy Health Media.

https://www.spineuniverse.com/wellness/ergonomics/ergonomic-guidelines-computer-workstations-10 Khan, R., Surti, A., Rehman, R., & Ali, U. (2012). Knowledge and practices of ergonomics in computer users.

Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association, 62(3), 213-217.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228329058_Knowledge_and_practices_of_ergonomics_in_co mputer_users

Kumah, DB., Akuffo, KO., Affram, DE., Ankamah, E., & Osae, EA. (2016). Ergonomic challenges of employees using computers at work in a tertiary institution in Ghana. Optom Open Access, 1(2),107.

doi:10.4172/2476-2075.1000107

Liu, X., Kuziez, R., & Ong, k. (2013). Ergonomic assessment of computer workstations for student employees and faculty members at Saint Louis university school of public health.

http://www.astm.org/studentmember/images/2010SaintLouisUniversity.pdf

3737

Poochada, W., & Chaiklieng, S. (2015). Ergonomic risk assessment among call centre workers. 6^thInternational Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics(AHFE 2015) and the Affiliated Conference, AHFE 2015. 3(), 4613-4620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.543

Royal University of Bhutan. (2017). The University. https://www.rub.edu.bt/index.php/en/the-university.html Saadat, S., Zhang, S., Gaunt, T., & Hapeshi, K. (2006). Are students aware of ergonomics of computer uses?.

World AutomationCongress 2006,1-6.doi: 10.1109/WAC.2006.375945

Sotoyama, M., Bergqvist, U., Jonai, H., & Saito, S. (2002). An ergonomic questionnaire survey on the use of computers in schools.Industrial Health, 40(2),135-141. https://doi.org/10.2486/indhealth.40.135

Suman, S., & Wadhawa, J. (2017). Impact of computer workstation design on the health of the users. Journal of Human Ecology, 20(3),165-170. https://doi.org/10.1080/09709274.2006.11905922

University of Delaware (n.d). Computer Workstation Ergonomic Questionnaire. Department of Environmental health and Safety.http://www1.udel.edu/ehs/generalhs/downloads/ErgonomicsForm.pdf

University of Michigan. (n.d). Computer ergonomics: How to protect yourself from strain and pain.University of Health Service. https://www.uhs.umich.edu/computerergonomics

38 38

Poochada, W., & Chaiklieng, S. (2015). Ergonomic risk assessment among call centre workers. 6^thInternational Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics(AHFE 2015) and the Affiliated Conference, AHFE 2015. 3(), 4613-4620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.543

Royal University of Bhutan. (2017). The University. https://www.rub.edu.bt/index.php/en/the-university.html Saadat, S., Zhang, S., Gaunt, T., & Hapeshi, K. (2006). Are students aware of ergonomics of computer uses?.

World AutomationCongress 2006,1-6.doi: 10.1109/WAC.2006.375945

Sotoyama, M., Bergqvist, U., Jonai, H., & Saito, S. (2002). An ergonomic questionnaire survey on the use of computers in schools.Industrial Health, 40(2),135-141. https://doi.org/10.2486/indhealth.40.135

Suman, S., & Wadhawa, J. (2017). Impact of computer workstation design on the health of the users. Journal of Human Ecology, 20(3),165-170. https://doi.org/10.1080/09709274.2006.11905922

University of Delaware (n.d). Computer Workstation Ergonomic Questionnaire. Department of Environmental health and Safety.http://www1.udel.edu/ehs/generalhs/downloads/ErgonomicsForm.pdf

University of Michigan. (n.d). Computer ergonomics: How to protect yourself from strain and pain.University of Health Service. https://www.uhs.umich.edu/computerergonomics

38