4.3 Review

Definition, symptoms and risk of techno-stress: a systematic review

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00420-018-1352-1

Keywords

Techno-stress; Information and communication technology; PRISMA statement; Systematic review; Techno-stressors

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PurposeTechno-stress (TS) is an emergent phenomenon closely related to the pervasive use of information and communication technologies in modern society. Despite numerous studies existing in the literature, only few comprehensive reviews have been performed, which has led to fragmented information about TS. This systematic review aimed to clarify the definition, the symptoms, and the risk factors of TS, focusing on the differences between work-related and non-work-related sources of TS.MethodsA comprehensive literature review of three electronic databases was performed according to the PRISMA statement. Technostress' was used as the only keyword.ResultsIn the qualitative synthesis, 105 studies were included: 84 cross-sectional studies, 8 experimental studies and 13 reviews (11 narrative and 2 systematic reviews). 70 studies (67%) addressed work-related TS, 26 (25%) addressed non-work-related TS, while 8 (8%) did not differentiate between work and non-work fields. The presence and level of TS among individuals was described in 38 studies (29%), whilst the techno-stressors, and the consequences of TS, were described in 53 studies (51%). The antecedents of TS were reported in 47 studies (45%), its moderators in 40 studies (38%), whilst its symptoms in only 11 studies (10%).ConclusionsTS affects both professional and private life. It can determine a reduction in job and life satisfaction and in productivity, and is often associated to the occurrence of psychological and behavioral disorders. Efforts should be made to recognize situations with a high risk of causing TS, to prevent its progressive development in a prospective way using mainly cohort studies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available