Effects of a cognitive ergonomics workplace intervention (CogErg) on cognitive strain and well-being: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. A study protocol

Virpi Kalakoski, Sanna Selinheimo, Teppo Valtonen, Jarno Turunen, Sari Käpykangas, Hilkka Ylisassi, Pauliina Toivio, Heli Järnefelt, Heli Hannonen, Teemu Paajanen, Virpi Kalakoski, Sanna Selinheimo, Teppo Valtonen, Jarno Turunen, Sari Käpykangas, Hilkka Ylisassi, Pauliina Toivio, Heli Järnefelt, Heli Hannonen, Teemu Paajanen

Abstract

Background: Cognitively straining conditions such as disruptions, interruptions, and information overload are related to impaired task performance and diminished well-being at work. It is therefore essential that we reduce their harmful consequences to individual employees and organizations. Our intervention study implements practices for managing the cognitive strain typical to office work tasks and working conditions in offices. We will examine the effects of a cognitive ergonomics intervention on working conditions, workflow, well-being, and productivity.

Methods/design: The study is a stratified cluster randomized trial. The clusters are work units, for example, teams or offices. The four participating organizations entered a total of 36 clusters, and we invited all 1169 knowledge employees of these units to participate. We randomly allocated the clusters into an intervention group (cognitive ergonomics) or an active control group (recovery supporting). We invited an additional 471 participants to join a passive control group only for baseline and follow-up measurements, with no intervention. The study consists of a baseline survey and interviews and observations at the workplace, followed by an intervention. It starts with a workshop defining the specific actions for the intervention implementation stage, during which we send task reminder questionnaires to all employees to support behaviour change at the individual and team levels. The primary outcome measure is perceived frequency of cognitive strain from working conditions; the secondary outcome measures include subjective cognitive load, well-being, workflow/productivity, and cognitive stress symptoms. Process evaluation uses the quantitative and qualitative data obtained during the implementation and evaluation phases. The baseline measurements, intervention phase, and end-of-treatment measurements are now complete, and follow-up will continue until November 2019.

Discussion: There is a need to expand the research of cognitive strain, which poses a considerable risk to work performance and employee well-being in cognitively demanding tasks. Our study will provide new information about factors that contribute to such strain. Most importantly, the results will show which evidence-based cognitive ergonomic practices support work performance in knowledge work, and the project will provide concrete examples of how to improve at work.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03573674. Registered 29 June 2018.

Keywords: Cognitive ergonomics; Cognitive strain; Disruptions; Information overload; Interruptions; Recovery; Working conditions; Workplace intervention.

Conflict of interest statement

No conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The flow chart of the Cognitive ergonomics intervention study CogErg

References

    1. Pyöriä P. The concept of knowledge work revisited. J Knowl Manag. 2005;9(3):116–127. doi: 10.1108/13673270510602818.
    1. Sørensen OH, Holman D. A participative intervention to improve employee well-being in knowledge work jobs: a mixed-methods evaluation study. Work Stress. 2014;28(1):67–86. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2013.876124.
    1. Couffe C, Michael GA. Failures due to interruptions or distractions: a review and a new framework. Am J Psychol. 2017;130(2):163–181. doi: 10.5406/amerjpsyc.130.2.0163.
    1. Jahncke H, Hygge S, Halin N, Green AM, Dimberg K. Open-plan office noise: cognitive performance and restoration. J Environ Psychol. 2011;31(4):373–382. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.07.002.
    1. La Torre G, Esposito A, Sciarra I, Chiappetta M. Definition, symptoms and risk of techno-stress: a systematic review. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2018:1–23.
    1. Woods D, Dekker S. Anticipating the effects of technological change: a new era of dynamics for human factors. Theor Issues Ergon Sci. 2000;1(3):272–282. doi: 10.1080/14639220110037452.
    1. Douglas HE, Raban MZ, Walter SR, Westbrook JI. Improving our understanding of multi-tasking in healthcare: drawing together the cognitive psychology and healthcare literature. Appl Ergon. 2017;59:45–55. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2016.08.021.
    1. Venetjoki N, Kaarlela-Tuomaala A, Keskinen E, Hongisto V. The effect of speech and speech intelligibility on task performance. Ergonomics. 2006;49(11):1068–1091. doi: 10.1080/00140130600679142.
    1. Röer JP, Bell R, Buchner A. Please silence your cell phone: your ringtone captures other people's attention. Noise Health. 2014;16(68):34. doi: 10.4103/1463-1741.127852.
    1. Foroughi CK, Werner NE, Nelson ET, Boehm-Davis DA. Do interruptions affect quality of work? Hum Factors. 2014;56(7):1262–1271. doi: 10.1177/0018720814531786.
    1. Monk CA, Trafton JG, Boehm-Davis DA. The effect of interruption duration and demand on resuming suspended goals. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2008;14(4):299. doi: 10.1037/a0014402.
    1. Duggan GB, Johnson H, Sørli P. Interleaving tasks to improve performance: users maximise the marginal rate of return. Int J Human Comp Stud. 2013;71(5):533–550. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.01.001.
    1. Gupta A, Sharda R, Greve RA. You’ve got email! Does it really matter to process emails now or later? Inf Syst Front. 2011;13(5):637–653. doi: 10.1007/s10796-010-9242-4.
    1. Mansi G, Levy Y. Do instant messaging interruptions help or hinder knowledge workers’ task performance? Int J Inf Manag. 2013;33(3):591–596. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.01.011.
    1. Rennecker J, Godwin L. Delays and interruptions: a self-perpetuating paradox of communication technology use. Inf Organ. 2005;15(3):247–266. doi: 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2005.02.004.
    1. Elfering A, Grebner S, Dudan A. Job characteristics in nursing and cognitive failure at work. Saf Health Work. 2011;2(2):194–200. doi: 10.5491/SHAW.2011.2.2.194.
    1. Pereira D, Müller P, Elfering A. Workflow interruptions, social stressors from supervisor (s) and attention failure in surgery personnel. Ind Health. 2015;53(5):427–433. doi: 10.2486/indhealth.2013-0219.
    1. Elfering A, Grebner S, Ebener C. Workflow interruptions, cognitive failure and near-accidents in health care. Psychol Health Med. 2015;20(2):139–147. doi: 10.1080/13548506.2014.913796.
    1. Nielsen K, Nielsen MB, Ogbonnaya C, Känsälä M, Saari E, Isaksson K. Workplace resources to improve both employee well-being and performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Work Stress. 2017;31(2):101–120. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2017.1304463.
    1. Bryson A, Forth J, Stokes L. Does employees’ subjective well-being affect workplace performance? Hum Relat. 2017;70(8):1017–1037. doi: 10.1177/0018726717693073.
    1. Oswald AJ, Proto E, Sgroi D. Happiness and productivity. J Labor Econ. 2015;33(4):789–822. doi: 10.1086/681096.
    1. Böckerman P, Ilmakunnas P. The job satisfaction-productivity nexus: a study using matched survey and register data. Ind Labor Relat Rev. 2012;65(2):244–262. doi: 10.1177/001979391206500203.
    1. Böckerman P, Ilmakunnas P. Job disamenities, job satisfaction, quit intentions, and actual separations: putting the pieces together. Indust Relat J Econ Soc. 2009;48(1):73–96.
    1. Weseler D, Niessen C. How job crafting relates to task performance. J Manag Psychol. 2016;31(3):672–685. doi: 10.1108/JMP-09-2014-0269.
    1. Wickens C, Lee J, Liu Y, Gorden-Becker S. An introduction to human factors engineering. 2. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall; 2003.
    1. Wrzesniewski A, Dutton JE. Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Acad Manag Rev. 2001;26(2):179–201. doi: 10.5465/amr.2001.4378011.
    1. Bhui KS, Dinos S, Stansfeld SA, White PD. A synthesis of the evidence for managing stress at work: a review of the reviews reporting on anxiety, depression, and absenteeism. J Environ Public Health. 2012;2012:515874. doi: 10.1155/2012/515874.
    1. Michie S, Williams S. Reducing work related psychological ill health and sickness absence: a systematic literature review. Occup Environ Med. 2003;60(1):3–9. doi: 10.1136/oem.60.1.3.
    1. (IEA) IEA. Home page 2019. Available from: .
    1. Kalakoski V. Cognitive ergonomics. OSHWiki; 2016. Available from: .
    1. König CJ, Kleinmann M, Höhmann W. A field test of the quiet hour as a time management technique. Eur Rev Appl Psychol. 2013;63(3):137–145. doi: 10.1016/j.erap.2012.12.003.
    1. Käser PA, Fischbacher U, König CJ. Helping and quiet hours: interruption-free time spans can harm performance. Appl Psychol. 2013;62(2):286–307. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00517.x.
    1. Käser PA, König CJ, Fischbacher U, Kleinmann M. Helping as mundane knowledge sharing: do bundled help request and quiet time increase performance? J Inf Knowl Manag. 2014;13(03):1450025. doi: 10.1142/S0219649214500257.
    1. Kushlev K, Dunn EW. Checking email less frequently reduces stress. Comput Hum Behav. 2015;43:220–228. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.005.
    1. Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: medical research council guidance. Br Med J. 2015;350:h1258. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h1258.
    1. Egan M, Bambra C, Petticrew M, Whitehead M. Reviewing evidence on complex social interventions: appraising implementation in systematic reviews of the health effects of organisational-level workplace interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2009;63(1):4–11. doi: 10.1136/jech.2007.071233.
    1. Nielsen K, Randall R. Opening the black box: presenting a model for evaluating organizational-level interventions. Eur J Work Organ Psychol. 2013;22(5):601–617. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2012.690556.
    1. Rousseau DM, Fried Y. Location, location, location: contextualizing organizational research. J Organ Behav. 2001;22(1):1–13. doi: 10.1002/job.78.
    1. Kessler R, Barber C, Beck A, Berglund P, Cleary P, McKenas D, et al. The World Health Organization health and work performance questionnaire (HPQ) J Occup Environ Med. 2003;45:156–174. doi: 10.1097/01.jom.0000052967.43131.51.
    1. Kessler R, Amer M, Hymel P, Loeppke R, McKenas D, Richlin D, et al. Using the WHO health and work performance questionnaire (HPQ) to evaluate indirect workplace costs of illness. J Occup Environ Med. 2004;46(6):23–37. doi: 10.1097/01.jom.0000126683.75201.c5.
    1. Pejtersen JH, Kristensen TS, Borg V, Bjorner JB. The second version of the Copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire. Scand J Public Health. 2010;38(3_suppl):8–24. doi: 10.1177/1403494809349858.
    1. Berthelsen H, Hakanen JJ, Westerlund H. Copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire-a validation study using the job demand-resources model. PLoS One. 2018;13(4):e0196450. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196450.
    1. Baldwin SA, Stice E, Rohde P. Statistical analysis of group-administered intervention data: reanalysis of two randomized trials. Psychother Res. 2008;18(4):365–376. doi: 10.1080/10503300701796992.
    1. Adriaanse MA, Oettingen G, Gollwitzer PM, Hennes EP, De Ridder DT, De Wit JB. When planning is not enough: fighting unhealthy snacking habits by mental contrasting with implementation intentions (MCII) Eur J Soc Psychol. 2010;40(7):1277–1293. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.730.
    1. Oettingen G, Kappes HB, Guttenberg KB, Gollwitzer PM. Self-regulation of time management: mental contrasting with implementation intentions. Eur J Soc Psychol. 2015;45(2):218–229. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2090.
    1. Hyytinen K, Saari E, Leväsluoto J, Hasu M, Käpykangas S, Melkas H, et al. Human-centered co-evaluation method for digital service innovations. Bilbao: European Association for Research on services (RESER); 2017.
    1. Hyytinen K, Saari E, Elg M. Human-centered co-evaluation method as a means for sustainable service innovations. In: Toivonen M, Saari E, editors. Human-centered digitalization and services. Singapore: Springer; 2019.
    1. Elo A-L, Leppänen A, Jahkola A. Validity of a single-item measure of stress symptoms. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2003;29(6):444–451. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.752.
    1. Wallace JC, Chen G. Development and validation of a work-specific measure of cognitive failure: implications for occupational safety. J Occup Organ Psychol. 2005;78(4):615–632. doi: 10.1348/096317905X37442.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren