gms | German Medical Science

Introduction: Companies in many countries are obliged to assess potential health risks from psychosocial work stress [1]. Digital technologies are an inherent part of such assessments because they are both omnipresent and at the same time known to be a potential source of psychosocial work stress – the so-called ‘technostress’ [2], [3]. The challenge for companies lies in identifying the specific triggers of technostress and modifying them where necessary [4]. To do so, they can draw on results of extensive international research, which has described several typical forms of technology-induced stress in recent decades. However, a look at current concepts, such as the widely used taxonomy of “technostress creators” [3] reveals that the very specific technology-related triggers of stress in the work context have primarily been described in general terms. In this study we aimed to go beyond these general terms and identify possible triggers of technostress from a large number of interviews in German companies.

Methods: The data come from 5,771 risk assessment interviews conducted in 45 companies using an online tool. In the questionnaire, six questions were asked about the perceived usability of as well as the frequency of problems encountered using soft- and hardware; troubleshooting when having technical problems; and technology-related workload and techno-invasion. If problems were reported, the employees specified the exact reasons in a follow-up question with a hybrid format combining closed and open response options. Open-ended responses were categorized using a large language model (ChatGPT 4.0). Part of the sample also answered socio-demographic questions to adjust for, as well as questions on depressive symptoms (PHQ-9) to evaluate associations with health.

Results: Technostress was common in the sample. For example, the majority of respondents stated that they frequently experienced technical problems and an increased workload due to digital technologies (57.9% and 55.8% respectively). All six stressors were correlated with the number of depressive symptoms in adjusted (age, sex, education, company size and sector) logit regression models (subsample of n=696). Numerous triggers for each of the stressors were recorded. Some of them, like system breakdowns or unavailability of IT help desks, have been previously described in the literature, while others have only been loosely described so far. Examples for the latter are unexpected reactions of soft-/hardware or the expectation to extensively document work steps digitally (e.g. in project management tools).

Conclusion: While the broad dimensions and forms of work-related technostress are well described, there is a lack of information about the specific triggers in everyday digital working life. This study shows that specific triggers could be identified with simple online questionnaires. Companies can easily influence some of them (e.g. keeping software and hardware up to date, making contracts with IT help desks user-friendly) while others refer to the responsibility of software manufacturers and require that they rely on principles of humane ergonomic design regarding their products.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

The authors declare that a positive ethics committee vote has been obtained.