Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Office ergonomics and human factors remain central to employee health and productivity amid rapid digitalization and hybrid work. We conducted a scoping review (2008–2025) following Arksey & O’Malley and PRISMA-ScR guidance, searching PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, IEEE Xplore, and Google Scholar; after deduplication and screening, 77 articles from the top ten ergonomics journals (by Scimago h-index) were included. Data charting used AI assistance (Elicit) with manual verification (see Appendix B); bibliometric indicators were computed from Scimago (1999–2025) and interpreted descriptively. We map the literature to a three-layer framework—Traditional (furniture, training), Digital (sensors, computer vision), and AI-Enabled (predictive analytics, personalization)—with a central Socio-Technical Core mediating data-driven insight, adaptive intervention, and ergonomic outcomes. The average citation index across the selected journals rose from 1.876 (2019) to 2.998 (2025), though these descriptive trends likely reflect multiple drivers beyond the pandemic. Key findings indicate promising advances in sensors and AI for objective monitoring and prediction, persistent gaps in validation and standardization, and that socio-technical barriers (trust, governance, organizational adoption) are the primary bottlenecks to real-world impact. We recommend prioritized research on standardized validation protocols, large-scale longitudinal evaluations, participatory deployment models, and updated standards and governance to translate technological promise into sustainable ergonomic improvements.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ghareeb et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: