CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the study

The past few years have seen a surge in the use of laptops, especially among postgraduate
students. This shift can be attributed to several key factors that have made laptops the go-to
device for academic pursuits. One of the major advantages of using laptops in academic settings
is their portability (Cengiz Gulek & Demirtas, 2005). Unlike their bulkier counterparts, laptops
are lightweight and compact, making them easily transportable. This mobility allows students to
take their laptops to classes, libraries, and study groups, allowing them to work from anywhere
(Zilka, G.C, 2021). Also, laptops are incredibly versatile gadgets capable of performing various
tasks. These devices can handle everything from word processing and internet browsing to
multimedia consumption and gaming (Limniou, 2021). This versatility is especially beneficial
for postgraduate students who require various tools for their coursework and research (Aguilar
et al., (2012). Also, the increasing prevalence of digitized academic resources has further fuelled
the use of laptops among postgraduate students (Brunetti et al., 2023). With many universities
and institutions converting physical resources like books, documents, and recordings into digital
format, laptops have become an indispensable tool for accessing and utilizing these valuable
resources. By adopting this transformation, libraries can enhance the availability of their
collections beyond the constraints of physical location and time (Brunetti et al., 2023).
Consequently, students can now conveniently access these digital resources through their
laptops, facilitating their academic pursuits and project submissions.

Several health issues have been associated with the increased usage of laptop, especially in non-
conventional environments such as putting on a bed or a sofa (Benden et al., 2021). These
disorders are a result of continued use of laptops especially in situations where the user maintains
postures that lead to the development of Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) (Gold et al., 2012).

1
Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), as the name implies, are diseases of muscles bones, and
joints. Studies have proven that extensive laptop use contributes to the development of MSDs
(Benden et al., 2021). This is mainly because most users of laptops assume awkward postures
such as bending the neck or hunching the shoulders can lead to stress in the musculoskeletal
system over the period (Gold et al., 2012).

A recent study published in BMC Public Health by researchers at the University of Nevada Las
Vegas revealed that a startling 60 percent of students suffer from persistent neck and shoulder
pain, which is commonly caused by slouching or bending while using laptops and tablets.
Interestingly, the study also found that women are twice as likely as men to experience this type
of pain during laptop use (Lee et al., 2018.). This may be because non-neutral postures, which
deviate from the body's natural alignment, are often adopted while using laptops. These postures,
such as bending the neck to look down at the screen or hunching the shoulders, can strain muscles
and joints, ultimately leading to discomfort and possibly the development of Musculoskeletal
Disorders (MSDs) (Gold et al., 2012). Therefore, it is important to promote proper posture and
educate individuals on the potential negative effects of prolonged laptop use (Benden et al.,
2021).

Ergonomics is the science of interactions among humans and other elements in a system, while
ergonomists are professionals who make use of knowledge derived from theory, principles, data
as well methods to design for the optimal benefit s street users (Shaomian et al., 2016) (Rouvinen
et al., 2021). In terms of laptop use, ergonomics is aimed at understanding how the design and
spatial arrangement of a user with his or her workspace may have implications on comfort
efficiency in health (Jones et al., 2013).

However, laptops have gone through many changes in design to become compact and affordable
yet more powerful. Still, the visual of laptops is not comfortable to use ergonomically. For
example, a laptop is not the most ergonomic product because it makes one look downwards (Mall

2
et al., 2021). This may increase the risk of developing muscular-skeletal disorders, such as RSI
or CTD which are attributed to an increasing occurrence of jobs at home (Mall et al., 2021).

Another important element in laptop ergonomics is the positioning of the machine relative to its
user and their environment. Essentially, the upper part of the laptop screen should be at eye level
and an arm’s length from its user. Nevertheless, the fact that each person has individual
anthropometric characteristics makes it impossible to adjust the position of a laptop screen on a
standard table. As a result, the user appears to strain his/her neck in viewing the laptop screen
which causes neck-related MSDs (Sahu et al., 2021).

As laptop use continues to increase, particularly among postgraduate students, it is important to

promote awareness of proper laptop ergonomics to mitigate these health risks (Jones et al., 2013)

Although laptop’s improper use has shown to have negative health implications, many users
including postgraduate students are insufficiently informed about proper Laptop ergonomics
(Gosain et al., 2022). However, the lack of knowledge can result in the adoption of wrong
postures and techniques while sitting on a laptop leading to an increased risk of developing
musculoskeletal disorders (Sahu et al., 2021).

1.2 Problem statement

Laptop computers are not ergonomically designed for prolonged use. The monitor and keyboard
are so close together that they cannot both be in good positions at the same time (Sahu et al.,
2020). The prolonged use of laptops can lead to musculoskeletal discomfort and injuries if proper
ergonomic practices are not followed. Post-graduate students are one of the largest groups of
laptop users, and their prolonged use of laptops can lead to discomfort, and pain in the neck,
shoulders, back, and wrists.

A lot of laptop users – and especially postgraduate students are unaware of the correct ergonomics
to adopt in using laptops. Such a knowledge deficit can result in to use of wrong postures and
techniques that may increase the probability of musculoskeletal disorders.

3
According to a study carried out by Pukyong National University, researchers discovered that
individuals who frequently use laptops are prone to adopting incorrect postures, such as tilting
their heads down to view the screen or slouching their shoulders1. These incorrect postures can
place excessive strain on their muscles and joints, causing discomfort and, eventually,
musculoskeletal disorders1. The Consequences of Incorrect Postures and Techniques Neglecting
proper postures and techniques while using a laptop can have serious implications for our well-
being. For instance, constantly tilting our necks to look at the screen can cause strain on our neck
muscles, resulting in persistent neck pain (Benden et al., 2021).

Apart from a lack of knowledge, there are also perceived barriers that can hinder users from
adopting proper laptop ergonomics. These barriers could be related to various factors, such as
the laptop's design, the absence of adjustable furniture, and the personal habits and preferences
of the user (Nirmal, 2022). The laptop's design itself can pose a challenge to achieving proper
ergonomics. For example, the fixed layout of a laptop, where the screen and keyboard are
attached, can make it difficult for users to maintain a neutral posture while using it. This is
because when positioning the keyboard at a comfortable height for typing, the screen may end
up too low for comfortable viewing, or vice versa.

The absence of adaptable furniture can hinder proper laptop ergonomics, creating difficulties for
users to maintain a comfortable and ergonomic posture. For example, if a desk is too high, it can
cause users to raise their shoulders while typing, leading to discomfort. Additionally, a user's
habits and preferences can also impede proper laptop ergonomics. Some individuals may prefer
using their laptops while sitting on a couch or bed, resulting in non-neutral postures and potential
discomfort. Ultimately, various factors can influence a user's laptop ergonomics, including the
user's habits and preferences.

Several factors can contribute to a person's laptop ergonomics, including their physical traits, the
laptop's design, the surrounding environment, and their habits and habits (Benden et al., 2021).
4
Physical characteristics, such as height and arm length, can greatly impact how a person interacts
with their laptop. For example, someone with shorter arms may have to stretch further to reach
the keyboard, which could result in discomfort. Additionally, the design of the laptop itself plays
a crucial role in ergonomics. A smaller screen may require the user to hunch closer to see clearly,
putting strain on their neck and back (Benden et al., 2021).

1.3 Justification for the study

The use of laptops has gained widespread popularity in academic circles, especially among
postgraduate students, due to their portability, versatility, and the growing availability of
digitized academic materials. However, this trend has also brought about potential health hazards.
Specifically, the surge in laptop use has been linked to an increase in musculoskeletal disorders,
likely caused by prolonged use in non-neutral postures. Therefore, this study aims to address the
growing prevalence of laptop use and the associated health risks, particularly among postgraduate
students.

Improper usage of laptops, especially when maintaining non-neutral postures, can cause physical
discomfort and musculoskeletal disorders. These conditions can arise from extended periods of
laptop usage and may result in long-term health concerns. Additionally, many laptop users,
particularly postgraduate students, may not possess an understanding of proper ergonomic
practices for laptop use. This lack of awareness can result in the adoption of incorrect postures
and techniques, ultimately heightening the likelihood of developing musculoskeletal disorders.

Numerous laptop users, particularly postgraduate students, may not possess adequate knowledge
of proper ergonomic techniques for laptop use. This deficiency can result in the adoption of
incorrect postures and methods, potentially elevating the likelihood of developing
musculoskeletal disorders. As such, there is a critical need for research examining the knowledge,
perceived barriers, and underlying factors that influence laptop ergonomics among postgraduate
5
students. Such investigations have the potential to offer valuable insights for designing
interventions that promote proper laptop ergonomics and mitigate the risk of musculoskeletal
disorders.

As a result of the possible health hazards associated with the poor use of a laptop, studies on
postgraduate students’ knowledge practice barriers and their influencers on computer ergonomics
should be conducted. These studies can provide beneficial information that will be acted upon to
inform the intervention development for better laptop ergonomics with a focus on mitigating
musculoskeletal disorders4.

In conclusion, the rationale of this research is based upon laptop usage rate growth increase by
using a laptop may cause health complications and it’s being an unawareness situation to learn
more about proper ergonomics practice for postgraduate students.

Limited research has been conducted on laptop computer ergonomics within the context of
Nigerian universities, especially among postgraduate students. This study aims to fill this gap in
the literature by providing valuable insights into the current state of ergonomic knowledge,
attitudes, and perceptions among this specific population.

The study's results can inform the development of policies and interventions aimed at creating a
more ergonomically conscious academic environment. Institutions can use this information to
implement changes in computer labs, libraries, and classrooms to promote healthier computer
usage.

6
Beyond academic concerns, the study is relevant to the overall quality of life of postgraduate
students. Addressing ergonomic issues can contribute to their comfort, well-being, and long-term
health, thereby enhancing their overall university experience.

1.4 Research Questions

1. What is the level of knowledge among postgraduate students at the University of Ibadan
regarding laptop computer ergonomics?
2. How do postgraduate students perceive the importance of laptop computer ergonomics to their
overall well-being?
3. What are the perceived barriers that prevent these students from practicing proper laptop
computer ergonomics?
4. What factors influence these students' knowledge, perception, and perceived barriers toward
laptop computer ergonomics?

1.5 General objectives

To investigate the knowledge levels, perceived barriers, and factors influencing laptop computer
ergonomics among postgraduate students at the University of Ibadan, Nigeria, to enhance their
well-being, productivity, and academic experience.

1.6 Specific objectives

1. To establish the current knowledge levels of postgraduate students at the University of
Ibadan regarding laptop computer ergonomics.
2. To assess the students’ perception of the importance of laptop computer ergonomics in
preventing health-related issues.
3. To identify the perceived barriers hindering the implementation of proper laptop computer
ergonomics among postgraduate students,

7
4. To identify the factors that influence the knowledge, perception, and perceived barriers
towards laptop computer ergonomics among postgraduate students.

1.6 Research hypothesis

H₀1: There is no significant association between the level of perception and the level of
knowledge of laptop ergonomics.

H₀2: There is no significant association between the level of perception and the perception of
barriers to laptop ergonomics.

H₀3: There is no significant association between the level of knowledge and the perception of
barriers to laptop ergonomics.

H₀4: There is no significant association between socio-demographic characteristics and the level
of knowledge of laptop ergonomics.

8
CHAPTER TWO

INTRODUCTION
9
2.1 General Understanding of Ergonomics

2.1.1 Definition of Ergonomics

Ergonomics, a term derived from the Greek words 'ergon' (work) and 'nomos' (laws), is the
scientific discipline concerned with understanding the interactions among humans and other
system elements. The field applies theoretical principles, data, and methods to design to optimize
human well-being and overall system performance. Ergonomics aims to design environments
that fit the user's needs, capabilities, and limitations, promoting efficiency, productivity, and
safety (Dul & Weerdmeester, 2008).

The International Ergonomics Association (IEA) defines ergonomics as "the scientific discipline
concerned with the understanding of interactions among humans and other elements of a system,
and the profession that applies theory, principles, data, and methods to design to optimize human
well-being and overall system performance" (IEA, 2020).

This definition highlights ergonomics' dual focus on human well-being and system performance,
emphasizing its application across various domains, from workplace design to consumer
products (Karwowski, 2012).

In laptop use, ergonomics involves designing workstations and practices that reduce physical
strain and enhance comfort and efficiency (International Ergonomics Association, 2021).

2.1.2 Historical Evolution of Ergonomics

The ergonomics concept has ancient roots, with evidence of ergonomic principles being applied
in tool design and workspace arrangement as far back as ancient Egypt and Greece. However,
the formal study and application of ergonomics as a scientific discipline began during the
Industrial Revolution, a period marked by significant technological advancements and increased
mechanization of labor (Marras & Karwowski, 2006).

10
2.1.3 Early Developments and Industrial Engineering

During the early 20th century, pioneers such as Frederick Winslow Taylor Frank and Lillian
Gilbreth laid the foundation for modern ergonomics through their work in industrial engineering
and time-motion studies. Taylor's principles of scientific management aimed to improve
economic efficiency, particularly labor productivity, by analyzing and synthesizing workflows.
He introduced the concept of time studies to optimize task performance, focusing on the "one
best way" to perform a job (Taylor, 1911).

The Gilbreths expanded on Taylor's work by studying the motions involved in work processes,
developing the field of motion study. Their research led to identifying unnecessary movements
and developing more efficient ways of performing tasks, increasing productivity and reducing
worker fatigue and injury. Gilbreth's work laid the groundwork for studying human factors and
designing work environments that accommodate human capabilities and limitations (Gilbreth &
Gilbreth, 1922).

2.1.4 Post-World War II Advancements

The end of World War II marked a significant turning point for ergonomics as a distinct scientific
discipline. The war highlighted the importance of human-machine interactions, particularly in
the design of military equipment and systems. The need for more effective and safer designs led
to the formal establishment of ergonomics as a field of study. During this period, organizations
such as the Ergonomics Research Society (now the Chartered Institute of Ergonomics and Human
Factors) were founded to promote research and application of ergonomic principles (Chapanis,
1999).

The post-war era also saw the development of ergonomic guidelines and standards driven by the
need to improve worker safety and productivity in industrial settings. The focus shifted from
increasing productivity to enhancing the quality of work life and preventing occupational
injuries. This period saw the publication of seminal works on ergonomics, such as "Human
Engineering for an Effective Air Navigation and Traffic Control System" by Alphonse Chapanis,
which applied ergonomic principles to the design of control systems in aviation (Chapanis, 1951).
11
2.1.5 Ergonomics in the Workplace

By the mid-20th century, ergonomics had expanded beyond industrial settings to encompass
various work and daily life aspects. The focus shifted to office environments, where studies
emphasized the importance of workstation design, proper seating, and computer ergonomics to
prevent musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) and improve worker comfort and efficiency.

Research by Grandjean (1987) and others in the 1970s and 1980s highlighted the importance of
ergonomic interventions in office settings, leading to the widespread adoption of ergonomic
principles in designing office furniture and equipment (Grandjean, 1987).

2.1.6 Contemporary Ergonomics

In recent years, the scope of ergonomics has broadened even further, integrating technological
advancements and an increased understanding of human physiology and psychology.

Contemporary ergonomics addresses a wide range of issues, including cognitive ergonomics,

which focuses on mental processes such as perception, memory, and decision-making, and
organizational ergonomics, which considers the optimization of sociotechnical systems,
including their organizational structures, policies, and processes (Dul et al., 2012).

Current research in ergonomics emphasizes integrating ergonomic principles into the design of
emerging technologies, such as virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and wearable
devices. These technologies present new challenges and opportunities for ergonomists to enhance
human-computer interactions and ensure that these advancements are safe, effective, and user-
friendly. For example, studies have explored the ergonomic implications of VR headsets, aiming

12
to optimize their design to reduce discomfort and enhance user experience (Boll, 2019;
Wiederhold & Riva, 2019).

2.1.7 Human-Centered Design

A key concept in contemporary ergonomics is human-centered design (HCD), which involves

designing systems prioritizing end users' needs, capabilities, and limitations. HCD principles are
applied in various domains, from workplace design to consumer products, ensuring that the
environments and tools people use daily are optimized for their well-being and performance.
This approach aligns with the broader goal of ergonomics, which is to create systems that support
human health, safety, and productivity (Norman, 2013).

2.1.8Ergonomics in Daily Laptop Computer Usage

The rapid increase in laptop usage among postgraduate students has introduced significant
ergonomic concerns. Laptops, valued for their portability and convenience, have become
indispensable for research, coursework, and communication tasks in academic settings.
However, the extensive use of laptops in non-ergonomic postures can lead to musculoskeletal
disorders (MSDs) and other health issues. The World Health Organization (WHO) has
highlighted that prolonged exposure to non-ergonomic postures can result in various MSDs,
including back pain, neck strain, and repetitive strain injuries (WHO, 2021).

Several studies have documented the prevalence of ergonomic issues among laptop users. For
instance, Chedi and Mustapha (2020) highlighted that many technology educators experienced
back pain and visual discomfort due to inadequate ergonomic practices while using laptops. Their
study pointed out that many educators lacked knowledge about proper ergonomic setups and
often worked in environments that did not support good ergonomic practices (Chedi & Mustapha,
2020). Similarly, Heidari et al. (2019) found that university students often adopt poor postures

13
when using laptops, significantly contributing to the developing of MSDs. The study noted that
prolonged laptop uses in non-ergonomic settings, such as sitting on the floor or in bed,
exacerbates these issues, leading to chronic discomfort and pain (Heidari et al., 2019).

These ergonomic issues are further exacerbated by the lack of awareness among students about
ergonomic furniture. Research by Stanković and Čizmić (2014) revealed that many students
could not access adjustable chairs, laptop stands, or external keyboards, essential for maintaining
ergonomic postures. Their study also highlighted a general lack of awareness about the
importance of ergonomics, leading to poor posture habits that increase the risk of MSDs
(Stanković & Čizmić, 2014). Chavda et al. (2013) supported these findings, emphasizing that the
improper use of laptops due to a lack of ergonomic knowledge results in various musculoskeletal
problems among students (Chavda et al., 2013).

The long-term health implications for postgraduate students are significant. Prolonged exposure
to poor ergonomic conditions can lead to chronic pain, reduced productivity, and a higher risk of
developing severe MSDs. The World Health Organization (WHO) emphasizes addressing these
ergonomic concerns to promote better health and prevent long-term disabilities (WHO, 2021).

2.1.9 Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSDs)

Musculoskeletal disorders are a significant health concern associated with prolonged laptop use.
These disorders include conditions such as carpal tunnel syndrome, tendinitis, and lower back
pain. Recent studies highlight the risks associated with laptop use and the effectiveness of
ergonomic interventions. For instance, Waongenngarm et al. (2020) demonstrated that improper
laptop setup increases musculoskeletal discomfort among university students. Similarly, Nunes
et al. (2021) found that ergonomic interventions, such as external keyboards and laptop stands,
significantly reduced neck and shoulder pain among office workers.

14
According to research by Schmidt et al. (2019), ergonomic training and workstation adjustments
decreased musculoskeletal pain among employees in various professional settings. These
findings emphasize the importance of ergonomic education and the implementation of ergonomic
solutions to mitigate the risk of MSDs.

The rise in laptop usage among postgraduate students has led to increased musculoskeletal
disorders (MSDs), injuries, or musculoskeletal pain arising from repetitive strain, prolonged poor
posture, or inadequate ergonomic practices. These disorders encompass a range of conditions
affecting muscles, nerves, tendons, joints, cartilage, and spinal discs.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has recognized MSDs as a major concern associated
with prolonged computer use, including laptops, highlighting the need for preventive measures
and ergonomic interventions (WHO, 2021).

2.2 Prevalence of Musculoskeletal Disorders Among Laptop Users

2.2.1 Common Types of MSDs

Research indicates that laptop users, particularly postgraduate students, frequently suffer from a
variety of MSDs. Commonly reported conditions include:
1. Neck Pain: Often resulting from prolonged bending of the neck to view laptop screens
placed too low.
2. Shoulder Pain: Arising from poor posture and the absence of external keyboards, leading
to shoulder elevation and strain.
3. Back Pain: Caused by sitting for extended periods in non-ergonomic postures without
adequate lumbar support.
4. Wrist and Hand Pain: The repetitive use of the built-in laptop keyboard and touchpad
often leads to conditions like carpal tunnel syndrome.

15
Studies such as those by Chedi and Mustapha (2020) and Heidari et al. (2019) have documented
these conditions extensively, highlighting the prevalence of neck, back, and wrist pain among
laptop users due to improper ergonomic practices (Chedi & Mustapha, 2020; Heidari et al.,
2019).

The development of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) among laptop users is closely linked to
several ergonomic factors that contribute to physical strain and discomfort. These factors, which
include poor posture, inadequate workstation setups, and prolonged use without breaks,
significantly increase the risk of developing MSDs.
1. Poor Posture

Prolonged use of laptops often leads to non-ergonomic postures, such as slouching or bending
the neck forward, which increases strain on the musculoskeletal system (Gold et al., 2012).
Stanković and Čizmić (2014) found that laptop users commonly adopt poor postures due to the
design and portability of laptops. These devices are typically used on too-low or too-high
surfaces, causing users to bend their necks and backs forward for extended periods (Rangarajulu
& Divya, 2020). This forward head posture, commonly called "tech neck," stresses the cervical
spine and associated muscles, leading to neck pain and discomfort (Aarås et al., 1998).
Additionally, slouching or hunching over a laptop can strain the upper back and shoulder
muscles, further exacerbating the risk of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) (Gold et al., 2012).

Inadequate Workstation Setup

The lack of adjustable chairs, laptop stands, and external keyboards prevents users from
maintaining neutral postures, exacerbating the risk of MSDs. Chavda et al. (2013) highlighted
that many students use laptops on desks or tables that are not ergonomically designed, leading to
improper seating and viewing angles. Users cannot adequately align their screens at eye level or
support their lower backs without adjustable chairs (Rangarajulu & Divya, 2020). The absence
of external keyboards and mice forces users to type and navigate using the built-in laptop
keyboard and touchpad, often resulting in awkward wrist and hand positions. This can lead to
16
repetitive strain injuries, such as carpal tunnel syndrome and tendonitis, due to prolonged and
unnatural hand and wrist movements (Aarås et al., 1998; Gold et al., 2012).

Prolonged Use Without Breaks

Extended periods of laptop use without adequate breaks contribute significantly to muscle fatigue
and strain, increasing the likelihood of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). The World Health
Organization (WHO, 2021) emphasizes the importance of regular breaks to prevent muscle
fatigue and reduce the risk of MSDs. Continuous laptop use without breaks can cause static
muscle loading, where muscles remain contracted for long periods, leading to fatigue and
discomfort (Burdorf & van der Beek, 1999). Over time, this can result in chronic pain and
musculoskeletal injuries (Kumar, 2001). Frequent breaks and stretching exercises can help
alleviate muscle tension and promote better circulation, reducing the risk of developing MSDs
(European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 2019).

Inappropriate Laptop Design

The design of laptops inherently poses ergonomic challenges because the keyboard and screen
are attached. This design flaw forces users to compromise between having the screen at a
comfortable viewing height and the keyboard at a comfortable typing height. Studies by Rempel
et al. (2007) show that using laptops on flat surfaces often results in either too low a screen,
leading to neck strain, or too high a keyboard, causing wrist strain.

Lack of Supportive Equipment

Without supportive equipment such as wrist rests, footrests, or proper lighting, laptop users are
at higher risk of developing MSDs. Wrist rests can help maintain a neutral wrist position while
typing, reducing the risk of carpal tunnel syndrome. Footrests can ensure that feet are properly
supported, which helps maintain overall body alignment and reduces strain on the lower back
17
and legs (Gerr et al., 2006). Proper lighting reduces eye strain and encourages better posture by
minimizing the need to lean forward to see the screen.

6. Static Loading and Inactivity

Static loading refers to maintaining a particular position for extended periods, leading to muscle
fatigue and discomfort. Gerr et al. (2006) found that laptop users who remain in static positions
without adjusting their posture are more prone to muscle stiffness and pain. Dynamic movements,
such as stretching and changing positions frequently, are crucial to mitigate the adverse effects
of static loading.
7. Inadequate Monitor Placement

Inadequate monitor placement, such as having the screen too close or too far, can cause eye strain
and neck discomfort. According to research by Marcus and Gerr (2007), the ideal viewing
distance for a computer screen is between 20 and 40 inches from the eyes, with the top of the
screen at or just below eye level. This setup helps maintain a neutral head position and reduces
the need for frequent adjustments and movements that can lead to strain.

8. Suboptimal Desk and Chair Height

The height of desks and chairs plays a significant role in maintaining ergonomic postures. A study
by Szeto et al. (2002) highlighted that non-adjustable desks and chairs often force users into
uncomfortable positions, increasing strain on the back, neck, and shoulders. Adjustable furniture
that allows users to customize their setup according to their body dimensions and the tasks they
perform can help mitigate these issues.

Behavioral Factors

Behavioral factors also play a crucial role in the development of MSDs. These factors include a
lack of ergonomic knowledge and neglect of taking breaks.

18
 1. Lack of Ergonomic Knowledge

Many postgraduate students lack awareness of ergonomic principles, leading to improper use of
laptops and workstations. Chavda et al. (2013) found that many students were unaware of how
to properly set up their workstations or the importance of maintaining neutral postures. This lack
of knowledge results in poor posture habits, such as sitting too low or too high relative to the
laptop screen and not using external devices like keyboards and mice, which can prevent
musculoskeletal strain.
2. Neglecting Breaks

The tendency to work for long hours without taking breaks for stretching or changing posture
exacerbates muscle strain and discomfort. Heidari et al. (2019) observed that students often work
continuously on their laptops without considering the need for regular breaks. This behavior leads
to sustained muscle contraction and fatigue, increasing the risk of developing MSDs.
Encouraging students to take short, frequent breaks can help reduce muscle tension and improve
overall comfort during prolonged laptop use.
3. Poor Time Management

Another behavioral factor is poor time management, leading to extended periods of intense laptop
use without sufficient breaks. Students often procrastinate and then engage in long, uninterrupted
work sessions to meet deadlines, exacerbating the physical strain on their bodies (Zhang et al.,
2020). Proper time management skills, including planning and scheduling regular breaks, are
essential for mitigating the risk of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) (Wang et al., 2021).

Lack of Physical Activity

A sedentary lifestyle, often associated with prolonged laptop use, contributes to the development
of MSDs. Regular physical activity is crucial for maintaining musculoskeletal health, as it helps
strengthen muscles and improve flexibility. Students who do not engage in regular exercise are
more prone to developing MSDs due to weakened muscles and poor posture habits. Integrating
physical activity into daily routines can significantly reduce the risk of MSDs.
5. Personal Attitudes Towards Health
19
Personal attitudes towards health and ergonomics also influence the likelihood of developing
MSDs. Students prioritizing their health and proactively adopting ergonomic practices are less
likely to experience musculoskeletal issues. Conversely, those who are indifferent or unaware of
the importance of ergonomics may continue harmful habits that lead to MSDs. Educational
interventions that emphasize the long-term benefits of ergonomics can help change these
attitudes (Heidari et al., 2019; Gerr et al., 2006).

2.2.2 Ergonomic Principles

One critical aspect of ergonomics is the design of workstations that minimize musculoskeletal
disorders (MSDs). For instance, work by Vieira et al. (2023) illustrates that adjustable
workstations significantly reduce lower back pain among office workers. Similarly, adjustments
in tool design and workstation layout have been shown to alleviate strain in industrial settings,
as demonstrated by the findings of Zhang et al. (2022).

The integration of ergonomic principles into computer workstation design has been extensively
studied. Recent research by Smith et al. (2021) reveals that ergonomic keyboards and mice,
combined with proper monitor placement, can substantially reduce wrist and neck strain.
Moreover, Sillanpää and Nyberg (2021) highlight that incorporating breaks and exercises into
daily routines can mitigate the negative effects of prolonged sitting.

In manufacturing environments, ergonomics is vital in enhancing safety and efficiency. A study

by Marras et al. (2022) emphasizes the significance of ergonomic interventions in reducing the
physical demands on workers, thereby lowering the risk of injuries. This is further supported by
the work of Davis et al. (2023), which shows that ergonomic training programs can significantly
improve worker posture and reduce MSD symptoms.

Furthermore, the ergonomic design of personal protective equipment (PPE) ensures worker
safety and comfort. Research by Lee et al. (2021) indicates that ergonomically designed PPE
enhances user comfort and improves compliance rates. This is corroborated by findings from
Park and Kim (2022), who report that ergonomic improvements in PPE design can lead to better
fit and reduced discomfort during extended use.
20
The application of ergonomic principles is also essential in the healthcare sector. For instance,
ergonomic improvements in hospital settings, such as adjustable beds and ergonomic tools for
nurses, have been shown to reduce the physical burden on healthcare workers (Garg et al., 2022).
Additionally, the study by Nelson et al. (2021) highlights the benefits of ergonomic training
programs in reducing the incidence of MSDs among healthcare professionals.

The role of ergonomics in enhancing cognitive ergonomics and mental workload is another
crucial area of research. According to studies by Hancock and Szalma (2022), designing systems
and interfaces that align with human cognitive capabilities can significantly reduce mental
fatigue and errors. This is particularly relevant in high-stress environments such as air traffic
control and emergency response, where ergonomic designs can improve performance and safety
(Durso et al., 2021).

In educational environments, ergonomic principles are increasingly recognized for impacting

student performance and well-being. Research by Knight and Noyes (2022) suggests that
ergonomic furniture and classroom layouts can enhance student concentration and reduce
physical discomfort. Additionally, ergonomic interventions in schools, such as adjustable desks
and chairs, have improved students' posture and reduced the risk of developing MSDs (Jones et
al., 2021).

2.3 Knowledge of Ergonomics Among Postgraduate Students.

Many postgraduate students know the fundamental principles of ergonomics, such as the
importance of maintaining good posture and taking regular breaks. This basic understanding is
crucial for preventing musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) and enhancing productivity. This
awareness is notably higher in regions where ergonomic education is well-integrated into
academic programs. For instance, ergonomic education is often part of the university curriculum
in developed countries like the United States and the United Kingdom. Studies by Moffett et al.
(2020) and Smith et al. (2021) indicate that in these regions, students are regularly exposed to
ergonomic guidelines through orientation sessions, workshops, and health campaigns. These
initiatives help inculcate good ergonomic habits early on. Students are taught to adjust their

21
workstations to fit their body dimensions, use ergonomic chairs that support the spine's natural
curve, and position computer monitors at eye level to avoid neck strain. Additionally, they are
encouraged to take regular breaks to stretch and move around, which helps mitigate the risks
associated with prolonged sitting.

2.3.1 Varied Awareness Levels

Despite the general awareness of ergonomic principles among postgraduate students, the level of
understanding and application varies significantly between regions. This variation is largely
influenced by the availability of ergonomic resources, the quality of ergonomic education, and
cultural attitudes toward health and ergonomics.

In developed countries, students generally have better access to ergonomic resources and
education, which leads to higher awareness and better ergonomic practices. Knight and Noyes
(2022) found that students in the UK, for example, benefit from university policies that prioritize
ergonomic well-being. These policies often include providing ergonomic furniture in study areas,
access to adjustable desks, and availability of ergonomic accessories like footrests and document
holders. Universities also frequently organize seminars and workshops on ergonomics, where
students learn about the importance of maintaining neutral postures, proper chair adjustments,
and the use of ergonomic peripherals.

In a comprehensive study conducted in the United States, Smith et al. (2021) measured the
knowledge levels of postgraduate students regarding ergonomic principles. The study found that
over 75% of the participants could correctly identify the key components of an ergonomic
workstation setup, including proper chair height, monitor positioning, and the importance of
using an external keyboard and mouse. The study also revealed that students who had undergone
ergonomic training demonstrated significantly better ergonomic practices and reported fewer
instances of back pain and neck strain than those who had not.

Additionally, technology plays a role in enhancing ergonomic awareness. Many institutions use
online platforms to disseminate ergonomic information, offering students interactive modules
and video tutorials on setting up ergonomic workstations. Integrating ergonomic apps that remind

22
students to take breaks and perform stretching exercises further supports good ergonomic
practices.

Conversely, ergonomic awareness among postgraduate students in developing regions, such as

parts of Africa, is generally lower due to limited resources and training. Igwe and Okeke (2020)
highlight that in Nigeria, for instance, there is a significant lack of ergonomic education and
infrastructure. Many universities do not have the budget to invest in ergonomic furniture or to
provide comprehensive ergonomic training. As a result, students often study in environments that
are not ergonomically designed, using makeshift study setups that promote poor posture.

A study by Adewumi and Eke (2021) measured ergonomic knowledge levels among postgraduate
students in Nigeria. The study found that only about 30% of the participants were aware of the
correct ergonomic practices for computer use, and an even smaller percentage regularly applied
these practices. Most students reported experiencing musculoskeletal discomfort, attributed to
long study hours in non-ergonomic environments. This lack of awareness is compounded by
institutional support and resources dedicated to promoting ergonomic practices.

Owoseni and Twinomurinzi (2021) further highlight the disparities in ergonomic practices within
African higher education institutions. Their research indicated that less than 20% of the surveyed
students in South Africa had received any form of ergonomic training. The study emphasized the
need for greater ergonomic education and infrastructure investment to improve students' health
and academic performance in these regions.

2.3.2 Cultural Attitudes and Ergonomics

Cultural attitudes towards health and ergonomics also play a significant role in shaping
ergonomic awareness among postgraduate students. In some cultures, there is a greater emphasis
on enduring discomfort as a part of academic rigor, which can lead to a neglect of ergonomic
principles. In contrast, cultures prioritizing health and wellness are more likely to adopt and
promote ergonomic practices.

For example, in Japan, where there is a strong cultural emphasis on efficiency and productivity,
ergonomic practices are widely adopted in academic and professional settings. From an early
age, students are taught the importance of good posture and regular movement to maintain health
23
and productivity. Government policies and corporate practices prioritizing ergonomic well-being
support this cultural attitude toward health and efficiency.

2.4 Educational Interventions:

Efforts to improve ergonomic awareness among postgraduate students in developing regions are
gradually increasing. Some universities are beginning to recognize the importance of ergonomics
and are taking steps to address this issue. For instance, Akinola et al. (2023) report the successful
implementation of ergonomic training programs in several Nigerian universities. These programs
include practical workshops on setting up ergonomic workstations, distributing ergonomic tools,
and educating students on the benefits of good ergonomic practices.

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and international bodies also play a role in bridging
the ergonomic awareness gap. They provide funding and resources for ergonomic education and
equipment in developing countries. Additionally, online platforms and social media are valuable
tools for spreading ergonomic knowledge. Interactive webinars, online courses, and social media
campaigns can reach a wide audience, including those in remote areas with limited access to
formal ergonomic education.

2.4.1 Enhanced Ergonomic Knowledge

Educational programs significantly enhance students' understanding of ergonomic principles.

Multiple studies have shown that ergonomic training has increased ergonomic awareness and
knowledge among postgraduate students. For example, Smith et al. (2021) and Lee et al. (2021)
reported that students demonstrated a marked improvement in their ability to identify and
implement ergonomic practices such as proper workstation setup, posture correction, and
ergonomic tools. The improvement in ergonomic knowledge was noted to be significant, with
increases of up to 85% in some cases.

2.4.2 Reduction in Musculoskeletal Complaints

24
A primary objective of ergonomic education is to reduce the incidence of musculoskeletal
disorders (MSDs). Numerous studies confirm the effectiveness of these interventions in
achieving this goal. Vieira et al. (2023) reported a 50% reduction in back pain and other MSDs
among ergonomic training students. Adewumi and Eke (2021) found a 40% decrease in
musculoskeletal discomfort among postgraduate students in Nigeria who participated in
ergonomic training programs. These findings highlight the critical role of ergonomic education
in promoting physical health and reducing the risk of MSDs.

2.4.3 Enhanced Productivity and Well-being

Ergonomic education programs improve physical health and enhance productivity and overall
well-being—students who receive training report higher productivity levels and reduced mental
fatigue. Durso et al. (2021) demonstrated that comprehensive training addressing both physical
and cognitive ergonomics resulted in significant productivity improvements and reduced mental
fatigue. Similarly, Hancock and Szalma (2022) emphasized the benefits of integrating cognitive
ergonomics into training programs, leading to better management of mental workload and
improved academic performance.

2.4.4 Regional Variations

In developed countries, ergonomic education is often well-integrated into academic programs.

Studies from the United States, Canada, and Europe highlight the positive impact of these
programs. Moffett et al. (2020) reported that students in the UK who underwent ergonomic
training exhibited fewer back pain and neck strain. Smith et al. (2021) found significant
improvements in ergonomic practices and knowledge among students in the US post-training.

25
These regions benefit from university policies prioritizing ergonomic well-being, including
providing ergonomic furniture, regular workshops, and online resources.

In developing regions, such as parts of Africa and Asia, ergonomic awareness and practice are
generally lower due to limited resources and training. However, targeted interventions have
shown promising results. Igwe and Okeke (2020) highlighted significant improvements in
ergonomic knowledge and reduced musculoskeletal complaints among Nigerian students
following educational interventions. Akinola et al. (2023) documented the positive impact of
ergonomic training programs in Nigerian universities, with increased ergonomic tool usage and
better practices among students. These findings underscore the need for increased investment in
ergonomic education and infrastructure in developing regions.

2.5 Perceived Barriers to Laptop Ergonomic

Postgraduate students frequently encounter several barriers that hinder the adoption of ergonomic
practices when using laptops. These barriers can significantly impact their health and academic
performance, leading to musculoskeletal disorders and decreased productivity. Despite the
growing awareness of the importance of ergonomics, the implementation of ergonomic practices
remains a challenge due to various factors (Bonutto et al., 2020; Akinwaare et al., 2020;
NoorElahi et al., 2015; Goyal et al., 2020; Solé et al., 2020).

2.5.1 General Lack of Ergonomic Knowledge

Studies from various parts of the world highlight the prevalence of this lack of awareness. For
instance, Harris et al. (2016) conducted a study that revealed that many university students were
unaware of the correct posture and workstation setup required to avoid musculoskeletal
problems. The study emphasized the need for educational interventions to improve ergonomic
knowledge among students.

26
Similarly, Jacobs and Baker (2013) found that university students often do not receive sufficient
training or information on ergonomics, leading to poor ergonomic practices. These findings
suggest a global need for more comprehensive ergonomic education in academic institutions.

The situation is comparable in Nigeria. Several studies have examined the level of ergonomic
awareness among students and found similar gaps in knowledge. For instance, Ezenwa (2011)
conducted a study on Nigerian university students and found a widespread lack of awareness
regarding ergonomic principles. Many students did not know the importance of maintaining a
neutral posture, adjusting their screens to eye level, or using external keyboards and mice to
reduce strain.

Furthermore, a study by Oluwajana et al. (2019) investigated ergonomic practices among

university students in southwestern Nigeria. The results indicated that most of the students were
unfamiliar with ergonomics and had little understanding of how to set up their workstations to
minimize physical strain. This lack of knowledge often resulted in students adopting poor
postures that could lead to long-term health issues.

Several areas where students commonly lack ergonomic knowledge include the correct setup of
desks and monitors, the importance of using external keyboards and mice, and the need for
regular breaks. Nelson et al. (2021) found that many students were unaware of adjusting their
chair height to ensure their feet were flat on the floor and their knees were at a 90-degree angle,
which is crucial for maintaining a neutral posture. Additionally, the study noted that students
often positioned their monitors too low, causing them to bend their necks and increase the strain
on their cervical spine.

27
Lee et al. (2021) also highlighted the lack of awareness regarding using external keyboards and
mice. The study found that students frequently used their laptops' built-in keyboards and
touchpads, which forced them into awkward wrist positions that increased the risk of repetitive
strain injuries. By educating students about the benefits of using external peripherals, institutions
can help reduce these risks.

Another area where awareness is typically low is the significance of taking regular breaks.
Hancock and Szalma (2022) pointed out that prolonged sitting without breaks can increase
musculoskeletal discomfort and decrease cognitive function. Educational programs emphasizing
the importance of taking short, frequent breaks to stretch and move around can help mitigate
these effects.

Park and Kim (2020) found that students who were educated about the need for regular breaks
reported lower discomfort and higher productivity levels. The study suggested that incorporating
reminders to take breaks into students' daily routines could further enhance these benefits.

2.5.2 Financial Constraints

Research has consistently shown that ergonomic equipment costs are a significant student barrier.
For instance, Straker et al. (2011) highlighted that students frequently cite cost as a major reason
for not implementing ergonomic interventions. This study emphasized that financial constraints
often prevent students from investing in necessary ergonomic tools despite the awareness of the
benefits of ergonomic practices.

A more recent study by Young et al. (2020) reinforced these findings, showing that financial
limitations remain a significant barrier to adopting ergonomic practices among university
students. The study surveyed students across several universities and found that the high cost of
ergonomic equipment was a primary deterrent.

28
In Nigeria, the financial barrier is even more pronounced due to many students' economic
challenges. Studies specific to the Nigerian context have documented similar findings,
emphasizing the financial difficulties that hinder ergonomic practices.

A study by Adewunmi et al. (2019) examined the ergonomic practices among Nigerian university
students and found that the cost of ergonomic accessories was a significant barrier. The study
noted that many students could not afford items like adjustable chairs or external keyboards,
leading to the adoption of poor ergonomic practices.

Similarly, research by Olabode and Abayomi (2021) investigated the factors influencing
ergonomic practices among Nigerian postgraduate students. They found that financial constraints
were a major issue, with many students unable to invest in ergonomic equipment due to their
limited budgets. This financial limitation often resulted in students using suboptimal
workstations, which increased the risk of musculoskeletal problems.

2.5.3 Lack of Resources

The lack of resources is a significant barrier to adopting ergonomic practices among postgraduate
students. Many students do not have access to ergonomic furniture, tools, or accessories that
support proper posture and reduce strain, a situation particularly pronounced in developing
regions where funding for ergonomic infrastructure is limited (Stanković & Čizmić, 2014;
Akinola et al., 2023; Igwe & Okeke, 2020).

29
Stanković and Čizmić (2014) highlighted that in many institutions, especially in developing
countries, ergonomic furniture such as adjustable chairs and desks are scarce due to budget
constraints. This scarcity forces students to use non-ergonomic setups, leading to increased
discomfort and the risk of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). For instance, students often rely
on standard, non-adjustable chairs and desks that do not cater to the ergonomic needs of
individuals, exacerbating physical strain during long study sessions (Nelson et al., 2021; Park &
Kim, 2020).

The lack of ergonomic tools is a significant barrier in Nigerian universities. Akinola et al. (2023)
found that students often had to make do with improvised solutions, such as using books to raise
laptop height or cushions to support their backs, which are ineffective in mitigating ergonomic
risks. These makeshift solutions do not provide the necessary adjustments to maintain a neutral
posture, leading to prolonged periods of discomfort and potential long-term health issues (Smith
et al., 2021; Knight & Noyes, 2022).

Igwe and Okeke (2020) also reported that financial constraints in Nigerian universities prevented
the acquisition of ergonomic furniture and accessories, contributing to poor ergonomic practices
among students. The limited budget for educational institutions means ergonomic considerations
are often overlooked in favor of other immediate academic needs. Consequently, students are left
to navigate their ergonomic needs without adequate support, which can negatively impact their
health and academic performance (Durso et al., 2021; Vieira et al., 2023; Hancock & Szalma,
2022).

2.5.4 Cultural Attitudes and Perceptions

Cultural attitudes towards health and ergonomics can significantly influence the adoption of
ergonomic practices among postgraduate students. These attitudes shape how students perceive
the importance of ergonomics in their daily lives, often determining whether they prioritize
30
physical well-being alongside academic performance. Some cultures prioritize academic
achievements over health, neglecting ergonomic principles, which can negatively affect students'
physical health and productivity (Durso et al., 2021; Smith et al., 2021).

2.5.4.1 Prioritizing Academic Performance Over Physical Well-Being

In many academic environments, especially in cultures that place a high value on educational
success, there is a pervasive belief that academic performance should come before all else. This
mindset often leads to the dismissal of ergonomic practices as non-essential. Owoseni and
Twinomurinzi (2021) highlighted that African higher education institutions have a cultural
emphasis on enduring discomfort as part of the academic experience. This attitude is rooted in
the belief that discomfort and long study hours are necessary for academic success.
Consequently, students and faculty may view ergonomic adjustments as unnecessary or a sign of
weakness, undermining efforts to promote healthier study habits.

For example, many African universities focus on achieving high academic standards with little
regard for the physical toll it may take on students. The expectation of enduring discomfort
without complaint can discourage students from seeking out or accepting ergonomic
interventions that could mitigate physical strain. This cultural norm perpetuates a cycle where
ergonomic practices are undervalued and underutilized, leading to increased cases of
musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) and other health issues.

2.5.4.2Viewing Ergonomic Practices as a Luxury

Another significant cultural barrier is the perception of ergonomic practices as a luxury rather
than a necessity. Adewumi and Eke (2021) found that in Nigeria, many students viewed
ergonomic practices as an indulgence rather than an essential component of their academic

31
environment. This perception is often driven by economic factors and societal attitudes towards
health and wellness.

In environments where resources are limited and financial constraints are a significant concern,
investments in ergonomic furniture and tools may be considered unnecessary. Students and
institutions may prioritize spending on what they perceive as more immediate academic needs,
such as textbooks and technology, over ergonomic solutions. This economic rationale is
reinforced by cultural attitudes that do not prioritize long-term health and well-being, further
discouraging the adoption of ergonomic practices (Igwe & Okeke, 2020; Akinola et al., 2023).

Moreover, the perception of ergonomic practices as a luxury can also stem from a lack of
awareness about the long-term benefits of ergonomics. Many students and educators may not
fully understand how proper ergonomic practices can enhance productivity, reduce absenteeism,
and prevent long-term health issues. Without this understanding, there is little motivation to
invest in ergonomic solutions, seen as non-essential extras (Smith et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2021).

2.5.4.3 Gender and Ergonomics

Cultural attitudes towards gender can also influence ergonomic practices. In some cultures, men
and women may have different expectations and norms regarding health and self-care. Studies
have shown that women are often more likely to report discomfort and seek ergonomic solutions
than men, who may feel cultural pressure to endure discomfort without complaint. This gendered
approach to ergonomics can lead to unequal access to ergonomic solutions and differing rates of
MSDs between male and female students (Durso et al., 2021; Park & Kim, 2020).

2.5.4.4 Institutional and Societal Influences

The broader institutional and societal context also plays a crucial role in shaping cultural attitudes
towards ergonomics. Universities and educational institutions often reflect and reinforce societal
32
norms. If an institution does not prioritize ergonomic practices or provide the necessary resources
or education, it signals to students that ergonomics is not important. Conversely, institutions that
actively promote ergonomic awareness and provide ergonomic resources can help shift cultural
attitudes towards a greater appreciation of physical well-being (Knight & Noyes, 2022; Garg et
al., 2022).

Nelson et al. (2021) argue that institutional policies and cultural attitudes are deeply intertwined.
Institutions in cultures that emphasize holistic well-being, including mental and physical health,
are more likely to implement and maintain effective ergonomic practices. These institutions
understand that promoting ergonomics can lead to better academic outcomes and healthier
students.

2.5.5 Inadequate Institutional Support

Institutional support is crucial for promoting ergonomic practices among postgraduate students.
However, many educational institutions lack the policies and frameworks to support ergonomics.
Nelson et al. (2021) noted that in many universities, there is no formal policy on ergonomics,
leaving students without guidance or support for setting up ergonomic workstations. This lack of
formal policies results in inconsistent application of ergonomic principles, which can lead to
increased discomfort and health issues among students.

Lee et al. (2021) emphasized that institutions must incorporate ergonomic education into the
curriculum and provide regular training sessions to ensure students know and can implement
ergonomic practices. Incorporating ergonomic training into the academic curriculum can help to
normalize these practices and make students more aware of their importance. Durso et al. (2021)
also suggested continuous ergonomic education could improve health outcomes and academic
performance.

33
Smith et al. (2021) found that students are less likely to prioritize ergonomic practices without
institutional support. This support can come from providing ergonomic furniture, establishing
guidelines, and integrating ergonomic assessments into regular health checks. Moffett et al.
(2020) reported that when universities invest in ergonomic infrastructure and education, students
are more likely to adopt and maintain ergonomic practices.

Garg et al. (2022) highlighted that those institutions with robust, ergonomic policies see a higher
compliance rate among students. These policies can include mandatory ergonomic training
sessions, regular ergonomic assessments, and the provision of ergonomic resources such as
adjustable chairs and desks. Knight and Noyes (2022) found that when institutions actively
promote ergonomic practices through visible commitment and resource allocation, students are
more likely to take these practices seriously and integrate them into their daily routines.

Owoseni and Twinomurinzi (2021) underscored that the cultural context within institutions also
plays a role in adopting ergonomic practices. Students are more likely to prioritize ergonomic
practices in environments where the institution visibly values and promotes health and well-
being. Conversely, in institutions where ergonomic practices are not visibly supported or
encouraged, students may view them as unimportant or optional.

Limited physical space is a significant barrier to adopting ergonomic practices among

postgraduate students. Many students live in small apartments or shared accommodations were
setting up an ergonomic workstation is challenging. Durso et al. (2021) found that in urban
settings, students often lack dedicated study spaces and are forced to work in cramped conditions,
exacerbating ergonomic issues. This lack of space can lead to poor posture and an increased risk
of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) (Durso et al., 2021).

34
Vieira et al. (2023) found that in Brazil, students frequently cited space constraints as a significant
barrier to setting up ergonomic workstations. Without adequate space, students often resort to
makeshift setups that are not ergonomically sound, increasing their risk of developing MSDs.
Igwe and Okeke (2020) highlighted the need for institutions to consider space limitations when
designing student accommodations and study areas to ensure they can support ergonomic
practices (Igwe & Okeke, 2020).

Garg et al. (2022) suggested that universities could offer shared ergonomic workspaces or
provide portable ergonomic solutions that can be easily set up in small spaces. Similarly, Akinola
et al. (2023) recommended that institutions offer workshops on optimizing small spaces for
ergonomic workstations, helping students better utilize their available space (Akinola et al.,
2023).

Vieira et al. (2023) found that financial limitations significantly hindered the adoption of
ergonomic practices among students in Brazil. The study revealed that many students prioritized
essential academic materials over ergonomic tools, which they perceived as non-essential
luxuries. This prioritization was driven by the immediate necessity of academic supplies and the
lack of immediate, tangible benefits from ergonomic investments.

Similarly, Park and Kim (2020) observed that students in more affluent regions also viewed
ergonomic furniture as an unnecessary expense. This perception was attributed to a lack of
awareness about the long-term health and productivity benefits associated with ergonomic
practices. The study highlighted the need for better education and awareness programs to shift
students' perceptions and justify the expense of ergonomic tools.

35
Smith et al. (2021) conducted an educational intervention to address this knowledge gap. The
study demonstrated that educating students about ergonomic practices' health and productivity
benefits significantly improved their willingness to invest in ergonomic furniture and accessories.
The intervention resulted in a positive shift in students' attitudes, indicating that awareness
programs could effectively promote ergonomic practices.

Igwe and Okeke (2020) emphasized the need for institutional support in providing ergonomic
tools to students, particularly those from lower-income backgrounds. The study found that
institutional subsidies and support could alleviate financial constraints and make ergonomic tools
more accessible. This finding was echoed by Akinola et al. (2023), who recommended that
universities subsidize ergonomic furniture and accessories. The researchers argued that such
subsidies could level the playing field for all students, ensuring that financial barriers do not
hinder the adoption of ergonomic practices.

2.5.6 Space Limitations

Globally, the problem of space limitations in student housing is well-documented. According to

Hedge (2016), inadequate space for ergonomic workstations is a common issue in dormitories
and shared accommodations. Hedge's research highlights that many students are forced to use
their beds or other inappropriate surfaces for studying, leading to poor posture and increased risk
of musculoskeletal problems.

A study by Eyitayo et al. (2017) examined the living conditions of university students and found
that space constraints significantly impacted their ability to maintain ergonomic practices. The
lack of sufficient space to properly set up desks and chairs led to students adopting awkward
postures while studying, increasing the risk of ergonomic-related health issues.

In Nigeria, space limitations are particularly pronounced due to overcrowded student

accommodations and inadequate infrastructure. Several studies have explored this problem

36
within Nigerian universities, revealing the extent to which space constraints hinder ergonomic
practices.

A study by Ayodele and Mojisola (2018) investigated the living conditions of Nigerian university
students and found that many students lived in overcrowded dormitories with insufficient space
for proper study setups. The study noted that these cramped living conditions forced students to
use their beds or floors for studying, which are not conducive to maintaining good posture.

Similarly, research by Nwosu and Ekpenyong (2020) focused on the ergonomic challenges faced
by students in Nigerian universities. The study found that limited space in student
accommodations was a significant barrier to setting up ergonomic workstations. Many students
shared rooms with multiple individuals, leaving little room for ergonomic furniture or proper
study areas.

2.5.7 Perceived Inconvenience

The perception that setting up and maintaining an ergonomic workstation is inconvenient is a

significant barrier to adopting ergonomic practices among postgraduate students. This perception
is rooted in several factors, including the need for frequent adjustments, perceived disruptions to
study routines, and the complexity of ergonomic guidelines. Understanding these factors can help
develop strategies to mitigate the perceived inconvenience and promote healthier study habits.

One of the primary reasons students perceive ergonomics as inconvenient is the need for frequent
adjustments and maintenance of their workstations. Ergonomic practices often require students
to adjust their posture, reposition their equipment, and take regular breaks to prevent strain. These
activities can be considered time-consuming and disruptive, especially for students focused on
academic tasks.

37
For instance, adjusting the height of a chair, repositioning a laptop stand, or ensuring that the
monitor is at eye level may need to be done multiple times a day, depending on the duration and
intensity of the study sessions. This requirement for constant vigilance can deter students from
maintaining an ergonomic setup. As Rempel et al. (2012) highlighted, the preference for
convenience over ergonomics often leads students to adopt poor ergonomic habits, such as
slouching or working in awkward positions.

2.5.8 Disruptions to Study Routines

Ergonomic practices, such as taking frequent breaks and adjusting equipment, can be perceived
as disruptions to study routines. Postgraduate students often have tight schedules and heavy
workloads, making them reluctant to interrupt their study sessions. Taking a break every 30
minutes to stretch or walk around can be seen as a hindrance to maintaining concentration and
momentum.

Furthermore, setting up an ergonomic workstation can be seen as a disruption. Students may find
it cumbersome to optimize their study environment each time they sit down to work, especially
if they use shared or multi-purpose spaces. This inconvenience can lead to a preference for quick
and easy setups that do not adhere to ergonomic guidelines, ultimately compromising their health
and comfort.

2.5.9 Complexity of Ergonomic Guidelines

The complexity of ergonomic guidelines can also contribute to the perception of inconvenience.
Proper ergonomic practices involve various factors, including chair height, monitor distance,
keyboard and mouse placement, and body posture. For students unfamiliar with these guidelines,
understanding and implementing them can be overwhelming.

38
A study by Saito et al. (2014) found that many students felt that ergonomic guidelines were too
complicated and difficult to follow consistently. This complexity can discourage students from
setting up and maintaining an ergonomic workstation, leading them to prioritize convenience
over proper ergonomic practices. Simplifying these guidelines and providing clear, easy-to-
follow instructions can help alleviate this barrier.

2.6 Perceived Benefits vs. Immediate Needs

Students often weigh the perceived long-term benefits of ergonomic practices against their
immediate needs and convenience (Rempel et al., 2012). The benefits of ergonomics, such as
reduced risk of musculoskeletal disorders and improved long-term health, may not be
immediately apparent to students who are more focused on short-term academic goals (Saito et
al., 2014). The immediate convenience of not adjusting their workstation or taking breaks often
outweighs the perceived benefits of maintaining ergonomic practices (Rempel et al., 2012).

Technological Barriers

Technological limitations, such as using outdated or non-adjustable laptops, pose significant

barriers to adopting proper ergonomic practices. Many students use laptops that do not support
ergonomic adjustments, such as adjustable screen heights or detachable keyboards. This issue is
particularly relevant in the context of evolving technology and its accessibility to students.

Outdated Equipment

One significant technological barrier is using outdated laptops that lack essential ergonomic
features. Older laptops often do not have adjustable screen heights, making it difficult for users
to position the screen at eye level, which is crucial for maintaining proper posture. Robertson et
al. (2013) pointed out that older laptops often lack ergonomic features, making it challenging for
users to maintain proper posture.

39
Moreover, outdated laptops may not be compatible with modern ergonomic accessories, such as
external keyboards and mice, further complicating efforts to create an ergonomic workstation.
This incompatibility forces students to use the built-in keyboard and touchpad, typically
positioned too close to the screen, leading to poor posture and increased strain on the neck and
shoulders.

Non-Adjustable Laptops

Even newer laptops can pose ergonomic challenges if they do not have adjustable features. Many
budget-friendly laptops are designed for portability and cost-efficiency rather than ergonomic
comfort. These laptops often have fixed screens and non-detachable keyboards, limiting the
ability to customize the setup for individual ergonomic needs.

A study by Xie et al. (2019) highlighted that non-adjustable laptops contribute to poor ergonomic
practices among students. The lack of adjustability forces users to adopt awkward postures, such
as hunching over the screen or using the laptop on their lap, leading to musculoskeletal
discomfort over time.

The lack of institutional support for ergonomic practices in educational settings has been widely
recognized as a significant barrier. Institutions often prioritize academic resources over health
and wellness programs, including ergonomics. This prioritization leaves a gap in student support
systems regarding ergonomic education and resources.

Research by Van Niekerk et al. (2010) underscores the importance of institutional support in
fostering ergonomic awareness and practices among students. The study found that when
universities actively promote ergonomic education and provide resources, students are more
likely to adopt ergonomic practices, reducing musculoskeletal complaints and improving overall
well-being.

Similarly, a study by Saito et al. (2014) highlighted that universities with comprehensive
ergonomic programs, including training sessions, accessible ergonomic equipment, and
supportive policies, had students who reported higher levels of ergonomic knowledge and better
40
ergonomic practices. This support not only helped reduce discomfort but also enhanced academic
performance.

In contrast, institutions that do not prioritize ergonomics often see higher musculoskeletal issues
among their student populations. For example, a study by Harris et al. (2016) noted that
universities without formal ergonomic programs had students who were significantly less aware
of ergonomic principles and more prone to experiencing related health issues (Harris et al., 2016).

In Nigeria, the lack of institutional support for ergonomics is particularly pronounced. Many
Nigerian universities face limited resources and infrastructure, which often leads to neglecting
ergonomic considerations. The focus is typically on academic and infrastructural development,
with less attention given to health and wellness programs.

A study by Okeke and Madubuko (2014) explored the state of ergonomic support in Nigerian
universities and found a significant lack of formal ergonomic training programs. Most students
reported that they had not received any education on ergonomic practices from their institutions.
This lack of formal training often led to adopting poor ergonomic habits, resulting in a higher
prevalence of musculoskeletal problems among students.

Additionally, research by Adedoyin et al. (2015) indicated that the absence of ergonomic
resources, such as adjustable chairs, desks, and computer accessories, further compounded the
problem. Many students had to make do with substandard furniture that did not support proper
ergonomic practices, increasing their risk of discomfort and injury.

Impact of barriers

General Lack of Ergonomic Knowledge

41
Students' lack of ergonomic knowledge significantly contributes to poor ergonomic habits and
associated health issues. Students are unlikely to adopt necessary ergonomic adjustments without
proper understanding, leading to an increased risk of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). For
instance, Harris et al. (2016) found that students unaware of correct ergonomic practices were
more likely to experience neck and back pain due to poor posture and improper workstation
setups. This lack of awareness results in prolonged exposure to risk factors for MSDs, including
repetitive strain and poor sitting positions (Harris et al., 2016).

In Nigeria, similar findings were reported by Ezenwa (2011), who highlighted that many
university students did not understand the importance of maintaining neutral postures or using
ergonomic tools such as external keyboards and adjustable chairs. This knowledge gap
perpetuates the use of suboptimal practices, further increasing the likelihood of developing
chronic discomfort and injuries (Ezenwa, 2011).

Financial Constraints

Financial constraints prevent students from investing in ergonomic equipment, contributing to

adopting poor ergonomic habits. The high cost of ergonomic accessories such as adjustable
chairs, external keyboards, and laptop stands makes them inaccessible to many students.
According to Young et al. (2020), the financial burden associated with purchasing ergonomic
tools is a primary deterrent, leading students to use makeshift solutions that do not adequately
support proper posture. This economic barrier results in prolonged use of inadequate furniture,
increasing the risk of MSDs and related health issues (Young et al., 2020).

Adewunmi et al. (2019) found that economic challenges significantly hindered students' ability
to maintain ergonomic workstations in Nigeria. The lack of affordable ergonomic options forces
students to adopt harmful postures, such as hunching over laptops on beds or using non-
adjustable chairs, leading to severe musculoskeletal problems over time.
42
Lack of Resources

The absence of ergonomic resources in educational institutions significantly impacts students'

ergonomic practices. Students cannot set up workstations that support healthy postures without
proper ergonomic furniture and tools. Stanković and Čizmić (2014) noted that the scarcity of
ergonomic furniture in many educational institutions forces students to use inadequate setups,
increasing the likelihood of discomfort and MSDs. This lack of resources compels students to
use makeshift solutions, often failing to provide the necessary ergonomic support (Stanković &
Čizmić, 2014).

Limited budgets and insufficient infrastructure exacerbate the situation in Nigerian universities.
Akinola et al. (2023) highlighted that students frequently use books and cushions to modify their
workstations, which are ineffective in preventing ergonomic injuries. This inadequate resource
availability leads to persistent poor ergonomic practices, further escalating the risk of chronic
pain and musculoskeletal disorders (Akinola et al., 2023).

Cultural Attitudes and Perceptions

Cultural attitudes prioritizing academic success over health significantly contribute to poor
ergonomic habits among students. In many academic environments, enduring discomfort is a
necessary part of the academic experience. Owoseni and Twinomurinzi (2021) reported that in
African universities, a cultural norm values perseverance through discomfort, which discourages
students from adopting ergonomic practices. This mindset leads to neglect of physical well-
being, resulting in increased cases of MSDs and other health issues (Owoseni & Twinomurinzi,
2021).

43
Furthermore, perceiving ergonomic practices as a luxury rather than a necessity can deter
students from investing in ergonomic tools. Adewumi and Eke (2021) found that many Nigerian
students view ergonomic equipment as non-essential, prioritizing other academic expenses over
health-related investments. This cultural perception perpetuates poor ergonomic habits,
contributing to long-term health problems (Adewumi & Eke, 2021).

Inadequate Institutional Support

The lack of institutional support for ergonomic practices significantly impacts students' ability to
adopt healthy ergonomic habits. When educational institutions do not prioritize ergonomics,
students lack the guidance and resources to set up proper workstations. Nelson et al. (2021) noted
that universities without formal ergonomic policies or training programs had students who were
less likely to follow ergonomic guidelines, leading to increased discomfort and health issues. The
absence of institutional support results in inconsistent application of ergonomic practices,
exacerbating the risk of MSDs (Nelson et al., 2021).

In Nigeria, Okeke and Madubuko (2014) highlighted that the lack of formal ergonomic education
and university resources leaves students to navigate their ergonomic needs independently, often
leading to suboptimal practices. This inadequate support system contributes to the prevalence of
poor ergonomic habits and associated health problems among students

Space Limitations

Space limitations in student accommodations hinder the ability to set up ergonomic workstations,
leading to poor ergonomic practices. Inadequate space forces students to use inappropriate
surfaces, such as beds or floors for studying, which do not support proper posture. Hedge (2016)
found that cramped living conditions significantly impacted students' ergonomic practices,

44
increasing the risk of musculoskeletal problems due to poor posture. The lack of dedicated study
space prevents students from setting up and maintaining ergonomic workstations (Hedge, 2016).

Overcrowded dormitories and insufficient study areas exacerbate the problem in Nigerian
universities. Ayodele and Mojisola (2018) reported that many students lived in cramped
conditions with limited space for ergonomic setups, leading to prolonged periods of discomfort
and increased risk of MSDs. These space constraints force students to adopt harmful postures,
contributing to chronic musculoskeletal issues (Ayodele & Mojisola, 2018).

Perceived Inconvenience

The perception that ergonomic practices are inconvenient significantly contributes to poor
ergonomic habits among students. The need for frequent adjustments and regular breaks is often
seen as disruptive to study routines. Rempel et al. (2012) highlighted that students who perceive
ergonomic adjustments as time-consuming are less likely to adopt them, leading to persistent
poor ergonomic habits. This perceived inconvenience results in students favoring quick and easy
setups that do not adhere to ergonomic guidelines, increasing the risk of musculoskeletal
discomfort and injuries (Rempel et al., 2012).

Technological Barriers

Technological limitations, such as using outdated or non-adjustable laptops, contribute to poor

ergonomic habits among students. Many students use laptops that do not support ergonomic
adjustments, forcing them to adopt awkward postures. Robertson et al. (2013) noted that older
laptops often lack features such as adjustable screen heights and detachable keyboards, making
it difficult for users to maintain proper posture. This technological barrier results in students
using improper setups, increasing the strain on their musculoskeletal systems (Robertson et al.,
2013).

45
Moreover, the lack of compatibility with modern ergonomic accessories further complicates
efforts to create ergonomic workstations. Xie et al. (2019) found that non-adjustable laptops
contribute to poor ergonomic practices by forcing users into awkward positions, leading to an
increased risk of MSDs. These technological barriers prevent students from adopting and
maintaining healthy ergonomic habits, exacerbating the likelihood of developing chronic
discomfort and injuries (Xie et al., 2019).

Factors Influencing Ergonomic Practices

Demographic Factors

Demographic factors play a significant role in shaping ergonomic practices among students. Key
demographic variables such as age, gender, and field of study can influence how students
perceive and implement ergonomic principles. Understanding these factors can help tailor
ergonomic interventions to specific student groups to improve health outcomes and ergonomic
compliance (Kamaroddin et al., 2010).

Age

Age is a critical factor influencing ergonomic practices. Generally, older students, such as
postgraduate students, tend to have better awareness and practice of ergonomics than younger
undergraduate students. This difference can be attributed to the longer exposure to academic
environments and the increased likelihood of encountering ergonomic training or experiencing
musculoskeletal discomfort that prompts ergonomic adjustments (Spr et al., 2021).

Harris et al. (2016) found that postgraduate students were likelier to adopt ergonomic practices
than undergraduates. This study suggested that with age and academic progression, students

46
become more aware of the importance of ergonomics due to prolonged exposure to computer use
and increased experience with the negative consequences of poor ergonomics (Harris et al.,
2016). Additionally, older students might have more resources or motivation to invest in
ergonomic equipment due to their higher academic or professional demands (Cheng et al., 2016).

Gender

Gender differences also significantly impact ergonomic practices. Studies have consistently
shown that women are more likely to report discomfort and seek ergonomic solutions than men.
This difference can be partly attributed to societal norms and gender roles, which influence how
men and women perceive and address discomfort (Gupta et al., 2021).

A study by Smith et al. (2021) reported that female students were more proactive in adopting
ergonomic practices, such as using external keyboards and adjusting their workstations than male
students. The research highlighted that woman are often more attuned to their health and well-
being, leading to higher ergonomic compliance. In contrast, men might downplay or ignore
ergonomic recommendations due to cultural expectations of toughness and endurance (Smith et
al., 2021).

Moreover, another study by El-sallamy et al. (2018) found that women were more likely to
participate in ergonomic training sessions and use ergonomic accessories than their male
counterparts. This gender disparity underscores the need for targeted ergonomic education and
interventions that address these behavioral differences (El-sallamy et al., 2018).

Field of Study

47
Another significant factor influencing ergonomic practices is the field of study. Students in
technical fields, such as engineering, computer science, and medicine, are more likely to be
exposed to ergonomic education and resources due to the nature of their studies, which often
emphasize the importance of ergonomics in preventing work-related injuries (Jaafar et al., 2020).

Ezenwa (2011) observed that engineering students had higher ergonomic awareness and better
practices compared to students in non-technical fields such as humanities and social sciences.
This disparity is likely because technical curricula often include ergonomics and occupational
health modules, which are less emphasized in non-technical programs (Ezenwa, 2011).

Similarly, a study by Goyal et al. (2020) found that medical students exhibited higher ergonomic
knowledge and practice than arts and social sciences students. The rigorous demands of medical
training, which include long hours of study and clinical practice, necessitate the adoption of
ergonomic practices to prevent health issues, thereby increasing awareness and compliance
among medical students (Goyal et al., 2020).

Other demographic factors, such as socioeconomic status and geographic location, also influence
ergonomic practices. Students from higher socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to afford
ergonomic equipment, while those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds may lack the
financial resources to invest in such tools. This economic disparity can lead to different
ergonomic practices and health outcomes (Gumasing et al., 2023).

Geographic location can also play a role. Students in urban areas typically have better access to
ergonomic resources and education than those in rural areas. For instance, Olabode and Adesanya
(2017) found that students in urban Nigerian universities were more likely to use ergonomic tools

48
and have better ergonomic practices than their rural counterparts, highlighting the impact of
geographic disparities on ergonomic behavior (Olabode Adesanya, 2017).

A study by Uche and Fanny (2015) supports this by noting that higher education institutions in
urban areas are more likely to have ergonomically designed facilities than rural ones. This
disparity in resources and infrastructure can significantly influence students' ergonomic practices
(Uche & Fanny, 2015).

Environmental Factors

Physical Study Environment and Availability of Ergonomic Resources

The physical study environment and the availability of ergonomic resources are crucial in
shaping students' ergonomic practices and overall well-being. An ergonomic environment with
appropriate furniture, lighting, and spatial arrangements can significantly reduce physical strain
and enhance learning efficiency.

Studies have shown that applying basic ergonomic principles in classroom design can
substantially improve student comfort and performance. For instance, a study conducted in
Indonesia demonstrated that redesigning classroom furniture to meet ergonomic standards
resulted in a 44.76% reduction in eye strain, a 50.98% decrease in musculoskeletal complaints,
and a 14.17% reduction in boredom among students (Ardana et al., 2011).

Impact of Ergonomic Furniture and Institutional Support

The availability of ergonomic furniture and institutional support for ergonomic practices are
critical for promoting a healthy learning environment. A study conducted at a dental school found
that ergonomic training and the use of ergonomically designed furniture significantly reduced
49
physical discomfort among students. The study highlighted the need to continuously reinforce
ergonomic practices in both didactic and clinical settings to prevent musculoskeletal disorders
(Thornton et al., 2004).

Another study focused on the relationship between smart classrooms' ergonomics and students'
general health in Iran. It found that compliance with ergonomic standards in classroom design,
including appropriate furniture and equipment, significantly improved students' health outcomes.
The study recommended that educational institutions prioritize ergonomic interventions to
enhance student well-being and academic performance (Sahebi & Badeleh, 2017).

Additionally, research on university environments has shown that ergonomic interventions can
improve staff and students' quality of life and work performance. For instance, a study conducted
at the Federal University of Paraíba in Brazil found that an ergonomic intervention program
significantly improved the quality of life and workability of university staff with physical
disabilities (Almeida et al., 2019).

Behavioral Factors Influencing Ergonomic Practices

Personal Habits

Personal habits, such as posture, study routines, and ergonomic tools, are crucial in determining
ergonomic practices among students. Students who develop good habits, such as maintaining
proper posture while studying and using ergonomic furniture, are less likely to experience
musculoskeletal disorders. For instance, ergonomic programs significantly improved students'
50
knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related to ergonomic standards during nursing interventions,
as demonstrated by Prapti et al. (2020) (Prapti et al., 2020). Similarly, Linton et al. (1994) showed
that implementing ergonomically designed school furniture reduced musculoskeletal symptoms
among students, emphasizing the importance of good sitting habits (Linton et al., 1994).

Health Attitudes

Students' attitudes towards health and well-being also influence their ergonomic practices. Those
who prioritize their health are more likely to engage in behaviors that promote ergonomics. Smith
(2007) highlighted that students who recognize the importance of ergonomics in learning
environments tend to adopt better ergonomic practices, leading to improved performance and
reduced discomfort (Smith, 2007). Moreover, Cheng et al. (2016) found that lifestyle factors such
as exercise and rest periods were associated with lower prevalence of work-related
musculoskeletal disorders among special education teachers, which can be extrapolated to
student populations (Cheng et al., 2016).

Lifestyle Choices

Lifestyle choices, including exercise, diet, and sleep patterns, affect students' ergonomic
behaviors. Regular physical activity and a balanced diet can reduce the risk of musculoskeletal
problems, while adequate sleep helps maintain overall health. The importance of ergonomic
education is underscored by findings from Kamaroddin et al. (2010), who noted that students
with prior knowledge of ergonomics were likelier to practice good ergonomic behaviors
(Kamaroddin et al., 2010).

Ergonomic Training and Institutional Support

Ergonomic training and institutional support are essential for fostering good ergonomic practices.
Ismail et al. (2010) evaluated the effectiveness of ergonomic intervention programs in reducing
51
ergonomic risk factors among school children, showing significant improvements in ergonomic
awareness and reduction in musculoskeletal symptoms (Ismail et al., 2010). Furthermore,
Moroney et al. (2004) discussed the necessity of team behavior training in ergonomic practices
to prepare students for collaborative work environments and enhance their ergonomic
compliance (Moroney et al., 2004).

Technology Use

The use of technology also influences ergonomic practices. Yousaf et al. (2023) highlighted the
importance of proper ergonomic practices while using computers, finding that prolonged use in
awkward postures led to musculoskeletal disorders among students (Yousaf et al., 2023).
Similarly, Kamal et al. (2020) found that using magnifying loupes and proper ergonomic
equipment significantly improved posture and reduced musculoskeletal pain among dental
students (Kamal et al., 2020).

E-learning Adaptation

The shift to e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic posed challenges for maintaining
ergonomic standards at home. Bakry et al. (2022) found that students who set up ergonomic study
spaces at home were more likely to maintain good ergonomic practices, reducing discomfort
(Bakry et al., 2022).

Physical Activity

Gumasing and Castro (2023) reported that physical activity and ergonomic adjustments during
online learning significantly influenced students' motivation and academic performance,
highlighting the importance of integrating ergonomic principles into daily routines (Gumasing
& Castro, 2023).

52
Impact of Ergonomic Practices on Health and Productivity

Common Health Issues Associated with Poor Ergonomics

Poor ergonomic practices can lead to various health issues, including musculoskeletal disorders
(MSDs), eye strain, and chronic pain. Musculoskeletal disorders are particularly prevalent among
students and office workers who spend prolonged periods in awkward postures. These disorders
include carpal tunnel syndrome, tendonitis, and lower back pain. Prapti et al. (2020) state that
the lack of proper ergonomic practices in educational settings can result in significant physical
discomfort and long-term health problems (Prapti et al., 2020).

Eye strain is another common issue associated with poor ergonomics, particularly due to
inadequate lighting and prolonged use of computer screens. A study by Azhar et al. (2017)
highlighted that improper lighting and temperature control in study environments significantly
affect student productivity and contribute to eye strain (Azhar et al., 2017).

Numerous studies have shown that implementing ergonomic practices can significantly improve
health outcomes. For instance, Jaafar et al. (2020) found that increased awareness and application
of ergonomic principles among engineering students reduced musculoskeletal pain and enhanced
overall health (Jaafar et al., 2020).

In healthcare settings, ergonomic interventions have been shown to reduce physical strain and
improve the health of medical professionals. Pandve (2014) discussed the significant role of
ergonomics in reducing physical stress and improving performance in healthcare environments,
emphasizing that proper ergonomic design is essential to prevent work-related injuries (Pandve,
2014).

53
Moreover, a study by Almeida et al. (2019) on university staff with physical disabilities revealed
that ergonomic adjustments and physiotherapy programs significantly improved their quality of
life and workability (Almeida et al., 2019).

Effect of Ergonomics on Academic Performance and Productivity

Ergonomic practices improve health outcomes and enhance academic performance and
productivity. Proper ergonomic setups in educational environments have been linked to better
student performance and reduced absenteeism. Smith (2007) emphasized that the ergonomic
design of learning environments is crucial in improving learning performance and reducing
physical discomfort (Smith, 2007).

In a study on the relationship between ergonomics in smart classrooms and student health, Sahebi
and Badeleh (2017) found that ergonomic compliance in classroom design significantly
improved students' general health and ability to concentrate on learning tasks (Sahebi & Badeleh,
2017).

Further supporting these findings, Resnick and Zanotti (1997) demonstrated that ergonomic
interventions in workplace settings could enhance productivity by optimizing workstation
layouts to reduce musculoskeletal stress and improve efficiency (Resnick & Zanotti, 1997)

Long-Term Health Implications

Chronic Pain and Disability

54
Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), if not addressed promptly, can lead to chronic pain and long-
term disability. Chronic conditions such as persistent back pain or repetitive strain injuries can
severely impact a student’s academic performance and quality of life. According to the World
Health Organization (2021), MSDs are among the leading causes of disability worldwide.
Persistent back pain, for instance, can limit a student's ability to participate in physical activities
and lead to prolonged absenteeism from academic commitments (Hoy et al., 2020). A study by
Oliveira et al. (2019) demonstrated that students with chronic MSDs reported significant
limitations in their daily activities and academic performance, highlighting the urgent need for
ergonomic interventions to prevent the onset of chronic conditions.

Research by Delisle et al. (2021) also indicates that chronic musculoskeletal pain can lead to a
cycle of inactivity, further exacerbating the disorder's physical and psychological impact. This
can decrease overall physical fitness, making it harder for individuals to recover and maintain a
healthy lifestyle.

Decreased Productivity

Persistent discomfort and pain can lead to decreased productivity, as students may find it difficult
to focus on their tasks or complete them efficiently due to pain and discomfort. Stanković and
Čizmić (2014) found that students experiencing chronic pain had lower academic performance
and higher dropout rates. Pain-related distractions can lead to prolonged study times and reduced
effectiveness in completing academic tasks.

Additionally, Alghwiri et al. (2019) reported that students with MSDs took longer to complete
assignments and required more frequent breaks, which cumulatively reduced their overall
productivity. This decreased productivity can have long-term implications, including delayed
graduation and diminished academic achievements.

55
Recent findings by Cohen et al. (2020) suggest that chronic pain can also impact cognitive
function, affecting memory and concentration. This cognitive decline can further decrease
productivity and academic performance, creating additional barriers to educational success.

Psychological Impact

Chronic MSDs can also have psychological implications, leading to stress, anxiety, and
depression due to the ongoing pain and the impact on daily activities and academic
responsibilities. Heidari et al. (2019) found that students with chronic pain were more likely to
experience mental health issues compared to their peers without pain. The constant struggle with
pain can lead to feelings of helplessness and frustration, exacerbating mental health problems.

A study by Beutel et al. (2020) highlighted that chronic pain is strongly associated with higher
levels of anxiety and depressive symptoms among university students. The psychological burden
of managing chronic pain, along with academic pressures, can create a vicious cycle, further
impacting a student's well-being and academic performance.

Sleep Disturbances

Chronic pain often leads to sleep disturbances, which can significantly affect overall health and
daily functioning. According to a study by Finan et al. (2018), individuals with chronic pain are
more likely to experience poor sleep quality, insomnia, and disrupted sleep patterns. These sleep
disturbances can exacerbate pain perception and reduce the ability to cope with pain, creating a
detrimental feedback loop. Poor sleep quality also affects cognitive function, emotional
regulation, and physical health, diminishing a student's academic performance and quality of life
(Haack & Mullington, 2019).

56
Social Isolation

Long-term pain and disability can lead to social isolation, as individuals may withdraw from
social activities due to their pain or mobility limitations. This isolation can contribute to feelings
of loneliness and depression, as highlighted by Williams et al. (2019). Social isolation not only
impacts mental health but also reduces opportunities for academic collaboration and peer
support, which are crucial for academic success and personal development.

Financial Burden

The management of chronic MSDs often involves significant healthcare costs, including medical
treatments, physical therapy, and ergonomic interventions. These costs can be burdensome for
students, potentially leading to financial stress and reduced resources for other academic or
personal needs.

A study by Blyth et al. (2020) found that individuals with chronic pain incurred higher medical
expenses and lost income due to decreased work capacity. This financial burden can exacerbate
the stress associated with managing chronic pain and pursuing academic goals.

Visual Strain

Extended laptop use can lead to visual strain, commonly called computer vision syndrome
(CVS). Symptoms of CVS include eye strain, dryness, irritation, and blurred vision. Ergonomic
practices such as proper screen positioning, adequate lighting, and regular breaks can help
alleviate these symptoms. Singh and Wadhwa (2020) found that awareness and implementation
of ergonomic practices significantly reduced visual discomfort among laptop users. Moreover, a
study by Talwar et al. (2021) highlighted that using screen filters and adjusting the brightness
and contrast of laptop screens effectively reduced eye strain.

57
Mental Fatigue

Mental fatigue is another consequence of prolonged laptop use without ergonomic

considerations. It can reduce cognitive performance, increase errors, and decrease productivity.
Ergonomic interventions that promote comfort and reduce physical strain can help mitigate
mental fatigue. For example, Hedge (2016) showed that ergonomic workstations improved
physical comfort and cognitive performance and reduced mental fatigue among office workers.

V. Preventing and Managing Musculoskeletal Disorders

Ergonomic Interventions

Implementing ergonomic interventions is crucial for preventing and managing MSDs among
laptop users:
1. Proper Workstation Setup: Using external keyboards and mice and positioning laptops
at eye level using laptop stands or adjustable desks can significantly reduce the risk of
MSDs (Naeini et al., 2021).
2. Ergonomic Furniture: Accessing adjustable chairs with proper lumbar support can help
maintain neutral postures and reduce back strain (Stanković & Čizmić, 2014).
3. Regular Breaks: Encouraging students to take regular breaks to stretch and change
posture can help mitigate the effects of prolonged sitting and reduce muscle fatigue
(WHO, 2021).

Educational Programs

Educational programs aimed at increasing ergonomic awareness and promoting healthy work
habits are essential:
1. Ergonomic Training: Training sessions on ergonomic principles and proper workstation
setup can enhance students’ knowledge and encourage better practices (Afterman, 2019).

58
 2. Awareness Campaigns: Conducting awareness campaigns highlighting the importance
of ergonomics and the risks associated with poor practices can help foster a culture of
health and safety among students (Heidari et al., 2019).

Conceptual Framework

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY
3.1 Study Design
The study design used for this study is a cross-sectional survey.

3.2 Study Area

This study was carried out at the University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria, among postgraduate
students. Established in 1948, the University of Ibadan, UI, as it is fondly referred to, is the first
University in Nigeria. Until 1962, when it became a full-fledged independent University, it was
a College of the University of London in a special relationship scheme. The University, which
took off with academic programmes in Arts, Science and Medicine, is now a comprehensive
citadel of learning with academic programmes in sixteen Faculties, namely, Arts, Science, Basic
Medical Sciences, Clinical Sciences, Agriculture, the Social Sciences, Education, Veterinary
Medicine, Pharmacy, Technology, Law, Public Health, Dentistry, Economics, Renewable Natural

59
Resources and Environmental Design and Management. The faculties of basic medical sciences,
clinical sciences, public health, and dentistry are organised by the College of Medicine. The
University has other academic units, among which are: the Institute of Child Health, Institute of
Education, Institute of African Studies, Centre for Child Adolescent and Mental Health, Centre
for Educational Media Resource Studies, African Regional Centre for Information Science
(ARCIS), Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (CEPACS), Centre for Petroleum, Energy,
Economics and Law (CPEEL), Centre for Sustainable Development (CESDEV), and Centre for
Entrepreneurship and Innovation (CEI), Institute for Advanced Medical Research and Training
(IAMRAT), Centre for Drug Discovery, Development & Production (CDDDP), Centre for
Control & Prevention of Zoonosis (CCPZ). A new National Institute for Maternal Child &
Neonatal Health (NIMCNH) & Institute for Infectious Diseases are under construction. A new
School of Business (UISB) is expected to take off later this year. The University, as part of efforts
to fulfil a God-given mandate of promoting Nigeria’s development, established a Research
Foundation (UIRF). The University established the Institute for Peace and Strategic Studies
(IPSS) to provide actionable studies and solutions in response to emerging threats to peace and
peaceful co-existence in Africa.
The University of Ibadan Postgraduate School is well acknowledged within and outside the
country as one of the largest in Africa and the flagship of Postgraduate Education in Nigeria as
it produces the much-required human resources for the entire Nigerian University system, the
Nigerian public and private sectors and beyond. The Postgraduate School enrolment takes about
50% of the entire student enrolment. The University of Ibadan produces an average of 3,000
Masters & 250 PhDs annually. The University currently hosts the Pan African University Life &
Earth Sciences Institute on behalf of the West African Sub-region. This is an initiative of the
African Union. The programme is in its 2nd year and has 97 students from all over Africa. The
main thrust of the University for the 21st century is to be a world-class institution for academic
excellence geared towards meeting societal needs. Today, the University is consistently ranked
among the most prestigious Universities in the world.
There are twelve Halls of Residence which provide accommodation for about 30% of the
population of students in the regular studies mode; and three others under construction with the
support of the FG Revitalisation Funds. The University has 1212 housing units, of which 609
units are occupied by senior staff and 603 by junior staff. The University of Ibadan is, therefore,
60
a truly complex organisation. Its governance is based on the Committee system. All the Boards
and Committees report to the Council and/or Senate. To carry out its main functions of teaching,
research and community service, the University has been providing to a large extent, basic
services like electricity and water supply, security, health facilities and other municipal services
to its staff and students.
3.3 Study Population

The study population will comprise male and female postgraduate students at the University of
Ibadan.
3.4 Inclusion Criterion

Postgraduate students of The University of Ibadan with a Matric Number and who are willing to
participate in the study will be included in the study
3.5 Exclusion Criterion

Postgraduate students not willing to participate in the study will be excluded from the study

3.6 Sample Size

The sample size for this study was estimated using Cochran’s formula (1977).

n= z2 p (1-P)

d2

Where n = Minimum sample size to be used; z = (95% confidence interval); p = prevalence of

50%; d = Precision, 5%

n= (1.962) × 0.5 (1- 0.5)

0.052
61
n = 368 respondents, will be increased to 405 respondents (10% non-response rate)
3.7 Sampling Techniques

The eligible participants will be selected using multistage sampling techniques from faculties
and departments.

Stage 1: The 16 faculties of Postgraduate students will be stratified into 3 groups: Health, Art
and Humanities, and Basic Science using a proportionate ratio

Stage 2: A simple random sampling method with the use of balloting will be used to select a
faculty from each group.

Stage 3: Two departments will be selected from each faculty using simple random sampling.

Stage 4: A class in the department will be randomly selected, and the students will be invited to
participate in the study. Both male and female students will be duly represented.

3.8 Data Collection Tool

• Quantitative Data: The research will use a self-administered questionnaire for data
collection that will be divided into Six (6) sections.

Section A: The socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents

Section B: Awareness assessment

Section C: Knowledge assessment

Section D: Perception Assessment

Section E: Perceived Barriers

Section F: Enabling Factors

62
Data Collection Procedures

For this study, a serially numbered self-administered questionnaire will be utilised for the
investigation. The research assistant will go around different departments to choose eligible
respondents. The study respondents will be well informed about the advantages and drawbacks
that could occur due to partaking in the study. After the respondents are well aware and have
provided all the information they need to proceed with the study, the research assistants will give
them informed consent and ensure they are signed and documented. This will be followed by
distributing questionnaires (monitored by the research assistants to ensure they are filled
correctly). The researcher will then review the accuracy and completeness of the questionnaire
before leaving the field.
Validity of the Instrument

To ensure that the instruments are valid for the research being carried out, the researcher will
review several relevant literatures to develop them. Then, to obtain a valid template for the
instrument, the researcher will consult with the supervisor. Necessary corrections and
suggestions will be incorporated before the questionnaire is administered to the study
participants.
Reliability of the Instrument

The adapted questionnaire will be pre-tested on 10% of the total study population from another
representative institution, Obafemi Awolowo University Ile-Ife. However, the filled
questionnaires from the pre-test will not be used in the study's final analysis. To determine the
instrument's reliability, a test-retest reliability assessment and reliability coefficient calculation
will be performed on the pre-test questionnaire. A coefficient ranging from 0.7 to 1.0 is
anticipated.

Data Analysis Management

Quantitative Data: Serial numbers will be assigned to the questionnaire copies to facilitate
easy retrieval and entry. A coding guide will be developed alongside the data collection tool to
aid analysis. Questionnaires will be meticulously reviewed for consistency and completeness.
63
Data cleaning, recording, and coding will be conducted for analysis. The collected data will be
entered into the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS IBM version 22) software using the
provided coding guide. Descriptive statistics like mean, median, and mode and inferential
statistics such as Chi-square will be employed. Knowledge-related questions will be assessed on
a 12-point scale and categorized into poor (1-4), fair (5-8), and good (9-12). The analysis results
will be summarized and presented through written explanations, tables, and charts.

Ethical Considerations
Confidentiality of data

Respondents will be assured of the safety and confidentiality of their information. All the data
and information generated will be well documented for analysis by the researcher, and the copies
of the filled instruments will be stored securely to keep them safe. All data obtained from
respondents will be confidential and will remain confidential even after the research.

Translation of protocol to the local language

The research instrument will be in English, as it is the general language for students from
different ethical backgrounds. English is also the language of teaching students, which makes it
the most appropriate language for the study instrument.

Beneficence to participants

The research will uphold the principle of beneficence by prioritizing the well-being and best
interests of the participants.

Non-maleficence to participants

There is no risk involved in participating in this research work.

64
Voluntariness

Written informed consent forms will be attached to the instrument. Research participants will be
fully informed about the nature of the study, its benefits, and its objectives. The research will
uphold the principle of voluntariness by ensuring that participation is entirely voluntary.
Participants will be fully informed about the research's purpose, procedures, potential risks, and
benefits. They will be free to participate without feeling coerced or pressured, and they will retain
the option to withdraw from the study at any point without facing any negative consequences.

CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS

A total of 398 postgraduate students of the University of Ibadan participated in this study, which
showed a 98% return rate.

4.1 Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents

The mean age of the respondents was 27.98 ±5.1 years, with the majority in the 20-29 age group.
There were more female respondents than male respondents (57% vs. 43%). Most respondents
were single (87.7%), while 12.1% were married (12.1%). Most respondents (82.2%) were
Christians and were of Yoruba ethnicity (76.9%). The weight of the respondents ranged from 34
to 115 kg, with a mean weight of 64.4 ±12.1 kg, while their height varied from 120 to 200 cm,
with a mean height of 167.9±11.4 cm (Table 4.1a).

The faculty of the respondents showed that 37.7% of the respondents were from public health.
Other faculties include science (13.6%), education (13.1%), social sciences (7.3%), and arts (6.0%)
(Table 4.1b).

65
Table 4.1a: Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents (N= 398)

Socio-demographic characteristics Frequency Percent

Age Group*
20-29 303 76.1
30-39 78 19.6
40-49 11 2.8
50 and above 6 1.5
Gender
Male 171 43.0
Female 227 57.0
Marital Status
Single 349 87.7
Married 48 12.1
Separated 1 0.2
Religion
Christian 327 82.2
Muslim 67 16.8
Traditional 3 0.8
Non-affiliated 1 0.2
Ethnicity
Yoruba 306 76.9
Igbo 34 8.5
Hausa 10 2.5
Others** 48 12.1
Weight (kg) (N= 355) Min,Max =34, 115 Mean±SD= 64.4±12.1
Height (cm) (N= 322) Min,Max =120, 200 Mean±SD= 167.9±11.4
*Mean Age ± SD= 27.98±5.1 years
66
**others: Bajju, Bendi, Bini, Boki, Dey, Ebira, Edo, Efik, Etumo, Ibibio, Idoma, Igala, Isoko,
Jukun, Tiv, Uollof

Table 4.1b: Faculties of the respondents

Faculties Frequency Percent

Agriculture 16 4.0
Art 24 6.0
Basic medical sciences 12 3.0
Clinical sciences 4 1.0
Economics 11 2.8
Education 52 13.1
Environmental studies 1 0.3
Institute of African Studies 4 1.0
Law 4 1.0
Multidisciplinary studies 16 4.0
Pharmacy 1 0.3
Public health 150 37.7
Renewable natural resources 4 1.0
Science 54 13.6
Social sciences 29 7.3
Technology 14 3.5

67
 Veterinary medicine 2 0.5

4.2 Awareness of laptop ergonomics among respondents

Out of the 398 respondents, 47.7% reported that they had heard of laptop ergonomics, while 52.3%
indicated that they had not. Among those who had heard of laptop ergonomics, the most common
sources included social media (28.9%), school (15.8%), and friends (10.3%). Regarding training
on laptop ergonomics, only a few (15.8%) of the respondents had undergone training, while the
majority (84.2%) had not. Among those who received training, the common settings for receiving
the training included the school or university (6.8%), workplace (5.8%), and online courses (5.8%)
(Table 4.2a).

On the source of information regarding laptop ergonomics, less than half (49.0%) of the
respondents rely on online articles as their primary source of information. Other respondents relied
on friends (12.3%) and university resources (6.3%). Half of the respondents (50.8%) indicated
awareness of external accessories that can improve laptop ergonomics. Among the external
accessories listed, the most widely recognized items were laptop stands (40.5%), external mouse
(39.9%), external keyboards (37.7%), ergonomic chairs (30.7%), anti-glare screen protectors
(27.9%) and desk lamps with adjustable arms (24.9%) (Table 4.2b).

68
Table 4.2a: Awareness of laptop ergonomics (N= 398)

Statement Frequency Percent

Ever heard of laptop ergonomics?
Yes 190 47.7
No 208 52.3
If yes where do you heard of it?
School 63 15.8
Social Media 115 28.9
Books 36 9
Friends 41 10.3
Radio 8 2
Television 12 3
Health Worker 26 6.5
During NYSC 2 0.6
Family 2 0.5
Internet 2 0.5
Office 3 0.8
Personal/Self 2 0.6
69
 Training 1 0.3
Have you received any training on laptop
ergonomic?
Yes 63 15.8
No 335 84.2
If yes, where do you have the training?
Workplace 23 5.8
School/university 27 6.8
Conference/seminar 10 2.5
Online course 23 5.8
Personal 1 0.3

Table 4.2b: Awareness of laptop ergonomics (contd) (N= 398)

Statement Frequency Percent

What sources do you rely on for information regarding laptop
ergonomics?
University resources 25 6.3
Online articles 195 49.0
Friends 49 12.3
Family 1 0.3
Internet 2 0.6
Social media 1 0.3
Are you aware of some external accessories that can improve laptop
ergonomics?
Yes 202 50.8
No 196 49.2
External accessories that can improve laptop ergonomics
Laptop Stand 161 40.5
External Keyboard 150 37.7
External Mouse 159 39.9

70
 Docking Station 47 11.8
Ergonomic Chair 122 30.7
Monitor Stand or Dock 73 18.3
Desk Lamp with Adjustable Arm 99 24.9
Document Holder 68 17.1
Wrist Rests 75 18.8
Cable Organizers 69 17.3
Anti-Glare Screen Protector 111 27.9

4.3 Laptop usage among respondents

The result of the laptop usage patterns and user behavior among the respondents showed that many
(54.5%) of the respondents used their laptops for 2-6 hours per day. More than half (69.1%) of the
respondents reported using their right hand as the dominant hand while interacting with their
laptops. The most common position assumed by the respondents when using a laptop was sitting
at a table on a chair with a backrest (76.6%), other positions include lying on the stomach (32.9%),
sitting at a table on a chair without a backrest (28.6%), sitting with back against a surface (28.1%)
and lying on the back (28.1%) (Table 4.3).

71
Table 4.3: Laptop usage among respondents (N= 398)

Variables Frequency Percent

Laptop usage hours per day
Less than 2 hours 81 20.4
2-4 hours 116 29.1
4-6 hours 101 25.4
More than 6 hours 100 25.1
Dominant hand while interacting with a laptop
Right 275 69.1
Left 30 7.5
Both 93 23.4
Positions assumed when using your laptop
At a table on a chair with a backrest 305 76.6
Sitting with back against the surface 112 28.1
Lying on back 112 28.1
At a table on a chair without a backrest 114 28.6
On a chair with a backrest without a table 110 27.6
Cross legs with a laptop on lap 58 14.6
Cross legs with laptop on a surface 44 11.1
Lying on stomach 131 32.9
Standing 50 12.6

72
4.4 Knowledge of respondents regarding laptop ergonomics

The majority of respondents recognize the importance of armrests (78.1%) and good posture
(91.0%) in preventing musculoskeletal symptoms. Only 39.4% of the respondents were correct
about the fact that the goal of ergonomics was not to increase musculoskeletal symptoms and
reduce productivity. Regarding risk factors, most respondents (82.7%) correctly identify factors
such as improper seating and repetitive motions as potential contributors to ergonomic problems.
Similarly, a substantial number of respondents (85.9%) acknowledge the importance of taking
regular eye breaks from the laptop screen. More than half (59.3%) correctly noted that using a
keyboard may lead to stress from repeated movements, exerting force, maintaining a constant
position, and pressure from contact points and that the laptop screen should be placed slightly
below eye level (59.5%) (Table 4.4.).

The majority of the respondents stated that musculoskeletal symptoms are associated with
prolonged laptop use (72.4%) and that the laptop screen should be positioned at least at arm's
length away (73.6%). Some of the respondents correctly stated that it is necessary to avoid a laptop
screen from glare (48.2%), important to use an ideal mouse pad with wrist support to provide
adequate support (39.9%); and the keyboard and mouse need to be positioned at the same level as
your elbow height (39.3%). Also, the majority of the respondents stated that regular eye breaks

73
from the laptop screen should be taken (85.9%); stretching after some time can reduce risk of pain,
prevent stiffness, and improve circulation (88.4%); it is crucial to keep frequently used items
within easy reach on your desk to prevent overstretching (77.6%); and external accessories like a
laptop stand, external keyboard, external mouse, etc can help improve laptop ergonomics (76.4%)
(Table 4.4).

Many of the respondents also stated that a mini-break is required after prolonged use of a laptop
(67.8%); a backrest is not essential for providing back support on a chair (67.6%); it is necessary
to position the keyboard flat and in line with the elbows to reduce awkward postures during typing
(66.3%); necessary to adjusting the height and back of the chair to maintain proper posture when
the seat height is already set is necessary(64.1%) and adopting various postures while using a
laptop, such as sitting on the floor, lying in bed, or placing the laptop on the lap, can lead to
musculoskeletal symptoms (63.3%) (Table 4.4).

Statements Yes (%) No (%) Don't

know (%)
The armrest is important to support the elbow when using a 311 (78.1) 34 (8.5) 53 (13.3)
laptop.
Good posture while using a laptop is required to prevent 362 (91.0) 20 (5.0) 16 (4.0)
musculoskeletal symptoms.
The goal of ergonomics is to increase musculoskeletal symptoms 133 (33.4) 157 (39.4) 108 (27.1)
and reduce productivity.
Improper seating, lack of short breaks improper viewing distance, 329 (82.7) 21 (5.3) 48 (12.1)
awkward posture, repetitive motion, and sustained posture are risk
factors for ergonomic problems while using a laptop.
Using a keyboard may lead to stress from repeated movements, 236 (59.3) 87 (21.9) 75 (18.8)
exerting force, maintaining a constant position, and pressure from
contact points.
Musculoskeletal symptoms are associated with prolonged laptop 288 (72.4) 33 (8.3) 77 (19.3)
use.
The laptop screen should be positioned at least at arm's length 293 (73.6) 32 (8.0) 73 (18.3)
away.
I place my laptop screen slightly below eye level. 237 (59.5) 123 (30.9) 38 (9.5)
It is not necessary to avoid a laptop screen from glare. 118 (29.6) 192 (48.2) 88 (22.1)
Your keyboard and mouse need to be positioned at the same level 236 (39.3) 46 (11.6) 116 (29.1)
as your elbow height.
It is necessary to position the keyboard flat and in line with the 264 (66.3) 40 (10.1) 94 (23.6)
elbows to reduce awkward postures during typing.
74
 It is not important to use an ideal mouse pad with wrist support to 144 (36.2) 159 (39.9) 95 (23.9)
provide adequate support.
Regular eye breaks from the laptop screen should be taken. 342 (85.9) 35 (8.8) 21 (5.3)
Mini-break isn’t required after prolonged use of laptop 103 (25.9) 270 (67.8) 25 (8.3)
Stretching after some time can reduce risk of pain, prevent 352 (88.4) 34 (8.5) 12 (3.0)
stiffness, and improve circulation.
It is not necessary to adjust the height and back of the chair to 119 (29.9) 255 (64.1) 24 (6.0)
maintain proper posture when the seat height is
already set.
A backrest is not essential for providing back support on a chair. 100 (25.1) 269 (67.6) 29 (7.3)
It is crucial to keep frequently used items within easy reach on 309 (77.6) 54 (13.6) 35 (8.8)
your desk to prevent overstretching.
Adopting various postures while using a laptop, such as sitting on 252 (63.3) 66 (16.6) 80 (20.1)
the floor, lying in bed, or placing the laptop on
your lap, can lead to musculoskeletal symptoms.
External accessories like a laptop stand, External Keyboard, 304 (76.4) 34 (8.5) 60 (15.1)
External Mouse, etc. can help improve laptop ergonomics.
Table 4.4: Knowledge of respondents regarding laptop ergonomics (N= 398)

The overall knowledge of respondents on laptop ergonomics puberty was deduced to be more than
average based on the 20 items knowledge scale questions that were presented to them. Of the 398
respondents, 62.3% demonstrated good knowledge while 33.2% showed fair knowledge of laptop
ergonomics; however, only 4.5% of the respondents had poor knowledge of laptop ergonomics.
However, the mean score was 30.3±6.1 with minimum score of 0 and maximum score of 40
respectively (Figure 4.1).

75
 POOR (0-19)
62.3%
70 FAIR (20-29)

60 GOOD (30-40)

50
33.2%
40

30

20
4.5%
10

0
POOR (0-19) FAIR (20-29) GOOD (30-40)

Figure 4.1: Level of knowledge of respondents about laptop ergonomics (N= 398, Minimum=
0, Maximum= 40, Mean±SD= 30.3±6.1)

76
4.5 Perception of the respondents about laptop ergonomic

The majority (81.4%) of respondents expressed concerns about poor laptop ergonomics' potential
long-term health effects. More than half (55.8%) of the respondents agreed that the university's
design and layout of study spaces contribute to good laptop ergonomics. While the majority
(78.9%) of the respondents agreed that there is a social acceptance regarding the prioritization and
practice of proper laptop ergonomics within the academic community, only some (46.5%) agreed
that societal norms significantly influence their laptop ergonomics practices. The majority (82.7%)
of respondents believe that practicing good laptop ergonomics can enhance their overall well-
being; incorporating ergonomic practices during laptop use can reduce the risk of health issues
(83.9%) and adopting proper laptop ergonomics will lead to increased productivity (84.2%). The
majority (83.4%) of the respondents also believe that proper laptop ergonomics can prevent
discomfort and pain associated with prolonged use and that adopting ergonomic practices can
positively impact their future professional lives (80.9%) (Table 4.5).

77
Table 4.5: Perception of the respondents about laptop ergonomics (N= 398)

Statements Agree (%) Undecided (%) Disagree (%)

I am concerned about the potential long-term 324 (81.4) 67 (16.8) 7 (1.8)
health effects of poor laptop ergonomics.
The design and layout of study spaces in the 222 (55.8) 128 (32.2) 48 (12.1)
university contribute to the practice of good laptop
ergonomics.
It is socially acceptable to prioritize and practice 314 (78.9) 71 (17.8) 13 (3.3)
proper laptop ergonomics in my academic
community.
Societal norms significantly influence my laptop 185 (46.5) 136 (34.2) 77 (19.3)
ergonomics practices.
I believe that practicing good laptop ergonomics 329 (82.7) 59 (14.8) 10 (2.5)
can enhance my overall well-being.
Incorporating ergonomic practices during laptop 334 (83.9) 54 (13.6) 10 (2.5)
use can reduce the risk of health issues
I am confident that adopting proper laptop 335 (84.2) 61 (15.3) 2 (0.5)
ergonomics will lead to increased productivity
I perceive that proper laptop ergonomics can 332 (83.4) 56 (14.1) 10 (2.5)
prevent discomfort and pain.
I believe that adopting ergonomic practices can 322 (80.9) 67 (16.8) 9 (2.3)
positively impact my future professional life

78
Generally, the majority (95.2%) of the respondents demonstrated a good perception of laptop
ergonomics. Only 4.8% of the respondents had a poor perception of laptop ergonomics. The
perception of laptop ergonomics score ranged from 17 to 27, with a mean±SD score of 24.3±2.5
(Figure 4.2).

79
 POOR (9-18)

4.8% GOOD (19-27)

95.2%

Figure 4.2: Level of perception about laptop ergonomics among respondents (N= 398,
Minimum= 17, Maximum= 27, Mean±SD= 24.3±2.5)

80
4.6 Perceived barriers to good laptop ergonomics

Many (56.0%) of the respondents agreed that time constraints significantly hinder their ability to
prioritize and implement ergonomic practices while using a laptop. Above half of the respondents
(64.8%) agreed that financial constraint is a barrier to obtaining ergonomic accessories or
equipment for their laptop setup. While 50.8% of the respondents agreed that they find it
challenging to incorporate ergonomic practices in shared study or workspaces; a majority (75.6%)
agreed that lack of awareness or information is a barrier to practicing good laptop ergonomics.
Personal habits and routines act were also perceived as barriers to incorporating ergonomic
practices into my daily laptop use by 72.9% of the respondents. Many (64.8%) of the respondents
agreed that institutional factors, such as a lack of resources or policies, affect the ability to maintain
good laptop ergonomics and that the design and layout of study spaces contribute to barriers to
practicing good laptop ergonomics (62.1%). Also, many (61.3%) of the respondents agreed that
competing priorities, such as academic workload; as well as the absence of formal education or
awareness campaigns on laptop ergonomics at the university level (65.3%) act as barriers to
prioritizing laptop ergonomics (Table 4.6).

81
Table 4.6: Perceived barriers to good laptop ergonomics among respondents (N= 398)

Statements Agree (%) Undecided (%) Disagree (%)

Time constraints significantly hinder my ability to 223 (56.0) 96 (24.1) 79 (19.8)
prioritize and implement ergonomic practices while
using a laptop.
Financial constraints are a barrier to obtaining 258 (64.8) 89 (22.4) 51 (12.8)
ergonomic accessories or equipment for my laptop
setup.
I find it challenging to incorporate ergonomic practices 202 (50.8) 119 (29.9) 77 (19.3)
in shared study or workspaces.
A lack of awareness or information is a barrier to 301 (75.6) 70 (17.6) 27 (6.8)
practicing good laptop ergonomics.
Personal habits and routines act as barriers to 290 (72.9) 73 (18.3) 35 (8.8)
incorporating ergonomic practices into my daily laptop
use.
Institutional barriers, such as a lack of resources or 258 (64.8) 78 (19.6) 62 (15.6)
policies, affect my ability to maintain good laptop
ergonomics.
The design and layout of study spaces in the university 247 (62.1) 91 (22.9) 60 (15.1)
contribute to barriers to practicing good laptop
ergonomics.
Competing priorities, such as academic workload or 244 (61.3) 103 (25.9) 51 (12.8)
other commitments, act as barriers to prioritizing
laptop ergonomics.
The absence of formal education or awareness 260 (65.3) 88 (22.1) 50 (12.6)
campaigns on laptop ergonomics at the university
contributes to the barriers I face.
82
The overall perception of the barriers to laptop ergonomics showed that more than half (58.8%) of
the respondents perceived the barriers to laptop ergonomics as high, while 32.4% perceived the
barriers to laptop ergonomics as moderate. Only 8.8% perceived the barriers to laptop ergonomics
as low. The perception of barrier laptop ergonomics score ranged from 9 to 27, with a mean±SD
score of 22.5±3.8 (Figure 4.3).

83
 58.8% LOW (9-17)
MODERATE (18-22)
HIGH (23-27)

32.4%

8.8%

LOW (9-17) MODERATE (18-22) HIGH (23-27)

Figure 4.3: Level of perception of barriers to laptop ergonomics (N= 398, Min= 9; Max= 27;
Mean±SD= 22.5±3.8)

84
4.7 Factors Influencing Laptop Ergonomics

The respondents identified access to affordable ergonomic accessories or equipment (84.2%) and
the availability of information and resources on proper laptop ergonomics (77.9%) as factors
enabling laptop ergonomics. Many (69.8%) of the respondents said that supportive policies or
guidelines at the university level enable them to prioritize and implement laptop ergonomics; and
that having ergonomic workshops or training at the university motivates them to follow and keep
up with good laptop posture (68.6%). Having a designated ergonomic study space contributes to
the ability of 78.1% of the respondents to practice good laptop ergonomics and ergonomic
workshops or training at the university motivates them to follow and keep up with good laptop
posture (71.4%). The majority (82.4%) of respondents also stated that having a flexible schedule
allows them to take breaks and incorporate ergonomic practices during laptop use; while 72.6% of
the respondents stated that physical constraints limit their ability to practice laptop ergonomics
(72.6%) (Table 4.7).

85
Table 4.7: Factors influencing laptop ergonomics among respondents (N= 398)

Statements Yes (%) No (%) I Don't Know (%)

Access to affordable ergonomic accessories or equipment 335 (84.2) 32 (8.0) 31 (7.8)
(e.g., adjustable chairs, laptop stands) facilitates my ability to
maintain good laptop ergonomics
The availability of information and resources (Online/offline) 310 (77.9) 51 (12.8) 37 (9.3)
on proper laptop ergonomics makes it easier for me to adopt
good ergonomic practices.
Supportive policies or guidelines at the university level 278 (69.8) 74 (18.6) 46 (11.6)
enable me to prioritize and implement laptop ergonomics.
Having a designated ergonomic study space contributes to 311 (78.1) 48 (12.1) 39 (9.8)
my ability to practice good laptop ergonomics.
Having ergonomic workshops or training at the university 273 (68.6) 84 (21.1) 41 (10.3)
motivates me to follow and keep up with good laptop posture.
Having ergonomic workshops or training at the university 284 (71.4) 71 (17.8) 43 (10.8)
motivates me to follow and keep up with good laptop posture.
Having a flexible schedule allows me to take breaks and 328 (82.4) 39 (9.8) 31 (7.8)
incorporate ergonomic practices during laptop use.
Physical constraints (e.g., small desk space) limit my ability 289 (72.6) 69 (17.3) 40 (10.1)
to practice laptop ergonomics.

86
4.8 Research Hypotheses

4.8.1 Association between the level of perception and the level of knowledge of laptop
ergonomics

The null hypothesis states that there is no significant association between the level of perception
and the level of knowledge of laptop ergonomics. Fischer exact test statistics were used to test the
level of significant association between the level of perception and the level of knowledge of laptop
ergonomics. This test revealed that there is a significant association between the level of perception
and the level of knowledge of laptop ergonomics (p = <0.001; df = 2; Fischer exact = 15.773) at p
< 0.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected

87
Table 4.8: Association between the level of perception and the level of knowledge of laptop
ergonomics

Knowledge of laptop ergonomics

Poor Fair Good Fischer Exact df p-value
Freq (%) Freq (%) Freq (%)
Perception of laptop
ergonomics
Poor 4 (21.1) 7 (36.8) 8 (42.1) 15.773 2 <0.001*
Good 9 (2.4) 80 (21.1) 289 (76.5)

*significant at p<0.05

88
4.8.2 Association between the level of perception and the perception of barriers to laptop
ergonomics

The null hypothesis states no significant association exists between the level of perception and the
perception of barriers to laptop ergonomics. Fischer's exact test statistics were used to test the
significant association between the level of perception and the perception of barriers to laptop
ergonomics. This test revealed a significant association between the level of perception and the
perception of barriers to laptop ergonomics (p = <0.001; df = 2; Fischer exact = 15.018) at p <
0.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected.

89
Table 4.9: Association between the level of perception and the perception of barriers to laptop
ergonomics

Perception of barriers to laptop Fischer

ergonomics Exact
Low Moderate High df p-value
Freq (%) Freq (%) Freq (%)
Perception of laptop ergonomics
Poor 1 (5.3) 15 (78.9) 3 (15.8) 18.018 2 <0.001*
Good 34 (9.0) 114 (30.1) 231 (60.9)

*significant at p<0.05

90
4.8.3 Association between the level of knowledge and the perception of barriers to laptop
ergonomics

The null hypothesis states that there is no significant association between the level of knowledge
and the perception of barriers to laptop ergonomics. Fischer's exact test statistics were used to test
the significant association between knowledge level and perception of barriers to laptop
ergonomics. This test revealed a significant association between the level of knowledge and the
perception of barriers to laptop ergonomics (p = <0.001; df = 4; Fischer exact = 26.257) at p <
0.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected.

91
Table 4.10: Association between the level of knowledge and the perception of barriers to
laptop ergonomics

Perception of barriers to laptop Fischer

ergonomics Exact
Low Moderate High df p-value
Freq (%) Freq (%) Freq (%)
Knowledge of laptop ergonomics
Poor 4 (30.8) 5 (38.5) 4 (30.8) 26.257 4 <0.001*
Fair 2 (2.3) 44 (50.6) 41 (47.1)
Good 29 (9.8) 80 (26.9) 188 (63.3)

*significant at p<0.05

92
4.8.4 Association between socio-demographic characteristics and the Level of Knowledge
of Laptop ergonomics

The null hypothesis states that there is no significant association between socio-demographic
characteristics and the level of knowledge of laptop ergonomics. Fischer exact test statistics were
used to test the level of significant association between socio-demographic characteristics and the
level of knowledge of laptop ergonomics. This test revealed that there is no significant association
between the socio-demographic characteristics and the level of knowledge of laptop ergonomics.
Therefore, the researcher fails to reject the null hypothesis.

93
Table 4.11: Association between socio-demographic characteristics and the level of
knowledge of laptop ergonomics

Knowledge of laptop ergonomics

Poor Fair Good Fischer Exact df p-value
Freq (%) Freq (%) Freq (%)
Socio-demographic
characteristics
Age
20-29 7 (2.3) 73 (24.2) 222 (73.5) 10.287 6 0.082
30-39 4 (5.1) 12 (15.4) 62 (79.5)
40-49 1 (9.1) 2 (18.2) 8 (72.7)
50 and above 1 (16.7) 0 (0) 5 (83.3)
Gender
Male 8 (4.7) 29 (17.1) 133 (78.2) 5.51 2 0.064
Female 5 (2.2) 58 (25.6) 164 (72.2)
Marital status
Single 11 (3.2) 77 (22.1) 260 (74.7) 2.556 4 0.863
Married 2 (4.2) 10 (20.8) 36 (75.0)
Separated 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (100)

94
 CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Introduction

This chapter synthesizes the findings from the study "Knowledge, Perceived Barriers, and Factors
Influencing Laptop Computer Ergonomics Among Postgraduate Students," discusses their
implications, and provides recommendations for future research and practical applications. The
primary aim of this study was to explore the level of ergonomic knowledge among postgraduate
students, identify perceived barriers to adopting ergonomic practices, and examine various factors
influencing ergonomic behavior when using laptop computers.

With the increasing reliance on laptop computers for academic and professional purposes,
ergonomic practices have become crucial for preventing musculoskeletal disorders and enhancing
user comfort and productivity. Recent studies have highlighted the widespread occurrence of poor
ergonomic practices among students, leading to a variety of musculoskeletal issues, such as back
pain, neck strain, and repetitive strain injuries (RSIs) (Dockrell, Bennett, & Culleton-Quinn, 2015;
Eltayeb et al., 2020). Despite the recognized benefits of ergonomics, many students exhibit
inadequate ergonomic behaviors, which can have long-term health implications (Karwowski,
2018).

Ergonomic education has improved knowledge and reduced the prevalence of musculoskeletal
complaints. For instance, a study by Amick et al. (2017) demonstrated that targeted ergonomic
training significantly enhanced students' ergonomic practices and reduced discomfort. However,

95
barriers such as lack of awareness, high cost of ergonomic equipment, and environmental
constraints often impede the implementation of these practices (Robertson et al., 2013).

Understanding these barriers and the factors influencing ergonomic behavior is essential for
developing strategies to promote better ergonomic practices among students. This study's findings
provide insights into the current state of ergonomic knowledge among postgraduate students and
the challenges they face in adopting ergonomic practices. These insights are critical for developing
targeted interventions to enhance ergonomic awareness and practice.

5.2 Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

The mean age of respondents was 27.98 ± 5.1 years, with the majority (76.1%) in the 20-29 age
group. This age distribution is typical for postgraduate student populations. It aligns with findings
from similar studies, such as those by Waongenngarm et al. (2020), which identified young adults
as a key demographic for ergonomic research due to their intensive computer use.

Female respondents (57%) outnumbered male respondents (43%), consistent with other studies
that have observed higher participation rates among females in health and ergonomics surveys.
For instance, Zamanian et al. (2021) reported a higher prevalence of reported musculoskeletal
discomfort among female students, suggesting gender-specific ergonomic challenges.

Most respondents were single (87.7%), with 12.1% married. This marital status distribution
reflects postgraduate students' demographics, as seen in studies like Dutta et al. (2021), which
reported a predominance of single students primarily focused on their academic pursuits.

Regarding religious affiliation, most respondents identified as Christians (82.2%), followed by

Muslims (16.8%). This religious composition mirrors broader demographic trends in southwestern
Nigeria, where Christianity is predominant (Adedoyin et al., 2019).

The majority of respondents were ethnically Yoruba (76.9%), reflecting the ethnic composition of
the University of Ibadan's student body. Cultural factors, including ethnicity, can influence health
behaviors and ergonomic practices, as Ajayi and Olaleye (2020) highlighted in their study on
musculoskeletal disorders among office workers in Nigeria.

96
The respondents' mean weight was 64.4 ± 12.1 kg, and their height varied from 120 to 200 cm
with a mean height of 167.9 ± 11.4 cm. Understanding these physical characteristics is essential
for designing ergonomic interventions appropriately tailored to the target population. Studies by
Chiou et al. (2020) emphasize the importance of considering anthropometric data in ergonomic
assessments to ensure effective and suitable interventions.

The distribution of respondents across various faculties showed that the highest proportion came
from the Faculty of Public Health (37.7%), followed by the Faculty of Science (13.6%) and the
Faculty of Education (13.1%). This pattern suggests significant representation from faculties
where students are likely to engage in extensive laptop use for their academic work, similar to the
findings by Keevil et al. (2020), who noted that students in health and science disciplines are
particularly susceptible to ergonomic issues due to prolonged computer use.

These socio-demographic characteristics are consistent with other research on student populations
and ergonomic practices. For example, Waongenngarm et al. (2020) reported that younger
students, particularly those in their twenties, are at a higher risk for developing musculoskeletal
issues due to poor ergonomic practices. The higher female representation in this study aligns with
Zamanian et al. (2021), who found that female students report higher levels of discomfort, likely
due to differences in posture and ergonomic awareness.

The predominance of single students reflects demographic trends in postgraduate education, where
many students delay marriage to focus on their academic careers, as observed in the study by Dutta
et al. (2021). Furthermore, the religious and ethnic composition of the respondents provides
context for understanding cultural influences on ergonomic practices, as highlighted by Ajayi and
Olaleye (2020).

Out of the 398 respondents, 47.7% reported that they had heard of laptop ergonomics, while 52.3%
indicated that they had not. This split indicates a moderate level of awareness among the
postgraduate students. It is essential to note that awareness does not necessarily equate to practice,
as highlighted in previous studies. For instance, Johnson et al. (2019) found that even among those
who were aware of ergonomic principles, the application in daily practice was often lacking.

5.3.2 Sources of Information

97
Among the respondents who had heard of laptop ergonomics, the most common sources of
information were social media (28.9%), school (15.8%), and friends (10.3%). This finding aligns
with the growing influence of digital platforms and peer networks in disseminating health
information. In contrast, traditional media sources such as radio (2%) and television (3%) were
less influential. This trend was also observed by Smith et al. (2020), who noted the predominance
of online and peer-based sources in health information dissemination among university students.

Regarding the setting of ergonomic training, only 15.8% of respondents had received any formal
training on laptop ergonomics. The majority (84.2%) had not received any training. Among those
who received training, the common settings included school or university (6.8%), workplace
(5.8%), and online courses (5.8%). These figures suggest that while there is some level of
institutional support for ergonomic training, there is significant room for improvement.

When asked about their primary sources of ergonomic information, less than half (49.0%) of the
respondents relied on online articles, highlighting the critical role of internet resources. Other
sources included friends (12.3%) and university resources (6.3%). The reliance on online
information is consistent with findings by Wong et al. (2021), who reported that digital platforms
are the primary source of health information for many students.

Half of the respondents (50.8%) indicated awareness of external accessories that can improve
laptop ergonomics. The most widely recognized items were laptop stands (40.5%), external mouse
(39.9%), and external keyboards (37.7%). Other accessories such as ergonomic chairs (30.7%),
anti-glare screen protectors (27.9%), and desk lamps with adjustable arms (24.9%) were also
noted. These findings reflect a moderate level of awareness about tools that can enhance ergonomic
practices, consistent with the study by Choi et al. (2020), which found that awareness of ergonomic
accessories among students was linked to reduced reports of discomfort.

These findings on the awareness of laptop ergonomics among postgraduate students are consistent
with other recent studies. Johnson et al. (2019) reported similar levels of awareness and reliance
on digital sources for ergonomic information among university students. Smith et al. (2020) also
highlighted the role of social media and online platforms in spreading ergonomic knowledge,
emphasizing the need for reliable and accessible digital content to promote better ergonomic
practices.
98
The relatively low percentage of students who have received formal ergonomic training points to
a significant gap in ergonomic education. As noted by Wong et al. (2021), institutional support
through curriculum integration and targeted workshops can significantly enhance students'
ergonomic practices and reduce the incidence of musculoskeletal disorders.

The respondents' awareness of ergonomic accessories indicates a positive trend, although a

substantial proportion of students remain unaware of these tools. Choi et al. (2020) suggested that
increased awareness and accessibility of ergonomic accessories could lead to better ergonomic
practices and reduced physical discomfort among students.

Laptop Usage Among Respondents

The study revealed that many respondents used their laptops extensively each day. Specifically,
54.5% of respondents reported using their laptops for 2-6 hours daily. Within this group, 29.1%
used their laptops for 2-4 hours, while 25.4% used them for 4-6 hours. Additionally, 25.1% of
respondents used their laptops for more than 6 hours daily, and only 20.4% used them for less than
2 hours daily. These findings suggest that most postgraduate students spend considerable time on
their laptops, which aligns with the academic and research demands typical of this group. This
extensive use is comparable to findings by Waongenngarm et al. (2020), who reported that
university students often use laptops for prolonged periods, increasing their risk of developing
musculoskeletal issues.

More than half of the respondents (69.1%) reported using their right hand as the dominant hand
while interacting with their laptops, with 7.5% using their left hand and 23.4% using both hands.
This distribution mirrors the general population's hand dominance trends and emphasizes the need
for ergonomic tools and setups that accommodate various user preferences. Previous ergonomic
studies have underscored the importance of accommodating both right-handed and left-handed
users in ergonomic design (Zamanian et al., 2021).

The positions assumed by respondents while using their laptops varied significantly. The most
common position was sitting at a table on a chair with a backrest (76.6%), which is ergonomically
recommended. However, many respondents also reported using fewer ideal positions, such as lying
99
on the stomach (32.9%), sitting at a table on a chair without a backrest (28.6%), sitting with the
back against a surface (28.1%), and lying on the back (28.1%). These findings are consistent with
those of Omokhodion and Sanya (2020), who noted that improper postures are prevalent among
students and contribute to musculoskeletal discomfort.

The laptop usage patterns among postgraduate students identified in this study are consistent with
recent research. Waongenngarm et al. (2020) highlighted that extensive laptop use is common
among university students due to academic demands, which can lead to ergonomic issues if proper
practices are not followed. Similarly, Zamanian et al. (2021) found that prolonged laptop use
without adequate ergonomic measures increases the prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders
among students. Their study emphasized the need for ergonomically designed workspaces and
proper posture to mitigate these risks.

The various positions assumed by students, many of which are not ergonomically sound,
underscore the need for better ergonomic education and interventions. Omokhodion and Sanya
(2020) found that improper postures are prevalent among students and significantly contribute to
musculoskeletal discomfort. This aligns with the current study’s findings and highlights the need
for targeted ergonomic strategies to improve posture and reduce health risks among students.

Knowledge of respondents regarding laptop ergonomics

Firstly, most respondents understand the importance of maintaining good posture while using
laptops. About 91.0% of the respondents acknowledged that proper posture is crucial in preventing
musculoskeletal symptoms. This indicates a high level of awareness regarding the basic principles
of ergonomics, such as aligning the body correctly to avoid strain and discomfort. Similarly, 78.1%
of the respondents emphasized the importance of using armrests to support the elbows, further
showcasing their understanding of maintaining proper body mechanics during laptop use.

100
Recent studies support these findings, showing a significant correlation between ergonomic
training and increased awareness and practice of proper ergonomics among computer users. For
example, a study by Xie and colleagues (2020) found that ergonomic interventions, including
education and equipment adjustments, significantly reduced musculoskeletal symptoms and
improved posture among office workers.

Furthermore, respondents demonstrated considerable knowledge of ergonomic risk factors.

Approximately 82.7% correctly identified improper seating, lack of breaks, improper viewing
distance, awkward postures, repetitive motions, and sustained postures as contributors to
ergonomic problems. This knowledge is critical as it highlights the respondents' awareness of the
behaviors and conditions that can lead to discomfort or injury, thus enabling them to take proactive
measures to mitigate these risks. This is consistent with research by Robertson et al. (2019), which
emphasized the importance of recognizing and mitigating ergonomic risk factors to prevent
workplace injuries and enhance productivity.

The respondents also showed an understanding of the specific ergonomic adjustments that can be
made to improve their workstation setup. For instance, 59.5% of the respondents were aware that
the laptop screen should be positioned slightly below eye level to avoid neck strain, and 73.6%
recognized the importance of positioning the laptop screen at least at arm's length away to reduce
eye strain. Additionally, many respondents understood the significance of using external
accessories to enhance ergonomics, with 76.4% acknowledging that items such as laptop stands,
external keyboards, and external mice can improve their ergonomic setup.

Despite this generally high level of knowledge, there were still areas where respondents exhibited
gaps in understanding. For example, only 39.3% were aware that the keyboard and mouse should
be positioned at the same level as their elbow height, and only 39.9% recognized the importance
of using an ideal mouse pad with wrist support. These gaps indicate that while respondents have a
solid foundational knowledge of ergonomics, there is still room for improvement in educating
them about the finer details of ergonomic practices. A study by Hedge and James (2021)
corroborates these findings, suggesting that while general ergonomic awareness is high, specific
knowledge about optimal peripheral positioning remains lacking among many users.

101
The overall knowledge level of respondents about laptop ergonomics was quantified using a 20-
item knowledge scale. Results showed that 62.3% of respondents demonstrated good knowledge,
33.2% had fair knowledge, and only 4.5% had poor knowledge. The mean knowledge score was
30.3±6.1 out of a possible 40, indicating a generally high level of understanding among the
participants. This comprehensive knowledge assessment underscores the respondents' capability
to recognize and apply ergonomic principles in their laptop use.

Perception of the respondents about laptop ergonomic

In the study, a significant majority (81.4%) of respondents expressed concerns about the potential
long-term health effects of poor laptop ergonomics. This high awareness indicates that respondents
are well-informed about the negative consequences of improper ergonomic practices. Additionally,
82.7% of respondents believe practicing good laptop ergonomics can enhance their overall well-
being, demonstrating a positive attitude towards adopting ergonomic practices. Recent research
supports these findings, highlighting the crucial role of awareness and knowledge in shaping
ergonomic behaviors. For instance, a study by Robertson et al. (2019) found that increased
awareness of ergonomic principles significantly improved the adoption of ergonomic practices
among office workers. Similarly, Hedge and James (2021) noted that individuals with higher levels
of ergonomic knowledge were likelier to implement ergonomic adjustments in their work
environments.

Reinforcing Factors

Reinforcing factors are rewards or feedback from others that encourage or discourage certain
behaviors. Social acceptance and support were pivotal in reinforcing ergonomic practices in the
study. About 78.9% of respondents agreed that it is socially acceptable to prioritize and practice
proper laptop ergonomics within their academic community. Furthermore, 83.9% of respondents
indicated that incorporating ergonomic practices during laptop use can reduce the risk of health
issues, and 84.2% believed that adopting proper laptop ergonomics would increase productivity.
These findings align with studies that emphasize the role of social and organizational support in
promoting ergonomic behaviors. For example, a study by Xie et al. (2020) highlighted that

102
organizational policies and a supportive work environment are critical in reinforcing employee
ergonomic practices. The study showed that when workplaces provide ergonomic resources and
support, employees are more likely to adopt and maintain proper ergonomic practices.

Enabling Factors

Enabling factors are the resources and skills that facilitate the adoption of health behaviors. The
study revealed that the design and layout of study spaces, access to ergonomic accessories, and
institutional support significantly influence respondents' ergonomic practices. About 55.8% of
respondents agreed that the university's design and layout of study spaces contribute to good laptop
ergonomics. Additionally, 77.6% of respondents believed that keeping frequently used items
within easy reach on their desk prevents overstretching, and 76.4% acknowledged that external
accessories like laptop stands, external keyboards, and external mice could help improve laptop
ergonomics. Research by Straker et al. (2020) supports these findings, emphasizing the importance
of enabling factors such as ergonomic training and access to ergonomic equipment. The study
found that providing ergonomic accessories and creating ergonomic work environments
significantly reduced musculoskeletal discomfort and improved productivity among computer
users.

Implications for Improving Ergonomic Practices

The findings from this study on "Knowledge, Perceived Barriers, and Factors Influencing Laptop
Computer Ergonomics Among Postgraduate Students" have several important implications for
improving ergonomic practices among students:

1. Awareness and Knowledge: Respondents' high level of awareness and knowledge about
laptop ergonomics indicates that educational interventions can be effective. This suggests
that ongoing efforts to educate students about ergonomic principles can lead to better
practices, reducing the risk of musculoskeletal disorders and enhancing overall well-being
and productivity.

103
 2. Social and Institutional Support: The significant role of social and institutional support
in reinforcing ergonomic behaviors implies that universities and workplaces need to
prioritize ergonomic training and create supportive environments. This includes integrating
ergonomic principles into workplace policies and providing resources and support for
ergonomic adjustments.

3. Accessibility of Resources: The impact of enabling factors such as access to ergonomic

accessories and flexible schedules highlights the necessity of making ergonomic resources
more accessible and affordable. It also underscores the importance of designing
workspaces that facilitate good ergonomic practices, ensuring students and workers can
maintain healthy postures and reduce physical strain.

Conclusion

Based on the findings of this study, it is evident that a multifaceted approach is necessary to
improve ergonomic practices among postgraduate students. The high level of awareness and
knowledge about ergonomics among students provides a strong foundation, but significant gaps
need to be addressed through targeted educational initiatives. Reinforcing social acceptance and
institutional support are critical for fostering and maintaining good ergonomic behaviors.
Additionally, overcoming barriers related to financial constraints and lack of information is
essential to ensure students can access the necessary ergonomic equipment and resources.
Therefore, universities and workplaces should develop comprehensive ergonomic policies,
provide ergonomic training, and ensure the availability of ergonomic resources to create supportive
environments. Addressing these factors makes it possible to significantly reduce the risk of
musculoskeletal disorders, enhance overall well-being, and improve student productivity.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations can be made to enhance laptop
ergonomics among students and workers:

104
 1. Educational Campaigns: Continue and expand educational campaigns to raise awareness
about the importance of ergonomics. These campaigns should include specific guidance on
optimal ergonomic practices and how to implement them effectively. Leveraging digital
platforms and social media can increase reach and impact.

2. Institutional Policies: Develop and enforce ergonomic policies within universities and
workplaces. This includes mandatory ergonomic training sessions, ergonomic assessments
of workspaces, and the provision of necessary ergonomic tools. Institutions should also
incorporate ergonomic education into the curriculum for students.

3. Access to Resources: Ensure that ergonomic accessories such as laptop stands, external
keyboards, and chairs are affordable and accessible to all users. Subsidies or financial
support programs can be introduced to help students and employees acquire these items.
Institutions can also consider setting up ergonomic resource centers where students can
borrow or rent equipment.

4. Design and Layout: Improve the design and layout of study and workspaces to facilitate
ergonomic practices. This can include adjustable desks and chairs, proper lighting, and
designated ergonomic areas. Institutions should regularly evaluate and update these spaces
to meet ergonomic standards.

5. Flexible Schedules: Promote flexible work and study schedules, allowing regular breaks
and movement. Encourage users to take mini-breaks and stretch regularly to prevent
musculoskeletal strain. Institutions can implement policies that support these practices,
such as scheduled break times during long lectures or work sessions.

6. Research and Feedback: Conduct ongoing research to monitor ergonomic interventions'

effectiveness and gather user feedback. This can help continuously improve ergonomic
practices and address any emerging issues. Surveys and focus groups can be used to collect
data on user experiences and preferences.

Suggestions for Further Studies

105
While this study has provided valuable insights into the knowledge, perceived barriers, and factors
influencing laptop computer ergonomics among postgraduate students, several areas warrant
further investigation to deepen our understanding and improve ergonomic practices.

Future studies should adopt a longitudinal design to assess the long-term effects of ergonomic
interventions on musculoskeletal health among students. This approach would provide more
comprehensive data on the sustainability and efficacy of various ergonomic practices and
equipment over time. Moreover, it would help identify which interventions have the most lasting
impact on reducing discomfort and preventing musculoskeletal disorders.

Given the differences in musculoskeletal discomfort between male and female students, future
research should focus on gender-specific ergonomic needs. Investigating the unique ergonomic
challenges faced by different genders can lead to the development of tailored interventions that
more effectively address these issues. Understanding these differences could also inform the
creation of educational materials that resonate more with each gender, thereby improving
compliance with ergonomic recommendations.

With rapid technological advancements, it is crucial to explore the impact of new devices and
software on ergonomic practices. Future research should investigate how emerging technologies,
such as virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR), can be integrated into ergonomic training
and whether these tools can enhance ergonomic compliance and reduce discomfort. Additionally,
the role of mobile applications and wearable devices in promoting ergonomic practices should be
examined, as these technologies can provide real-time feedback and reminders to maintain proper
posture and take breaks.

Cross-cultural studies are necessary to understand how cultural differences influence ergonomic
practices and perceptions. Comparing students' ergonomic behaviors and discomfort levels in
different educational contexts, such as online versus traditional classroom settings, could provide
insights into how these environments affect ergonomic health. Furthermore, the effectiveness of
institutional ergonomic policies and resources should be evaluated to determine how institutional
support impacts students' ergonomic practices and musculoskeletal health outcomes.

106
Future research should also investigate the relationship between academic workload and
ergonomic practices. Understanding how different levels of academic pressure influence students'
ergonomic behaviors and musculoskeletal health can inform the development of targeted
interventions to support students with high academic demands. Additionally, investigating the
interplay between ergonomic practices, stress, and mental health is essential. Research should
explore how stress and mental health issues affect students' ergonomic behaviors and
musculoskeletal health, aiming to develop holistic interventions that address physical and
psychological well-being.

Finally, with the increasing prevalence of remote learning, it is essential to investigate the
ergonomic challenges and solutions specific to home-based study environments. Future studies
should identify effective strategies to promote ergonomic practices among students who study
primarily from home. Developing and testing comprehensive ergonomic training programs
tailored for postgraduate students, which include practical components such as hands-on
workshops and virtual simulations, would be beneficial. These programs should effectively teach
ergonomic principles and promote long-term behavior change, ultimately enhancing students'
ergonomic health and overall well-being in various educational settings.

107