IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i20p3844-d275360.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Methods in Experimental Work Break Research: A Scoping Review

Author

Listed:
  • André Scholz

    (Department of Management Science, Bonn-Rhein-Sieg University of Applied Sciences, 53757 Sankt Augustin, Germany)

  • Johannes Wendsche

    (Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Dresden, 01099 Dresden, Germany)

  • Argang Ghadiri

    (Department of Management Science, Bonn-Rhein-Sieg University of Applied Sciences, 53757 Sankt Augustin, Germany)

  • Usha Singh

    (Department of Management Science, Bonn-Rhein-Sieg University of Applied Sciences, 53757 Sankt Augustin, Germany)

  • Theo Peters

    (Department of Management Science, Bonn-Rhein-Sieg University of Applied Sciences, 53757 Sankt Augustin, Germany)

  • Stefan Schneider

    (Institute of Movement and Neuroscience, German Sport University Cologne, 50933 Cologne, Germany)

Abstract

The number of studies on work breaks and the importance of this subject is growing rapidly, with research showing that work breaks increase employees’ wellbeing and performance and workplace safety. However, comparing the results of work break research is difficult since the study designs and methods are heterogeneous and there is no standard theoretical model for work breaks. Based on a systematic literature search, this scoping review included a total of 93 studies on experimental work break research conducted over the last 30 years. This scoping review provides a first structured evaluation regarding the underlying theoretical framework, the variables investigated, and the measurement methods applied. Studies using a combination of measurement methods from the categories “self-report measures,” “performance measures,” and “physiological measures” are most common and to be preferred in work break research. This overview supplies important information for ergonomics researchers allowing them to design work break studies with a more structured and stronger theory-based approach. A standard theoretical model for work breaks is needed in order to further increase the comparability of studies in the field of experimental work break research in the future.

Suggested Citation

  • André Scholz & Johannes Wendsche & Argang Ghadiri & Usha Singh & Theo Peters & Stefan Schneider, 2019. "Methods in Experimental Work Break Research: A Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-23, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:20:p:3844-:d:275360
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/20/3844/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/20/3844/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Svend Erik Mathiassen & David M Hallman & Eugene Lyskov & Staffan Hygge, 2014. "Can Cognitive Activities during Breaks in Repetitive Manual Work Accelerate Recovery from Fatigue? A Controlled Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-11, November.
    2. Stephen E. Bechtold & Ralph E. Janaro & De Witt L. Sumners, 1984. "Maximization of Labor Productivity Through Optimal Rest-Break Schedules," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(12), pages 1442-1458, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Susanna Mixter & Svend Erik Mathiassen & Petra Lindfors & Kent Dimberg & Helena Jahncke & Eugene Lyskov & David M. Hallman, 2020. "Stress-Related Responses to Alternations between Repetitive Physical Work and Cognitive Tasks of Different Difficulties," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-18, November.
    2. Svend Erik Mathiassen & David M Hallman & Eugene Lyskov & Staffan Hygge, 2014. "Can Cognitive Activities during Breaks in Repetitive Manual Work Accelerate Recovery from Fatigue? A Controlled Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-11, November.
    3. Thompson, Gary M. & Goodale, John C., 2006. "Variable employee productivity in workforce scheduling," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 170(2), pages 376-390, April.
    4. Janiak, Adam & Kovalyov, Mikhail Y., 2006. "Scheduling in a contaminated area: A model and polynomial algorithms," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 173(1), pages 125-132, August.
    5. Xu, Shuling & Hall, Nicholas G., 2021. "Fatigue, personnel scheduling and operations: Review and research opportunities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 295(3), pages 807-822.
    6. Thompson, Gary M. & Pullman, Madeleine E., 2007. "Scheduling workforce relief breaks in advance versus in real-time," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(1), pages 139-155, August.
    7. Manel Baucells & Lin Zhao, 2019. "It Is Time to Get Some Rest," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(4), pages 1717-1734, April.
    8. Sheng Yu, 2015. "An optimal single-machine scheduling with linear deterioration rate and rate-modifying activities," Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 242-252, August.
    9. Anders Fritz Lerche & Svend Erik Mathiassen & Charlotte Lund Rasmussen & Leon Straker & Karen Søgaard & Andreas Holtermann, 2021. "Development and Implementation of ‘Just Right’ Physical Behavior in Industrial Work Based on the Goldilocks Work Principle—A Feasibility Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(9), pages 1-22, April.
    10. A Janiak & M Y Kovalyov, 2008. "Scheduling jobs in a contaminated area: a model and heuristic algorithms," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(7), pages 977-987, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:20:p:3844-:d:275360. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.