Digital Occupational Health Systems: What Do Employees Think about it?


A high rate of work-related accidents or diseases around the world not only threatens the health and wellbeing of employees, but also causes a considerable annual economic burden for organizations. One promising use of information technology would therefore be the management and prevention of occupational accidents and employee absenteeism. Although some companies are starting to introduce digital occupational health initiatives, there is scarce evidence about the inhibiting factors which may discourage the wide adoption of such systems in the workforce. This paper presents qualitative and quantitative data of an exploratory study, which delves into the perceptions of employees towards the use of digital occupational health systems. Our results show that employees are usually aware of the enhanced possibilities for managing and improving their health and wellbeing through such corporate initiatives. However, privacy concerns and the additional mental pressure caused by such systems, significantly diminishes an employee’s willingness to adopt them.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 99

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4


  1. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: a theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888–918.

  2. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

  3. Al-Natour, S., & Benbasat, I. (2009). The adoption and use of IT artifacts: a new interaction-centric model for the study of user-artifact relationships. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(9), 661–685.

  4. Atallah, L., Lo, B., Ali, R., King, R., & Yang, G.-Z. (2009). Real-time activity classification using ambient and wearable sensors. IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine, 13(6), 1031–1039.

  5. Balci, B., Rosenkranz, C., & Schuhen, S. (2014). Identification of different affordances of information technology systems. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv, 9-11 June 2014, pp. 1-15.

  6. Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2), 175–184.

  7. Bollen, K. A., & Stine, R. A. (1992). Bootstrapping goodness-of-fit measures in structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 205–229.

  8. Bouchard, T. J. (1976). Field research methods: interviewing, questionnaires, participant observation, unobtrusive measures. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 363–414). Chicago: Rand-McNally College Publishing Company.

  9. Carpenter, D., McLeod, A., Hicks, C., & Maasberg, M. (2016). Privacy and biometrics: an empirical examination of employee concerns. Information Systems Frontiers, 1–20.

  10. Cheng, T., Migliaccio, G. C., Teizer, J., & Gatti, U. C. (2012). Data fusion of real-time location sensing and physiological status monitoring for ergonomics analysis of construction workers. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 27(3), 320–335.

  11. Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  12. Corbellini, S., Ferraris, F., & Parvis, M. (2008). A system for monitoring workers’ safety in an unhealthy environment by means of wearable sensors. In Proceedings of the Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference, Victoria, 12-15 May 2008, pp. 951-955. 

  13. Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? Examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104.

  14. Culnan, M. J., & Williams, C. C. (2009). How ethics can enhance organizational privacy: Lessons from the choicepoint and TJX data breaches. MIS Quarterly, 33(4), 673–687.

  15. Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: theory and results. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management, Cambridge.

  16. Elbanna, A., & Linderoth, H. C. (2015). The formation of technology mental models: The case of voluntary use of technology in organizational setting. Information Systems Frontiers, 17(1), 95–108.

  17. Engels, J. A., van der Gulden, J. W., Senden, T. F., & van’t Hof, B. (1996). Work related risk factors for musculoskeletal complaints in the nursing profession: Results of a questionnaire survey. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 53(9), 636–641.

  18. Faraj, S., and Azad, B. (2012). The materiality of technology: An affordance perspective. In: Leonardi, P. M., Nardi, B. A., Kallinikos, J. (Eds.) Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world. Oxford University Press, Oxford. pp. 237–258.

  19. Fayarda, A.-L., & Weeks, J. (2014). Affordances for practice. Information and Organization, 24(4), 236–249.

  20. Fingas, R. (2015). IBM adopts Apple watch for internal fitness initiative & Watson-linked health app. Accessed 7 Sept 2016.

  21. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

  22. Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (2005). A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-graph - tutorial and annotated example. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16(5), 91–109.

  23. Gibson, J. J. (Ed.). (1979). The theory of affordances, the ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

  24. Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., MacFarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. The Milbank Quarterly, 82(4), 581–629.

  25. Grgecic, D., Holten, R., & Rosenkranz, C. (2015). The impact of functional affordances and symbolic expressions on the formation of beliefs. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 16(7), 580–607.

  26. Hu, H., Xu, J., and Lee, D. L. (2010). PAM: An efficient and privacy-aware monitoring framework for continuously moving objects, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 22(3), 404–419.

  27. Hutchby, I. (2001). Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology, 35(2), 441–456.

  28. Lee, S.-H., Nohb, S.-E., & Kim, H.-W. (2013). A mixed methods approach to electronic word-of-mouth in the open-market context. International Journal of Information Management, 33(4), 687–696.

  29. Lekaa, S., Jaina, A., Zwetslootb, G., & Coxa, T. (2010). Policy-level interventions and work-related psychosocial risk management in the european union. Work & Stress: An International Journal of Work, Health & Organisations, 24(3), 298–307.

  30. Leonardi, P. M. (2011). When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 147–168.

  31. Leonardi, P. M. (2013). When does technology use enable network change in organizations? A comparative study of feature use and shared affordances. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 749–775.

  32. Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. (2010). What’s under construction here? Social action, materiality, and power in constructivist studies of technology and organizing. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 1–51.

  33. Maier, J. R. A., Fadel, G.M., & Battisto, D. G. (2009). An affordance-based approach to architectural theory, design, and practice. Design Studies, 30(4), 393–414.

  34. Majchrzak, A., & Markus, M. L. (2012). Technology affordances and constraints in management information systems (MIS). In E. Kessler (Ed.), Encyclopedia of management theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

  35. Markus, M. L., & Silver, M. S. (2008). A foundation for the study of IT effects: a new look at Desanctis and Poole’s concepts of structural features and spirit. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9(10), 609–632.

  36. McFarlane, D. C., and Latorella, K. A. (2002). The scope and importance of human interruption in humancomputer interaction design. Human-Computer Interaction, 17(1), 1–61.

  37. Moore, G., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192–222.

  38. Nieuwenhuijsen, K., Bruinvels, D., & Frings-Dresen, M. (2010). Psychosocial work environment and stress-related disorders, a systematic review. Occupational Medicine, 60(4), 277–286.

  39. Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.

  40. Norman, D. A. (1999). Affordance, conventions, and design. ACM Interactions, 6(3), 38–43.

  41. Olson, P. (2014). Wearable tech is plugging into health insurance. Accessed 7 Sept 2016.

  42. Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 680–693.

  43. Patel, S., Park, H., Bonato, P., Chan, L., & Rodgers, M. (2012). A review of wearable sensors and systems with application in rehabilitation. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 9(1), 21.

  44. Patel, M. S., Asch, D. A., & Volpp, K. G. (2015). Wearable devices as facilitators, not drivers, of health behavior change. Journal of the American Medical Association, 313(5), 459–460.

  45. Piccoli, G., & Pigni, F. (2013). Harvesting external data: the potential of digital data streams. MIS Quarterly Executive, 12(1), 53–64.

  46. Pozzi, G., Pigni, F., & Vitari, C. (2014) Affordance theory in the IS discipline: A review and synthesis of the literature. In Proceedings of the 20th Americas Conference on Information Systems, Savannah, 7-9 August 2014, pp. 1-12.

  47. Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Straub, D. W. (2012). A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS quarterly. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), iii–xiv.

  48. Schwaibold, M., Gmelin, M., von Wagner, G., Schochlin, J., & Bolz, A. (2002). Key factors for personal health monitoring and diagnosis devices. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Mobile Computing in Medicine, Heidelberg, 11 April 2002, pp. 143-150.

  49. Smith, H. J., Milberg, S. J., & Burke, S. J. (1996). Information privacy: Measuring individuals’ concerns about organizational practices. MIS Quarterly, 20(2), 167–196.

  50. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.

  51. Sun, J., & Qu, Z. (2015). Understanding health information technology adoption: A synthesis of literature from an activity perspective. Information Systems Frontiers, 17(5), 1177–1190.

  52. Swan, M. (2012). Health 2050: the realization of personalized medicine through crowdsourcing, the quantified self, and the participatory biocitizen. Journal of Personalized Medicine, 2(3), 93–118.

  53. Thompson, G. (1966). The evaluation of public opinion. In B. Berelson & M. Janowitz (Eds.), Reader in public opinion and communication (pp. 7–12). New York: Free Press.

  54. van der Heijden, H. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Quarterly, 28(4), pp. 695-704.

  55. van der Veer, G. C., & van Welie, M. (2003). Dutch-designing for users and tasks from concepts to handles. In D. Diaper & A. S. Neville (Eds.), The handbook of task analysis for human-computer interaction (pp. 155–173). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  56. Vitari, C., & Pigni, F. (2014). DDGS affordances for value creation. In L. Caporarello, B. Di Martino, & M. Martinez (Eds.), Smart organizations and smart artifacts (pp. 9–16). New York: Springer.

  57. Vyas, D., Fitz-Walter, Z., Mealy, E., Soro, A., Zhang, J., & Brereton, M. (2015). Exploring physical activities in an employer-sponsored health program. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seoul, 18–23 April 2015, pp. 1421–1426.

  58. Wang, N., Carte, T., & Schwarzkopf, A. (2015). How should technology affordances be measured? An initial comparison of two approaches. In Proceedings of the 21st Americas Conference on Information Systems, Fajardo, Puerto Rico, 13–15 August 2015, pp. 1–14.

  59. Wilson, J. R., & Sharples, S. (2015). Evaluation of human work, (4ed.). London: CRC Press.

  60. World Health Organization (1995). Global strategy on occupational health for all: the way to health at work, recommendation of the second meeting of the who collaborating centres in occupational health. Accessed 7 Sept 2016.

  61. Wu, P. F. (2012). A mixed methods approach to technology acceptance research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13(3), 172–187.

  62. Wu, D. J., Ding, M., & Hitt, L. M. (2013). IT implementation contract design: Analytical and experimental investigation of IT value, learning, and contract structure. Information Systems Research, 24(3), 787–801.

  63. Zijlstra, F. R., Roe, R. A., Leonora, A. B., and Krediet, I. (1999). Temporal factors in mental work: Effects of interrupted activities. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(2), 163–185.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Tobias Mettler.


Appendix 1

Table 5 Measurement items

Appendix 2 – screenshots of cognitive module of Active@work platform

Fig. 5

Active@work workspace

Fig. 6

Monitoring the condition of workplace environment and the location of employees with Active@work

Fig. 7

Exemplary Active@work triggered alerts messages and privacy settings

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yassaee, M., Mettler, T. Digital Occupational Health Systems: What Do Employees Think about it?. Inf Syst Front 21, 909–924 (2019).

Download citation


  • Digital occupational health
  • Mixed methods
  • Sensor-based systems
  • Technology adoption