ArticlePloS one2024
Cross-sectional analysis of the association between information and communication technology and mental health among Korean workers.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Joint Effect of Workplace Gender Discrimination and Gender Composition on the Mental Well-Being in Korean Workers.Safety and health at work · 2026Article
- Risk of sleep disturbance associated with work-related activities during free time in South Korea: a cross-sectional study with mediation analysis.Annals of occupational and environmental medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe adoption of information and communication technology (ICT) has been the fastest and most widespread in the South Korean workplace. While ICT has several advantages, it can also cause stress among workers. However, the relationship between the introduction of ICT in the workplace and mental health problems among Korean workers remains unclear.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional analysis of data obtained from the sixth Korean Working Conditions Survey (KWCS). In total, 40,019 participants answered a question about whether ICT had been introduced in their workplace. Among these, we compared the rate of complaints of mental health disorders between those who answered "yes" (n = 3,250) and those who answered "no" (n = 36,769). We analyzed the data using the SAS statistical software and calculated the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for anxiety, insomnia, and depression using multiple logistic regression models. We also stratified the data on Korean workers to assess the impact of ICT on subgroups.
resultsIn our nationally representative cohort, on experiencing ICT incorporation at work, 384 participants (11.8%) reported anxiety, 138 (4.2%) reported insomnia, and 296 (9.1%) reported depression. In contrast, among participants who did not have access to ICT, 1,929 (5.2%) reported anxiety, 702 (1.9%) reported insomnia, and 4,404 (12.0%) reported depression. The ORs (95% CIs) for anxiety and insomnia complaint rates were 2.47 (2.19-2.79) and 2.55 (2.10-3.10), respectively, among workers who experienced new ICT adaptations in comparison with those who did not. However, no significant relationship was observed between ICT adoption and depression.
conclusionsThe causes of mental health problems in the workplace should be identified and addressed. We found that the introduction of ICT in the workplace was significantly related to anxiety and insomnia symptoms among Korean workers, after controlling for the selected covariates. This information can be used to identify subgroups in the workplace that are vulnerable to ICT changes and tailor interventions to their social and demographic profiles.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.