ArticleBMC public health2026
Knowledge, attitude, practice and symptoms of computer vision syndrome: a comparative study among university students and support staff.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the high prevalence of computer vision syndrome (CVS) in academic settings, there is a lack of comparative data regarding how different university cohorts manage these risks. This study evaluated and compared CVS knowledge, attitudes, preventive practices, and symptoms between undergraduate students and supporting staff at a university in Thailand.
methodsThe study included 485 participants (269 students, 216 staff). A questionnaire assessed demographics, computer usage, CVS knowledge, attitudes, practices, and 16 CVS symptoms. Symptoms were evaluated on a 4-point frequency and 2-point intensity scale. The total CVS score was calculated by summing the products of frequency and intensity for each symptom; a score ≥ 6 indicated CVS presence. Statistical analyses included Chi-square tests (comparing prevalence between participant groups), independent t-tests (comparing mean CVS scores), Pearson correlation (relationships among knowledge, attitudes, and practices), and multiple linear regression (determining factors associated with CVS).
resultsMost participants demonstrated moderate CVS knowledge (51.1%), attitudes (79.4%), and practices (76.1%). Staff had significantly higher knowledge and attitude scores, whereas students showed significantly better preventive practices. Overall, preventive practices were inversely correlated with knowledge (r = -0.246, p < 0.001) and attitude (r = -0.138, p = 0.002); however, stratified analysis revealed that this "knowledge-practice decoupling" was highly pronounced among support staff (knowledge: r = -0.389, p < 0.001; attitude: r = -0.169, p = 0.013) but non-significant among undergraduate students. Overall CVS prevalence was 70.3%, being higher in students (74.0%) than staff (65.7%). Students also reported significantly higher CVS scores (14.13 ± 10.35) than staff (11.81 ± 9.59, p = 0.011). In the pooled sample, the regression model revealed that CVS preventive practice was the only significant factor associated with lower CVS scores (B = -0.25, p = 0.022). However, stratified analysis indicated this effect was significant exclusively among support staff.
conclusionDespite staff demonstrating better knowledge and attitudes regarding CVS, students showed higher preventive practices. However, CVS remains highly prevalent overall, especially among students. Since preventive practice was the only significant variable associated with CVS, targeted interventions should prioritize practical behavioural modifications.
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.