TABLE 1.
Checklist – PRISMA 2020 guidelines.
| Item (PRISMA 2020) | Description | |
| Title | ||
| Title | 1 | Technostress at work during the COVID-19 lockdown phase (2020–2021): a systematic review of the literature |
| Introduction | ||
| Objective | 2 | To conduct a systematic review of the main studies on technostress and its relationship with work during the 2020–2021 period of the COVID-19 pandemic. |
| Methods | ||
| Eligibility criteria | 3 | Technostress; work; COVID-19; 2020–2021 To access the selected studies, a search was carried out in the databases of articles and indexed studies, starting with a number, then applying the filters in the electronic system. The first filter was “technostress,” then “2020–2021,” then “COVID-19” and finally, “work” (PICOS was considered) |
| Information sources | 4 | SCOPUS WOS |
| Risk of bias in studies | 5 | The risk of bias in the selected studies was largely associated with the variety of business sectors and markets explored in them, including the education sector (on the work of teachers), the corporate sector (on Support or Operations departments), the public sector (on organizations, agencies, and locations), etc. This diversity could affect the uniformity of the results due to bias from studies seeking to associate the phenomenon with a specific sector. Finally, bias may also arise from the different countries covered by the studies as they may have different cultures when it comes to adapting to technology and this may impact on perceptions of technostress. |
| Study risk of bias assessment | 6 | In order to evaluate the quality of the sample obtained in the systematic qualitative review, the JBI-Qualitative Critical Appraisal Checklist was applied (see Table 2). The evaluation considered the characteristics of the articles that complied with the JBI method, which assesses aspects such as congruity between study methodologies, qualitative methods, interpretation of the results, adequate representation of participants and ethical approval, among others. |
| Outcomes | ||
| Study selection | 7 | Supplementary Table 1 shows the studies that explore technostress as a main theme in work-related situations in any sector or industry during the COVID-19 pandemic between 2020 and 2021. The origin of the studies was highly diverse, with samples from China, Korea, India, Finland, Italy, USA, Germany, Spain, Colombia, and Mexico. |
| Results of syntheses | 8 | Among the most important findings of the qualitative systematic review, workers were found to experience greater techno-fatigue as they lacked control over their working hours and were unaccustomed to working remotely: the results concerning teachers, lecturers, and professors, who had to adapt their teaching methodologies in order to work remotely, are particularly striking. Techno-overload was also observed among workers, who had to adapt suddenly and unexpectedly to new ways of working at home during the COVID-19 lockdown. In both cases, the results displayed a series of negative effects on occupational health, including reduced productivity levels. |
| Discussion | ||
| Limitations of evidence | 9 | The evidence analyzing the impact of technostress at work during the COVID-19 pandemic was obtained using different methodological approaches. It also relates to a diverse range of specialist sectors. In order to evaluate the quality of the sample obtained in the systematic qualitative review, the JBI-Qualitative Critical Appraisal Checklist was applied (see Table 2). |
| Interpretation | 10 | See section “4.3. Workers and remote working” of this study. |
| Other | ||
| Support | 11 | |
| The register | 12 | |
Compiled by the authors with reference to the PRISMA 2020 checklist for systematic reviews. This checklist uses the same items as those included in the PRISMA statement for systematic reviews published in 2013 by Colquhoun et al. (2014), but it has been revised to ensure that the terms used are consistent with the PRISMA 2020 statement.