Journal of Korean Ophthalmic Optics Society (한국안광학회지)

The Korean Ophthalmic Optics Society (한국안광학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effects of Dry Eye Symptoms on Work Productivity and General Activity in Newly Building

신축건물에서 안구건조증이 작업생산성과 일상활동에 미치는 영향

  • Kim, Hyojin (Dept. of Visual Optics, Baekseok University) ;
  • Park, Chan-Jung (The Environment Technology Institute, Coway Co., Ltd.) ;
  • Lim, Byung-Seo (Dept. of Environmental Engineering, Chungbuk National University) ;
  • Kim, Ho-Hyun (Institute for Environmental Research, Yonsei University College of Medicine)
  • 김효진 (백석대학교 보건학부 안경광학과) ;
  • 박찬정 (코웨이 환경기술연구소) ;
  • 임병서 (충북대학교 환경공학과) ;
  • 김호현 (연세대학교 의과대학 환경공해연구소)
  • Received : 2014.07.25
  • Accepted : 2014.09.18
  • Published : 2014.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The study examined dry eye symptoms of occupants in a newly constructed building and its effects on their work productivity and general activity. Methods: The study subjects were 33 office workers who spent more than eight hours per day on average in a new building constructed in the past three months. The indoor air quality of the new building was evaluated by measuring aldehydes, temperature and humidity. The level of dry eye symptoms was classified into normal, mild, moderate and severe by using the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI). The experience of LASIK surgery, use of eye makeup, daily use time of a computer and smart-phone, and average daily working hours were also examined. The Work Limitation Productivity Questionnaire was used as the questionnaire about work productivity and general activity to measure the impairment level on a ten-point scale. Results: The concentration variation of formaldehyde in the office was $42.42{\pm}6.30{\mu}g/m^3$. The temperature and humidity were $26.2{\pm}0.70^{\circ}C$ and $40{\pm}1%$, respectively. The respondents with normal, mild, moderate and severe dry eye symptoms were 15.2%, 18.2%, 18.2% and 48.5%, respectively. The severity of dry eye symptoms and impairment of work productivity and general activity demonstrated high correlations of 0.599 and 0.655, respectively (p<0.001). Compared to the normal case, severe dry eye symptoms demonstrated significantly high impairment of work productivity and interruption of general activity (p<0.001). The case of serious dry symptoms showed the possibilities of having impairment level of work productivity and interruption of general activity above three points 3.26 times (p=0.032) and 2.25 times (p=0.045), respectively, higher than that of the normal case. Conclusions: It was confirmed that dry eye symptoms among office workers in a newly constructed building affects work productivity and general activity.

목적: 신축건물 재실자들의 안구건조증을 조사하고, 안구건조증이 작업생산성 및 일상적인 활동에 미치는 영향에 대해 알아보았다. 방법: 신축한지 3개월이 지난 건물에서 일 평균 8시간 이상을 근무하는 사무직 근로자 33명을 대상으로 하였다. 실내공기질은 알데하이드류와 온습도를 측정하여 평가하였다. 안구건조증은 Ocular Surface Disease Index(OSDI)를 이용하여 정상, 경도, 중등도 및 중증으로 분류하였고, 라식수술, 눈 화장, 일일 컴퓨터와 스마트폰 사용시간, 그리고 일일 평균 근무시간을 조사하였다. 작업생산성과 일상활동 관련 설문은 Work Limitation Productivity 설문을 사용하여 손실정도를 10점 척도로 체크하였다. 결과: 사무실의 폼알데하이드 농도는 $42.42{\pm}6.30{\mu}g/m^3$ 이었고, 온습도는 각각 $26.2{\pm}0.7^{\circ}C$와 $40{\pm}1%$ 였다. 안구건조증은 정상, 경도, 중등도 및 중증이 각각 15.2%, 18.2%, 18.2%, 48.5%였다. 안구건조증의 심한 정도와 작업생산성 및 일상적인 활동의 손실 정도는 각각 0.599와 0.655의 높은 상관성을 보였다(p<0.001). 안구건조증이 중증인 경우는 정상에 비해 유의하게 높은 작업생산성 손실과 일상활동 저해를 나타냈다(p<0.001). 안구건조증이 심한 경우는 정상에 비해 작업생산성 손실과 일상활동 저해가 3점 이상일 확률이 각각 3.26배(p=0.032)와 2.25배(p=0.045) 높았다. 결론: 신축건물 사무직 근로자들의 안구건조증은 작업생산성과 일상적인 활동에 영향을 미치는 것을 확인할 수 있었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Hodgson M. Indoor environmental exposure and symptoms. Environ Health Perspec. 2002;110(4):663-667. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.02110s4663
  2. Kjærgaard S, The irritated eye in indoor environment. In: Spengler JD, Samet JM and McCarthy JF. (eds) Indoor air quality handbook, New York, McGraw-Hill. 2000;17.1-17.15.
  3. Peder W. Healthy eye in office-like environments. Environment International. 2008;34:1204-1214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2008.04.005
  4. Kim WJ, Kim SD, Kim HJ, Kim HH. Impact of indoor air quality on the eye conditions of occupants in newly-built University building. J Korean Ophthalmic Opt Soc. 2011; 16(2):201-207.
  5. Paulsen AJ, Cruickshanks KJ, Fischer ME, Huang GH, Klein BE, Ronald K, et al. Dry eye in the Beaver Dam Offspring Study: prevalence, risk factors, and health-related quality of life. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;157:799-806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2013.12.023
  6. The definition and classfication of dry eye disease: report of the Definition and Classfication Subcommittee of the International Dry Eye Workshop (2007). Ocul Surf. 2007;5:75-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1542-0124(12)70081-2
  7. Schiffman RM, Walt JG, Jacobsen G, Doyle JJ, Lebovics G, Sumner W. Utility assessment among patients with dry eye diasease. Ophthalmology. 2003;110(7):1412-1419. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0161-6420(03)00462-7
  8. Patel VD, Watanabe JH, Strauss JA, Dubey AT. Work productivity loss in patients with dry eye disease: an online surgey. Current Medical Research and Opinion. 2011; 27(5):1041-1048. https://doi.org/10.1185/03007995.2011.566264
  9. Miller KL, Walt JG, Mink DR, Satram-Hoang S, Wilson SE, Perry HD, et al. Minimal clinically important difference for the ocular surface disease index. Arch Ophtlalmol. 2010;128:94-101. https://doi.org/10.1001/archophthalmol.2009.356
  10. Sim J, Kim HH, Lee YW, Lim YW, Park JH, Kim KJ, et al. Relationship between the prevalence of allergic rhinitis and ocular symptoms for children in new built school. J Korean Ophthalmic Opt Soc. 2012;17(4):457-467.
  11. Kim DP, Lee KJ, Eom JH, Choi SM, Doo HY, Park MJ, et al. Ocular symptoms of contact lens wearers identified by a dry eye survey. Korean J Vis Sci. 2011;13(3):213-223.
  12. Reilly MC, Zbrozek AS, Dukes EM. The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument. Pharmacoeconomics. 1993;4:353-365. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199304050-00006
  13. Yun CM, Kang SY, Kim HM, Song JS. Prevalence of dry eye disease among university students. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2012;53(4):505-509. https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2012.53.4.505
  14. Brewitt H, Sistani F. Dry eye disease: the scale of the problem. Surv Ophthalmol 2001;45: Suppl 2:S199-902. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0039-6257(00)00202-2
  15. The epidemiology of dry eye disease: report of the Epidemiology Subcommittee of the International Dry Eye Workshop (2007). Ocul Surf 2007;5:93-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1542-0124(12)70082-4
  16. Nakaishi H, Yamada Y. Abnormal tear dynamics and symptoms of eyestrain in operators of visual display terminals. Occup Environ Med 1999;56:6-9. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.56.1.6
  17. Farris RL. The dry eye: its mechanism and therapy, with evidence that contact lens is a cause. CLAO J. 1986;12: 234-246.
  18. Kim DJ, Park MC, Lee SH, Kim HU, Lee HJ, Cha JW. The influence of office indoor air quality dry eye symptom of contact lens wearers. J Korean Ophthalmic Opt Soc. 2012;17(2):215-222.
  19. Lim YW, Yang JY, Kim HH, Lee YG, Kim YS, Kang SK, et al. Health risk assessment in terms of VOC at newlybuilt apartment house. J Korean Soc Indoor Environ. 2006;3:211-23.
  20. Jeong HJ, Lim JS, Oh DK, Chi MJ, Paik HJ, Shyn KH, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of dry eye syndrome in the Incheon area. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2011;52(10): 1135-1141. https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2011.52.10.1135
  21. Uchino M, Uchino Y, Dogru M, Kawashima M, Yokoi N, Komuro A. Dry eye disease and work productivity loss in visual display users: the osaka study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;157:294-300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2013.10.014
  22. Yamada M, Muzuno Y, Shigeyasu C. Impact of dry eye on work productivity. Clinicoconomics and outcomes research. 2012;4:307-312.
  23. Bender JR, Mullin LS, Graepel GJ, Wilson WE. Eye irritation response of humans to formaldehyd. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1983;44(6):463-465. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298668391405139
  24. Chalmers RL, Begley CG, Caffery B. Validation of the 5- item dry eye questionnaire (DEQ-5): Discrimanation across self-assessed severity and aqueous tear deficient dry eye diagnoses. Contact Lens & Anterior Eye. 2010;33:55-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2009.12.010
  25. Schiffman RM, Christianson MD, Jacobeson G, Hirsch JD, Reis BL. Reliability and validity of the Ocular Surface Disease Index. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118:614-621.
  26. Tang K, Beaton DE, Lacaille D, Gignac MA, Bombardier C; Canadian Arthritis Network (CAN) Work Productivity Group. Sensibility of five at-work productivity measures was endorsed by patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(5):546-556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.12.009
  27. Shimmura S, Shimazaki J, Tsubota K. Results of a population- based questionnare on the symptoms and lifestyles associated with dry eye. Cornea. 1999;18:408-411. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003226-199907000-00003
  28. Jeong GH, Chon TY. Study of indoor air quality from the several offices in Busan area. J Korean Soc Environ Analysis. 2006;9(1):7-12.

Cited by

  1. Assessment of Indoor Air Quality and the Eye Symptom of Occupants in Newly-built Office Building after Planting Indoor Plants vol.21, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.14479/jkoos.2016.21.3.265
  2. 한의학 학술지에 게재된 안구건조증에 대한 논문 고찰 vol.31, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.15188/kjopp.2017.04.31.2.94
  3. 신축건물 사무실내 식물 적용의 실내 공기질 및 재실자 건강영향 평가 - 알레르기 비결막염 및 스트레스 관련 증상설문을 중심으로 - vol.43, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.5668/jehs.2017.43.4.334
  4. 안구건조증에 대한 Rg3진센약침의 임상적 효과 6례 보고 vol.39, pp.5, 2014, https://doi.org/10.22246/jikm.2018.39.5.929
  5. 이압요법이 안구건조증에 미치는 효과: 대학생을 대상으로 vol.31, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.15434/kssh.2018.31.3.178
  6. 안구건조증의 뜸 치료에 대한 체계적 문헌 고찰 vol.32, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.6114/jkood.2019.32.1.042
  7. 건성안 증후군 환자에서 인목탕의 유효성 평가를 위한 후향적 관찰연구 vol.27, pp.4, 2019, https://doi.org/10.14374/hfs.2019.27.4.285
  8. 건성안 증후군의 피내침 치료에 대한 임상연구 동향 vol.33, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.6114/jkood.2020.33.2.012
  9. Management of Eye and Vision Symptoms Caused by Online Learning among College Students during COVID-19 Pandemic vol.26, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.14479/jkoos.2021.26.1.73