OBJECTIVE. We described the frequency and distribution of keyboard users’ potentially risky postural behaviors. METHOD. Forty-three participants’ keyboard postural behaviors were rated with the Keyboard–Personal Computer Style instrument (Baker & Redfern, 2005). The frequency and distribution of keyboard postural behaviors and the associations and differences between the right and left sides were assessed. RESULTS. Generally, each static posture had one criterion that occurred frequently, whereas dynamic postures were distributed throughout the criteria. The right and left sides were significantly associated for shoulder flexion, elbow flexion, hand displacement, wrist extension, forearm rotation, isolated fifth digit, metacarpophalangeal hyperextension, and wrist support use and significantly different for hand displacement, isolated thumb, number of digits, and metacarpophalangeal hyperextension. CONCLUSION. Potentially problematic postural behaviors are common among keyboard users. Our results suggest that occupational therapists must systematically assess postures on both the right and the left sides to develop the most effective intervention strategies.

The growth of computer keyboard use in the workplace is believed to be one important determinant of the increased prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders of the upper extremity (MSD-UE). One possible contributing factor to the development of MSD-UE is the flat standard keyboard, which places the forearm and wrist in biomechanically awkward postures. This meta-analysis examines the efficacy of three alternative keyboard designs, adjustable slope (AS), split fixed-angle (FA), and adjustable open-tented (AT), in reducing forearm pronation, wrist extension, and ulnar deviation. Analyses of pooled effect size from six studies indicated that the AT had a large effect on pronation (r = 0.85) and ulnar deviation whereas the FA had a large effect only on ulnar deviation (r = 0.79). The AS was found to have a large effect (r = 0.66) on wrist extension. The FA had a moderate effect on pronation (r = 0.33) and wrist extension (r = 0.30). None of these keyboards were found to have a significant effect on all three postures. This meta-analysis has implications for clinicians by providing objective information that may assist with the selection of an alternative keyboard that best reduces an identified problematic posture.