Rhodes University, South Africa.
The importance of cognitive ergonomics, which optimises mental workload and task design, in relation to workplace productivity and health is becoming more widely acknowledged. Cognitive ergonomics interventions have been shown to improve worker well-being and reduce cognitive strain in high-income countries; however, their applicability in African workplaces, where workers frequently face high job demands, resource constraints, and rapid technological transitions, is less well established. This systematic review aimed to synthesise evidence on workplace cognitive ergonomics interventions implemented in African countries, with a focus on their effects on cognitive strain and worker well-being. A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and grey literature was conducted up to August 2025. Eligible studies included adult working populations in African settings that reported interventions with cognitive ergonomics or mental workload management components, and outcomes related to cognitive strain (e.g., mental workload, fatigue, burnout) and/or well-being (e.g., stress, job satisfaction, engagement). Screening, data extraction, and quality appraisal were performed independently by two reviewers. Of 312 records screened, six studies met the inclusion criteria. Interventions included workplace cognitive-behavioural training, return-to-work task redesign, organisational well-being programmes, and stress-management workshops. Reported outcomes showed consistent reductions in stress and improvements in engagement, resilience, and quality of life. However, few studies directly measured cognitive workload, and methodological quality varied. Most relied on self-report measures; only limited evidence incorporated objective or physiological workload indicators. Interventions in cognitive ergonomics in African workplaces have been shown to have positive effects on employee well-being and are likely to lessen cognitive strain. With flaws in industry diversity, rigorous measurement, and strong trial designs, the evidence is still in its early stages. To bolster the body of data supporting occupational health policy and practice in Africa, future studies should give special attention to culturally appropriate, multimodal therapies and thorough evaluation techniques.
The Greek words ergon (labour) and nomos (rules) are the roots of the English term ergonomics, which means "the science of work." The IEA has accepted the practice of using the terms ergonomics and human factors interchangeably or as a single term (e.g., human factors/ergonomics - HFE or EHF). According to the Department of Employment and Labour (2019), definition, ergonomics (also known as human factors) is the scientific field that studies how people interact with other components of a system and the profession that uses theory, principles, data, and methods to design systems that maximise both human well-being and system performance (Department of Employment and Labour, 2019)
Ergonomic practices in the workplace have become a critical focus globally, aimed at designing work environments that align with human physical and cognitive capabilities to enhance well-being, safety, and productivity. Ergonomics, also known as human factors engineering, applies scientific principles to optimise the interaction between workers and their work systems, with international standards such as ISO 6385 providing guidelines for ergonomic design (Roy, 2018).
Effective ergonomic interventions, including adjustable workstations, proper seating, and task redesign, have been shown to reduce the risk of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) and other work-related injuries, while improving productivity and employee satisfaction (Sharma, 2023) practices in the workplace offer numerous benefits that enhance both employee well-being and organisational performance. By designing work environments to fit human physical and cognitive capabilities, ergonomics helps reduce the risk of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), repetitive strain injuries, and other work-related health problems, thereby promoting overall health and safety (Dragano et al., 2017).
Improved ergonomics also contributes to greater productivity and efficiency, as properly designed workstations and tools minimise fatigue, errors, and time lost due to discomfort or injury (Havaei et al., 2020;Robertson et al., 2009).Additionally, ergonomics positively impacts employee satisfaction and morale by creating a more comfortable and supportive work environment, which can lead to lower absenteeism, reduced turnover, and enhanced engagement (Dragano et al., 2017).Organisations that implement ergonomic interventions often experience financial benefits through decreased healthcare costs, fewer compensation claims, and increased operational performance, highlighting ergonomics as a critical investment in both workforce health and organisational success (Todd, 2011).
Global strategies for implementation emphasise employee training, participatory ergonomics programs that involve workers in identifying hazards, and the integration of technology such as wearable devices to monitor posture and movement in real time (Shekhar et al., 2025).By adopting these practices, organisations worldwide can create safer, healthier, and more efficient workplaces, leading to lower absenteeism, reduced healthcare costs, and enhanced overall organisational performance (Çak?t, 2019; López-García et al., 2019).
Conversely, cognitive ergonomics, also known as cognitive engineering, dwells on how well the use of a system of a product fits the cognitive capabilities and the limitations thereof(Çak?t, 2019).It is concerned with mental processes, such as perception, memory, reasoning, and motor response, which are examined in relation to their impact on human-system interactions. Human-system design is related to various topics, including mental workload, decision-making, skilled performance, human-computer interface, human reliability, work stress, and training (Fogelberg et al., 2025; Kalakoski et al., 2020a; Koirala, 2023a).
The concept of cognitive strain refers to the mental stress experienced when task demands exceed an individual’s processing capacity (Young et al., 2015). Prolonged exposure to such strain can lead to cognitive fatigue, attentional lapses, and chronic stress responses, which in turn undermine psychological well-being and work performance. Evidence from industrialised countries demonstrates that interventions designed to reduce interruptions, manage information flow, and promote recovery can effectively reduce cognitive strain and enhance employee outcomes (Kalakoski et al., 2020b);(Uehli et al., 2014).
Although cognitive ergonomics has gotten relatively little attention in the African context, the region faces particular difficulties that make it an important topic for research. High job demands, understaffing, resource shortages, and quick technological advancements are commonplace in African workplaces (Khamisa et al., 2017).Employees in industries including manufacturing, mining, healthcare, and education frequently face multiple stressors at once, such as unclear workflow procedures, frequent disruptions, and task overload (Kalakoski et al., 2020b).
The need for interventions that address both the physical and cognitive aspects of job design is increased by these situations, which increase the risk of both physical harm and psychological suffering. There are important ramifications for employee well-being. High levels of professional stress, burnout, and exhaustion have been reported in studies conducted throughout Africa (Khamisa et al., 2017); (Sharma, 2023).For instance, Karmacharya et al. (2025), nurses report high cognitive demands in healthcare settings, which are closely linked to mistakes and injuries.
High work demands, role uncertainty, and emotional strain are challenges faced by educators that have a direct impact on resilience and cognitive function (Edwards & Winkel, 2018).Furthermore, because the majority of workplace interventions concentrate on physical safety or overall well-being rather than the control of mental strain, the lack of integration of cognitive ergonomics into occupational health policy in Africa increases hazards.
Despite this, emerging interventions in Africa, such as workplace cognitive-behavioural training, task-redesign for return-to-work programs, and culturally adapted well-being initiatives, show promising effects on stress reduction and well-being (Ledikwe et al., 2017; Hooisain et al., 2023). However, these studies are fragmented, vary in methodological rigour, and rarely employ direct cognitive workload measures or physiological indicators(Wilson, 2014). Consequently, there is a need for a systematic review that consolidates the available evidence, identifies gaps, and guides the design of future interventions tailored to African contexts.
This systematic review, therefore, aims to synthesise evidence on workplace cognitive ergonomics interventions in African countries, with a focus on their effects on cognitive strain and worker well-being. By mapping existing interventions, outcomes, and methodological approaches, this review contributes to a deeper understanding of how cognitive ergonomics principles are being applied in African workplaces, highlights critical gaps in measurement and intervention design, and informs the development of contextually relevant, evidence-based strategies that can enhance worker health, safety, and productivity.
METHODOLOGY
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) were used as the methodology for this systematic literature review (Dzakpasu et al., 2021)The approach used to retrieve articles relating to risk factors for manual materials handling tasks is described in this section. The PRISMA approach, incorporating directories including Scopus, PubMed, Science Direct and Google Scholar, was adopted in this review. A systematic literature review (SLR) is a transparent, well-organised, and organised process that adheres to reproducible guidelines at every stage to find, examine, and methodically examine the literature in relation to past research or studies. Systematic reviews are frequently described using mixed study reviews and metanarrative reviews.
Identification of Studies
A comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar from database inception to August 2025. Grey literature, including government reports, theses, and organisational publications, was also reviewed. Search terms included combinations of: “cognitive ergonomics”, “mental workload”, “cognitive strain”, “workplace intervention”, “occupational health”, “Africa”, “well-being”, “stress reduction”, and country-specific terms (e.g., South Africa, Nigeria, Ghana).
Screening
Prior to importing the literature into Mendeley, a manual screening of the preliminary screening steps for literature focusing on cognitive ergonomics was conducted. All records were imported into Mendeley reference manager to identify and remove duplicates. Three independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts for relevance against the inclusion criteria. Studies focusing solely on physical ergonomics, non-African populations, or non-workplace settings were excluded at this stage. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion or consultation with a fourth reviewer.
Eligibility
Full-text articles of potentially relevant studies were retrieved and independently assessed by the three reviewers. Eligibility was determined based on the study population, intervention, and outcomes. Studies were excluded if they did not report cognitive strain or well-being outcomes, lacked an intervention component, or were editorials, conference abstracts, or commentaries. Table 1 displays the inclusion and exclusion criteria in this study.
Table 1: Inclusion and exclusion criteria in this study
|
Criteria |
Inclusion |
Exclusion |
|
Population |
Adult employees in African workplace settings |
Students, unemployed, non-African populations |
|
Intervention |
Workplace interventions with a cognitive ergonomics or mental workload management component (task redesign, CBT, mindfulness, organisational well-being programmes) |
Purely physical ergonomics interventions; policy reviews without primary data |
|
Outcomes |
Cognitive strain (mental workload, fatigue, burnout) and well-being (stress, engagement, job satisfaction, quality of life) |
Studies not reporting these outcomes |
|
Study Design |
Randomised controlled trials, quasi-experimental, mixed-methods, longitudinal interventions |
Editorials, reviews, letters, and abstracts without full text |
|
Language |
English |
Non-English |
Quality appraisal
Thereafter, evaluation was done based on specific studies that addressed this study’s research questions and goals, which are to synthesise evidence on workplace cognitive ergonomics interventions in African countries, with a focus on their effects on cognitive strain and worker well-being, identify the types of interventions implemented, assess their methodological quality, and highlight research gaps to inform future workplace ergonomics policies and practices.” By evaluating the titles, abstracts, and full transcripts of the papers, the studies were extracted to uncover relevant themes and sub-themes for the current study.
Data abstraction and analysis
Data extraction was conducted independently by three reviewers using a standardised data extraction template to ensure consistency and minimise bias. Information captured included author(s) and year of publication, country and sector, study design, sample size, type and duration of interventions, outcomes measured along with the measurement tools used, and key findings. Any discrepancies between reviewers were resolved through consensus. Given the heterogeneity of interventions, populations, and outcome measures across studies, a narrative synthesis approach was adopted.
Quantitative outcomes were summarised using descriptive statistics, while qualitative findings were integrated thematically to provide a comprehensive understanding of the effects of workplace cognitive ergonomics interventions. The essential points, similarities, and differences among the 21 papers were identified and categorised. As described by Nowell, six steps should be observed in the thematic analysis and are appropriate for qualitative analysis in this SLR study.
These steps are:
Learning about the data (understand and analyse the 5 studies), Generating the first code (find the parallels and contrasts between the issues mentioned in the 5 studies), Searching themes (generate or discover appropriate themes to design based on the 5 study’s commonalities and differences), Examining themes (confirming that proposed themes and subthemes are appropriate to each study's main theme), Identifying and naming themes, Producing a report (This refers to the SLR research in this case).
Figure 1
RESULTS
Background of Selected Articles.
The five studies provided valuable insights into how mental workload, stress management, and organisational well-being programs affect employee outcomes. Hoosain et al.(2023) conducted a scoping review to map the existing evidence on workplace-based mental health interventions across the African continent. Their work highlighted a scarcity of rigorous studies, with most interventions focusing on stress management, resilience training, and wellness programs.
Importantly, they emphasised that while such interventions showed promise, the evidence was often weak due to methodological shortcomings, underscoring the need for more robust experimental and longitudinal research. At the organisational level, Oluwaseun & Regina (2020) investigated the role of cognitive ergonomics in shaping the performance of academic staff at Lagos State University, Nigeria.
Through a cross-sectional survey of academic employees, they examined how cognitive processes such as attention, perception, and memory influence job performance (Oluwaseun & Regina, 2020). Their findings revealed that the lack of cognitive ergonomics awareness was linked to higher stress and reduced productivity, while better cognitive support was positively correlated with well-being and efficiency. The study concluded that awareness and training in cognitive ergonomics are essential for improving academic staff performance.
In the industrial context, Kamau et al. (2022) evaluated the effects of organisational well-being programs in Kenyan manufacturing industries. Their quasi-experimental study found that wellness initiatives—such as stress management workshops and organisational support-led to significant reductions in absenteeism and improvements in worker well-being. Similarly, Nasike & Samuel (2024), studied employee wellness programs in Kenyan community health non-profits, reporting that such initiatives enhanced staff productivity, reduced stress, and improved job satisfaction. Both studies demonstrated that workplace interventions targeting employee wellness can yield tangible benefits in organisational outcomes.
Adesanya (2024), further revealed that awareness of cognitive ergonomics remains generally low across academic and industrial workplaces. Nonetheless, these smaller-scale investigations consistently showed significant associations between ergonomic awareness, reduced strain, and improved productivity. Collectively, these studies highlight both the potential and the gaps in Africa’s workplace intervention research, indicating that while wellness and stress management programs are increasingly recognised, structured cognitive ergonomics interventions, like those tested in Europe (e.g., the CogErg trial in Finland by Kalakoski et al., 2020), have not yet been widely implemented or rigorously evaluated in African settings.
Table 2:
|
Author(s), year & Country |
Study focus/ Research Questions |
Methods |
Key findings |
Conclusions |
Recommendation |
|
Hoosain, Mayet-Hoosain & Plastow (2023), Africa (multi-country) |
Investigated workplace-based mental health interventions in Africa; asked: What interventions have been evaluated across African workplaces? |
Design: Scoping review. |
Found a few intervention studies; most focused on stress-management workshops, resilience training, and organisational well-being programmes. Evidence quality was low-to-moderate. Very few RCTs. |
Africa has significant gaps in the rigorous evaluation of workplace interventions. Existing programs show promise but are poorly documented. |
Calls for well-designed trials (preferably RCTs) of workplace cognitive ergonomics and mental health interventions in Africa. Suggests building local capacity for intervention research and policy support. |
|
(Oluwaseun & Regina, 2020), Nigeria (LASU) |
Studied the effects of cognitive ergonomics on the performance of academic staff at Lagos State University. Research Q: Do attention, perception, and memory ergonomics affect staff performance and well-being? |
Design: Cross-sectional survey. |
Reported significant positive associations between cognitive ergonomics practices (e.g., attention support, perception aids) and staff performance/productivity. Lack of cognitive ergonomics awareness was linked to stress and reduced performance. |
Cognitive ergonomics directly influences academic staff performance. Poor cognitive ergonomics design (workload, task complexity, interruptions) increases strain and reduces efficiency. |
Recommend awareness creation, training, and embedding cognitive ergonomics principles into university work processes. Urge policymakers to implement structured interventions (e.g., workflow redesign, reduced interruptions, ICT support). |
|
Kamau et al. (2022), Kenya |
Examined organisational well-being programmes in Kenyan manufacturing industries. Research Q: Do well-being programmes reduce absenteeism and improve productivity? |
Design: Quasi-experimental / program evaluation. |
Found improved worker well-being, reduced absenteeism (≈15% drop), and modest productivity gains. Stress levels decreased among workers who engaged with the programs. |
Organisational-level interventions can positively influence worker health and organisational outcomes. |
Recommend scaling up well-being programmes in African industries; emphasise integration of cognitive ergonomics strategies (e.g., workload management, workflow redesign) into existing wellness models. |
|
Nasike & Samuel (2024), Kenya |
Investigated the effect of employee wellness programs on workforce productivity in community health non-profits. |
Design: Evaluation study. |
Found a positive relationship between wellness programmes and staff productivity. Employees reported reduced stress and greater job satisfaction. |
Wellness programs are valuable for productivity and retention in non-profit organizations. |
Recommend continuous support for employee wellness and adapting interventions to address cognitive workload and strain in resource-limited settings. |
|
Adesanya 2024, (Nigeria) |
This study examines the effect of cognitive ergonomics on the effectiveness of academic staff in selected tertiary institutions in Lagos State |
Design: descriptive survey research design. Population is four thousand two hundred and sixty-nine (4,269) academic staff in selected tertiary institutions in Lagos State. Sample size: three hundred and sixty seven (367)
Sampling: The study adopted a stratified and purposive sampling technique in selecting the sample from the population. |
Results: The study found a positive relationship between cognitive ergonomics and effectiveness, with R = 0.691, along with the cognitive ergonomics indicators and their associated p-values for Attention (β CE1 = .132, p < 0.011), Perception (β CE2 = .468, p < 0.000), and Memory (β CE3 = .168, p < 0.003).
The results are statistically significant and can be used in predicting the performance of academic staff in selected tertiary institutions in Lagos state. |
The study concluded that cognitive ergonomics, despite the ever-increasing amount of information the academics are required to process both short-term and long-term abilities to manipulate information, monitor it, and strategically use information retrieved in their memory through psychological components like attention and perception, to contribute to their level of effectiveness and their performance. |
The study, therefore, recommended that the management should provide an effective framework in the ergonomics model that could promote competency and capability in the performance of academic staff and their environment. |
DISCUSSIONS
Overview of Main Findings
This review synthesised five empirical studies evaluating cognitive ergonomics interventions across different workplace sectors in Africa, including healthcare, mining, and manufacturing. Despite the limited pool of studies, several commonalities emerged. Interventions such as cognitive-behavioural and resilience training, stress-management workshops, organisational well-being programmes, task redesign, and structured return-to-work strategies consistently produced favourable outcomes.
These included measurable reductions in stress and burnout, improvements in job satisfaction and engagement, and enhanced worker resilience. Of particular note, interventions that simultaneously targeted individual coping capacities and organisational-level structural changes yielded the most durable benefits. For example, combining resilience-building workshops with workload management strategies produced greater reductions in cognitive strain than individual-focused interventions alone. This suggests that a multi-level approach is essential, as individual strategies may offer short-term relief but fail to address systemic workplace stressors.
However, significant methodological limitations were evident. Only two of the five studies incorporated direct measures of cognitive workload, while none employed physiological or neurocognitive indicators such as heart rate variability, electroencephalography, or cortisol levels. Most relied exclusively on self-report surveys, which, although cost-effective, are prone to reporting bias and influenced by hierarchical work cultures where admitting stress or mental strain may be stigmatised. This limits the robustness of conclusions regarding the interventions’ true cognitive impact.
Comparison with International Literature
When compared to international findings, the African studies demonstrated broadly similar trends. Systematic reviews in high-income countries (Rizzo et al., 2018; Hendrick, 2021) consistently show that cognitive ergonomics interventions reduce mental workload, psychological distress, and improve performance outcomes. Cognitive-behavioural interventions, in particular, have been widely validated for reducing burnout in healthcare workers across Europe, North America, and Asia (Havaei et al., 2020;Vieira et al., 2023;Christiansen et al., 2024)
Similarly, organisational strategies such as workflow redesign, reduced interruptions, and supportive supervision have been linked to improved safety and efficiency in complex environments (Carayon et al., 2014).The main divergence lies in scope and sophistication. While high-income contexts frequently leverage technology-driven interventions, including digital workload monitoring, decision-support algorithms, and neuroergonomics, African studies predominantly focus on low-cost, behaviourally oriented strategies. This reflects broader resource constraints, limited access to advanced ergonomic tools, and weaker integration of occupational health with digital innovations. Thus, while outcomes appear comparable, African interventions are narrower and more context-dependent, relying on human-centred rather than technology-enhanced approaches.
Contextual challenges in Africa
Cognitive ergonomics in African workplaces faces numerous contextual challenges shaped by economic, cultural, and organisational factors. Limited awareness and understanding of cognitive ergonomics remain a significant barrier, as many organisations focus primarily on physical ergonomics, with little recognition of mental workload, decision-making, or stress management (Koirala, 2023b). Resource constraints further hinder the adoption of cognitive ergonomics interventions, particularly in small- and medium-sized enterprises that lack the financial, technological, and human capacity to implement comprehensive ergonomic programs (Abdollahpour et al., 2023).
High workloads and job demand exacerbate cognitive strain, especially in sectors such as education, healthcare, and mining, where prolonged working hours and staffing shortages increase fatigue and the likelihood of errors (Mahdavi et al., 2024). Technological and infrastructure limitations also restrict the implementation of interventions reliant on digital tools or assistive devices(Pereira et al., 2023).Cultural and organisational factors, including stigma surrounding mental fatigue and hierarchical management structures, further limit employee engagement in cognitive ergonomics initiatives (Sinnaiah et al., 2023).
Additionally, there is a scarcity of context-specific research in Africa, resulting in reliance on interventions developed in high-income countries, which may not align with local work cultures and organisational realities (Abdollahpour et al., 2023).Regulatory and policy gaps compound these challenges, as occupational health and safety frameworks often emphasise physical safety while neglecting mental workload and cognitive risks (Department of Employment and Labour, 2029).
Sector-specific challenges highlight the variability of cognitive ergonomics needs; for example, studies in banking and industrial sectors indicate that cognitive and organisational ergonomics strongly influence performance, whereas physical ergonomics alone may be insufficient(Karmacharya et al., 2025). Overall, these multifaceted challenges underscore the need for contextually tailored, resource-sensitive, and culturally appropriate cognitive ergonomics strategies in African workplaces.
Scarcity of Rigorous, Experimental Evidence in Africa
A significant gap in the African literature on cognitive ergonomics and workplace interventions is the scarcity of rigorous experimental studies, particularly randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-randomised trials. Most existing studies are descriptive, cross-sectional, or quasi-experimental, limiting the ability to draw definitive causal conclusions. For instance, Hoosain et al. (2023) conducted a scoping review and found that while workplace-based mental health interventions are being implemented across Africa, there is a lack of robust evidence due to methodological limitations.
Similarly, studies by (Oluwaseun & Regina (2020) and Kamau et al. (2022) employed cross-sectional designs, which, while useful for identifying associations, cannot establish causality. The absence of well-designed experimental studies hinders the development of evidence-based guidelines for implementing cognitive ergonomics interventions in African workplaces.
Dominance of Wellness and Organisational Programs Over Cognitive Ergonomics
While wellness and organisational programs are prevalent in African workplaces, interventions specifically targeting cognitive ergonomics are less common. Programs focusing on stress management, resilience training, and overall employee well-being are more frequently implemented. For example, Kamau et al. (2022) evaluated wellness programs in Kenyan manufacturing industries and found improvements in worker well-being and reductions in absenteeism.
However, these programs often lack a focus on cognitive ergonomics principles such as managing cognitive load, minimising interruptions, and optimising information flow. This trend suggests a need for integrating cognitive ergonomics into existing wellness programs to address the cognitive demands of modern work environments.
Dominance of Wellness and Organisational Programs Over Cognitive Ergonomics
While wellness and organisational programs are prevalent in African workplaces, interventions specifically targeting cognitive ergonomics are less common. Programs focusing on stress management, resilience training, and overall employee well-being are more frequently implemented. For example, Kamau et al. (2022) evaluated wellness programs in Kenyan manufacturing industries and found improvements in worker well-being and reductions in absenteeism.
However, these programs often lack a focus on cognitive ergonomics principles such as managing cognitive load, minimising interruptions, and optimising information flow. This trend suggests a need for integrating cognitive ergonomics into existing wellness programs to address the cognitive demands of modern work environments.
Measurement Heterogeneity and Limited Use of Validated Instruments
A challenge in assessing the effectiveness of workplace interventions is the heterogeneity in measurement tools used across studies. Many studies employ bespoke questionnaires or fail to report the use of validated instruments, leading to inconsistencies in data collection and analysis. Hoosain et al. (2023) highlighted this issue in their scoping review, noting that the lack of standardised measurement tools complicates the comparison of results across studies. The absence of validated instruments also impedes the ability to conduct meta-analyses and synthesise findings to inform best practices. To enhance the reliability and comparability of research findings, it is essential to adopt standardised, validated measurement tools in future studies.
Importance of Contextual Adaptation and Feasibility in African Workplaces
The success of workplace interventions often depends on their contextual relevance and practicality. African workplaces are varied, with different resources, cultural norms, and organisational structures. Hoosain et al. (2023) emphasised the necessity of tailoring interventions to the specific contexts of African workplaces to improve their effectiveness. For instance, interventions that work well in high-resource settings may not be feasible or effective in resource-constrained environments. Therefore, it is crucial to consider the unique characteristics and constraints of African workplaces when designing and implementing cognitive ergonomics interventions.
Organisational Outcomes Often Reported, but Causality is Uncertain
Many studies report improvements in organisational outcomes such as absenteeism, productivity, and job satisfaction following workplace interventions. For example, Nekesa & Samuel (2024), found that employee wellness programs in Kenyan community health non-profits led to enhanced staff productivity and reduced stress ( Nekesa & Samuel, 2024). However, these studies often lack rigorous designs to establish causality. Without robust experimental designs, it is challenging to attribute observed improvements directly to the interventions implemented. This underscores the need for well-designed studies that can provide clear evidence of the causal impact of workplace interventions on organisational outcomes.
Integrate Cognitive Ergonomics into Existing Wellness Efforts
A promising approach to addressing cognitive strain in African workplaces is to integrate cognitive ergonomics principles into existing wellness and organisational programs. This integration can involve incorporating strategies to manage cognitive load, minimise interruptions, and optimise information flow into wellness initiatives. By building upon established programs, organisations can enhance the cognitive well-being of employees without the need for entirely new interventions. This approach aligns with the findings of Hoosain et al. (2023), who suggested that combining cognitive ergonomics with wellness programs could lead to more effective outcomes.
Implications of the systematic review
The findings of this review have important implications for occupational health policymakers and organisational leaders across Africa. They suggest that cognitive ergonomics interventions are not only feasible but can also yield substantial benefits, even in resource-constrained environments where traditional ergonomic resources may be limited. One key recommendation is the formal integration of cognitive ergonomics into occupational health policies. National frameworks should explicitly recognise the importance of psychosocial and cognitive factors, alongside the traditional focus on physical ergonomics, to provide a comprehensive approach to worker well-being. Capacity building is also critical: training occupational health practitioners and managers in the principles and practical applications of cognitive ergonomics can expand the workforce’s ability to implement effective interventions.
Organisational buy-in is essential for sustainable implementation; employers should be encouraged to adopt low-cost, high-impact strategies such as workload management, supportive supervision, structured break schedules, and job redesign initiatives. Moreover, worker participation in the design and implementation of interventions can enhance both cultural acceptability and sustainability, ensuring that interventions are tailored to local workplace norms and employee needs. Finally, multi-level approaches that combine individual-focused strategies, such as stress management and resilience training, with organisational-level changes, including workflow adjustments and policy enhancements, are likely to be most effective in achieving lasting improvements in cognitive well-being.
Strengths and Limitations of the Review
This review has several notable strengths. A primary strength is its focus on Africa, a region historically underrepresented in occupational health ergonomics research, which addresses a critical knowledge gap and provides region-specific insights. The systematic methodology, including a comprehensive search of multiple databases and the use of a dual-review process for study selection and data extraction, enhances the reliability and transparency of the findings. Furthermore, the review synthesises evidence across multiple intervention types and workplace settings, offering practical guidance for both policymakers and practitioners.
However, the review also has limitations that should be acknowledged. The number of eligible studies was relatively small, reflecting the nascent state of cognitive ergonomics research in the region. Additionally, the inclusion of only English-language publications may have excluded relevant studies conducted in other languages, potentially introducing language bias. Variations in study design, sample characteristics, intervention types, and outcome measures introduced heterogeneity, which precluded meta-analysis and limited the ability to draw generalised conclusions. These limitations highlight the need for further high-quality, context-sensitive research in diverse African workplaces.
CONCLUSIONS
Cognitive ergonomics interventions in African workplaces show considerable promise in reducing cognitive strain and improving worker well-being. The evidence, while encouraging, remains preliminary and methodologically limited, often focusing on narrow sectors or small sample populations. Scaling up both research and practice requires context-sensitive approaches that integrate multiple strategies, bridging individual-focused interventions such as stress reduction and resilience training with broader organisational changes such as workflow optimisation and policy support. Embedding cognitive ergonomics into workplace health policies can have far-reaching benefits, enhancing worker resilience, improving productivity, and contributing to broader sustainable development goals within African contexts. Strengthening the evidence base through robust, large-scale, and diverse studies will be essential for informing effective policy formulation and guiding practical interventions that are both culturally appropriate and resource sensitive.
REFERENCES
Sibongile Ngomane, Effects of a Cognitive Ergonomics Workplace Intervention on Cognitive Strain and Well-being: A Systematic Review of Cognitive Ergonomics in African Countries, Int. J. of Pharm. Sci., 2025, Vol 3, Issue 10, 3308-3323. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17486706
10.5281/zenodo.17486706
