Wearable devices are pervasive solutions for increasing work efficiency, improving workers’ well-being, and creating interactions between users and the environment anytime and anywhere. Although several studies on their use in various fields have been performed, there are no systematic reviews on their utilisation in ergonomics. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to identify wearable devices proposed in the scientific literature for ergonomic purposes and analyse how they can support the improvement of ergonomic conditions. Twenty-eight papers were retrieved and analysed thanks to eleven comparison dimensions related to ergonomic factors, purposes, and criteria, populations, application and validation. The majority of the available devices are sensor systems composed of different types and numbers of sensors located in diverse body parts. These solutions also represent the technology most frequently employed for monitoring and reducing the risk of awkward postures. In addition, smartwatches, body-mounted smartphones, insole pressure systems, and vibrotactile feedback interfaces have been developed for evaluating and/or controlling physical loads or postures. The main results and the defined framework of analysis provide an overview of the state of the art of smart wearables in ergonomics, support the selection of the most suitable ones in industrial and non-industrial settings, and suggest future research directions.

In the last two decades, Quality of Working Life (QWL) has become a core element of the European social model and the European Employment Strategy. “More and better jobs” is a strategic goal promoted within Europe for emphasising the attention in QWL. However, there is a large debate in the literature on the definition of QWL, its dimensions, and consequently on the methods to use for its measurement. To the best of our knowledge, the systematic reviews currently available in the literature on QWL measurement in European organisations investigate only a particular industry and/or working population. Moreover, they do not focus specifically on composite indicators, although they appear promising in facilitating QWL understanding and comparisons for supporting decision-makers and policy makers. To overcome these gaps, we conducted a systematic review to identify composite indicators for measuring QWL in European organisations. The review returned 19 studies that are analysed based on a set of factors related to QWL locutions, index name, geographical area, industry or population, level of analysis, dimensions, type of data, inputs, outputs, and test and/or validation. The results highlight a significant heterogeneity among the indicators, confirming the lack of an agreed upon QWL composite indicator for Europe. Such heterogeneity concerns also QWL dimensions. A critical comparison of the different composite indicators is provided, along with a unifying proposal of QWL macro-dimensions. Several gaps in the literature are pointed out suggesting directions for future research.