Background: Wearable inertial sensor technology (WIST) systems provide feedback, aiming to modify aberrant postures and movements. The literature on the effects of feedback from WIST during work or work-related activities has not been previously summarised. This review examines the effectiveness of feedback on upper body kinematics during work or work-related activities, along with the wearability and a quantification of the kinematics of the related device. Methods: The Cinahl, Cochrane, Embase, Medline, Scopus, Sportdiscus and Google Scholar databases were searched, including reports from January 2005 to July 2021. The included studies were summarised descriptively and the evidence was assessed. Results: Fourteen included studies demonstrated a ‘limited’ level of evidence supporting posture and/or movement behaviour improvements using WIST feedback, with no improvements in pain. One study assessed wearability and another two investigated comfort. Studies used tri-axial accelerometers or IMU integration (n = 5 studies). Visual and/or vibrotactile feedback was mostly used. Most studies had a risk of bias, lacked detail for methodological reproducibility and displayed inconsistent reporting of sensor technology, with validation provided only in one study. Thus, we have proposed a minimum ‘Technology and Design Checklist’ for reporting. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that WIST may improve posture, though not pain; however, the quality of the studies limits the strength of this conclusion. Wearability evaluations are needed for the translation of WIST outcomes. Minimum reporting standards for WIST should be followed to ensure methodological reproducibility.

Inertial measurement units (IMUs) may provide an objective method for measuring posture during computer use, but research is needed to validate IMUs’ accuracy. We examine the concurrent validity of two different IMU systems in measuring three-dimensional (3D) upper body posture relative to a motion capture system (Mocap) as a potential device to assess postures outside a laboratory environment. We used 3D Mocap and two IMU systems (Wi-Fi and Bluetooth) to capture the upper body posture of twenty-six individuals during three physical computer working conditions (monitor correct, monitor raised, and laptop). Coefficient of determination (R²) and root-mean-square error (RMSE) compared IMUs to Mocap. Head/neck segment [HN], upper trunk segment [UTS], and joint angle [HN-UTS] were the primary variables. Wi-Fi IMUs demonstrated high validity for HN and UTS (sagittal plane) and HN-UTS (frontal plane) for all conditions, and for HN rotation movements (both for the monitor correct and monitor raised conditions), others moderate to poor. Bluetooth IMUs for HN, and UTS (sagittal plane) for the monitor correct, laptop, and monitor raised conditions were moderate. Frontal plane movements except UTS (monitor correct and laptop) and all rotation had poor validity. Both IMU systems were affected by gyroscopic drift with sporadic data loss in Bluetooth IMUs. Wi-Fi IMUs had more acceptable accuracy when measuring upper body posture during computer use compared to Mocap, except for trunk rotations. Variation in IMU systems’ performance suggests validation in the task-specific movement(s) is essential.