AccScience Publishing / JCBP / Online First / DOI: 10.36922/JCBP025400078
ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE

Psychosocial risk factors and musculoskeletal symptoms in microwork: Work–family conflict, stress, and job satisfaction

Carlos Manoel Lopes Rodrigues1,2* Gentil Lopes Ribeiro Filho2
Show Less
1 Department of Psychology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University Center of Brasília, Brasília, Brazil
2 Department of Clinical Psychology, Institute of Psychology, University of Brasília, Brasília, Brazil
Received: 1 October 2025 | Revised: 7 November 2025 | Accepted: 27 November 2025 | Published online: 12 December 2025
© 2025 by the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ )
Abstract

Microwork, a form of digital labor mediated through platforms, is marked by precarious conditions such as low pay, long hours, and a lack of social protection. Although research has highlighted its psychosocial risks, little is known about its psychosomatic consequences. This study examines the relationships between work–family conflict, perceived stress, job satisfaction, and musculoskeletal symptoms among 358 Brazilian microworkers. Participants (mean age = 28.15 years, standard deviation = 6.54; 60% women) completed validated measures of work–family conflict, stress, job satisfaction, and musculoskeletal complaints through an online survey conducted in mid-2025. Descriptive statistics revealed long working hours, low income, and high prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms, especially in the neck, shoulders, back, and wrists/hands. Psychometric analyses confirmed adequate reliability and factorial validity of the instruments. Group comparisons showed that women, married participants, and those with children experienced higher levels of conflict, stress, and symptoms, along with lower job satisfaction. Structural equation modeling supported the hypothesized psychosomatic pathway: Work–family conflict was positively associated with stress, which in turn predicted musculoskeletal complaints, while job satisfaction partially mediated these associations. Overall, the findings demonstrate that psychosocial risks in microwork are embodied in somatic symptoms, disproportionately affecting women and individuals with family responsibilities. By situating microwork within a psychosomatic framework, this study highlights the urgent need for interventions that integrate psychosocial risk management and health protection strategies for digital platform workers.

Keywords
Psychosomatic symptoms
Musculoskeletal pain
Microwork
Work–family conflict
Perceived stress
Job satisfaction
Precarious work
Funding
None.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
References
  1. Braz MV, Tubaro P, Casilli AA. Microwork in Brazil: Who are the Workers Behind Artificial Intelligence? DiPLab and LATRAPS Research Report; 2023. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31149.46567
  2. Tubaro P. Décrypter la Société des Plateformes: Organisations, Marchés et Réseaux dans l’économie Numérique [Deciphering the platform society: Organizations, markets and networks in the digital economy]. Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Paris; 2019. Available from: https://hal.science/tel-04547405v1 [Last accessed on 2025 Sep 08]. [In French]
  3. Abilio LC. Uberización: De la iniciativa empresarial a la autogestión subordinada. Psicoperspectivas. 2019;18(3):e1674. doi: 10.5027/psicoperspectivas-Vol18-Issue3-fulltext-1674
  4. Bucher E, Fieseler C, Lutz C, Buhmann A. Professionals, purpose-seekers, and passers-through: How microworkers reconcile alienation and platform commitment through identity work. New Media Soc. 2024;26(1):190-215. doi: 10.1177/14614448211056863
  5. Ravenelle AJ. “We’re not uber:” Control, autonomy, and entrepreneurship in the gig economy. J Manag Psychol. 2019;34(4):269-285. doi: 10.1108/JMP-06-2018-0256
  6. Duke B. Future workers short-changed: The societal transformation of the global employment landscape from secure permanent work to the gig economy and precarity. Text. 2023;5(1):1-13.
  7. Vallas S, Schor JB. What do platforms do? Understanding the gig economy. Annu Rev Sociol. 2020;46(1):273-294. doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054857
  8. Webster J. Microworkers of the gig economy: Separate and precarious. New Labor Forum. 2016;25(3):56-64. doi: 10.1177/1095796016661511
  9. Van Der Molen HF, Nieuwenhuijsen K, Frings-Dresen MHW, De Groene G. Work-related psychosocial risk factors for stress-related mental disorders: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2020;10(7):e034849. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034849
  10. Morgan RA, Van Zoonen W, Ter Hoeven C. Lost in the crowd? An investigation into where microwork is conducted and classifying worker types. Eur J Ind Relat. 2023;29(3):301-322. doi: 10.1177/09596801231171997
  11. Alkhabbaz M. Meredith broussard: More than a glitch: Confronting race, gender, and ability bias in tech. AI Soc. 2025;40(3):1993-1995. doi: 10.1007/s00146-025-02206-z
  12. Berg J, Rani U. Working conditions, geography and gender in global crowdwork. In: Haidar J, Keune M, editors. Work and Labour Relations in Global Platform Capitalism. United Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2021. doi: 10.4337/9781802205138.00013
  13. Cluley H, Hecht TD. Micro work-family decision-making of dual-income couples with young children: What does a couple like us do in a situation like this? J Occup Organ Psychol. 2020;93(1):45-72. doi: 10.1111/joop.12282
  14. James A. Platform work-lives in the gig economy: Recentering work-family research. Gend Work Organ. 2024;31(2):513-534. doi: 10.1111/gwao.13087
  15. Hetrick AL, Haynes NJ, Clark MA, Sanders KN. The theoretical and empirical utility of dimension-based work-family conflict: A meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol. 2024;109(7):987-1003. doi: 10.1037/apl0000552
  16. Reynolds J, Aguilar J, Kincaid R. More than a side-hustle: Satisfaction with conventional and microtask work and the association with life satisfaction. Soc Sci Res. 2024;122:103055. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2024.103055
  17. Afsharian A, Dollard MF, Glozier N, et al. Work-related psychosocial and physical paths to future musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). Saf Sci. 2023;164:106177. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2023.106177
  18. Crofford LJ. Psychological aspects of chronic musculoskeletal pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2015;29(1):147-155. doi: 10.1016/j.berh.2015.04.027
  19. Greggi C, Visconti VV, Albanese M, et al. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Med. 2024;13(13):3964. doi: 10.3390/jcm13133964
  20. Puntillo F, Giglio M, Paladini A, et al. Pathophysiology of musculoskeletal pain: A narrative review. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. 2021;13. doi: 10.1177/1759720X21995067
  21. Bezzina A, Austin E, Nguyen H, James C. Workplace psychosocial factors and their association with musculoskeletal disorders: A systematic review of longitudinal studies. Workplace Health Saf. 2023;71(12):578-588. doi: 10.1177/21650799231193578
  22. Finestone HM, Alfeeli A, Fisher WA. Stress-induced physiologic changes as a basis for the biopsychosocial model of chronic musculoskeletal pain: A new theory? Clin J Pain. 2008;24(9):767-775. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0b013e3181790342
  23. Krishnan KS, Raju G, Shawkataly O. Prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders: Psychological and physical risk factors. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(17):9361. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18179361
  24. Oakman J, Macdonald WA, McCredie K, Clune S. Impact of work-related psychosocial versus biomechanical hazards on risk of musculoskeletal disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Appl Ergon. 2025;125:104481. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2025.104481
  25. Aveiro BBM, Rodrigues CML. Burnout em desenvolvedores e a relação com o trabalho remoto [Burnout in developers and the relationship with remote work]. Tecnol Projeção. 2023;14(2):14-26. [In Portuguese]
  26. McFarlane AC. Stress-related musculoskeletal pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2007;21(3):549-565. doi: 10.1016/j.berh.2007.03.008
  27. Pontes NDS, Assis SJCD, Oliveira GSD, et al. Social determinants and work-related musculoskeletal disorders in Brazil. PLoS One. 2024;19(7):e0306840. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306840
  28. Punnett L, Prüss-Ütün A, Nelson DI, et al. Estimating the global burden of low back pain attributable to combined occupational exposures. Am J Ind Med. 2005;48(6):459-469. doi: 10.1002/ajim.20232
  29. Rodrigues CML, Pedersoli MM. Fatores associados à Qualidade de Vida de Professores Universitários no ensino remoto durante a pandemia de COVID-19 [Factors associated with the quality of life of university professors in remote learning during the COVID- 19 pandemic]. Proj Doc. 2023;14(2):24-35. [In Portuguese]
  30. Alencar MDCBD, Silva NRD, Serranheira F. Musculoskeletal pain and risk factors in office workers versus teleworkers: A systematic review. Work. 2025;80(3):974-997. doi: 10.1177/10519815241289675
  31. Sani HE, Mohebbi A, Zare M, Aghamolaei T, Khademian M, Ahmadi MS. Relationship between job satisfaction and musculoskeletal disorders. J Prev Med. 2019;6(1):52-46. doi: 10.29252/jpm.6.1.52
  32. Rodrigues CML, Faiad C, Facas EP. Fatores de Risco e Riscos Psicossociais no Trabalho: Definição e Implicações [Risk factors and psychosocial risks at work: definition and implications]. Psicol Teor Pesqui. 2020;36(spe):e36nspe19. [In Portuguese] doi: 10.1590/0102.3772e36nspe19
  33. Aguiar CVN, Bastos AVB. Escala multidimensional de conflito trabalho-família: Evidências de validade e recomendações de uso [Multidimensional work-family conflict scale: Validity evidence and recommendations for use]. In: Hutz CS, Bandeira DR, Trentin CM, Vazquez ACS, editors. Avaliação Psicológica no Contexto Organizacional e do Trabalho [Psychological Assessment in the Organizational and Work Context]. Delhi: ArtMed; 2020. p. 114-123. [In Portuguese]
  34. Carlson DS, Kacmar KM, Williams LJ. Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional measure of work-family conflict. J Vocat Behav. 2000;56(2):249-276. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1999.1713
  35. Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. A global measure of perceived stress. J Health Soc Behav. 1983;24(4):385. doi: 10.2307/2136404
  36. Luft CDB, Sanches SDO, Mazo GZ, Andrade A. Versão brasileira da Escala de Estresse Percebido: tradução e validação para idosos [Brazilian version of the Perceived Stress Scale: translation and validation for the elderly]. Rev Saúde Pública. 2007;41(4):606- 615. [In Portuguese] doi: 10.1590/S0034-89102007000400015
  37. Siqueira MMM. Satisfação no trabalho [Job satisfaction]. In: Siqueira MMM, editor. Medidas do Comportamento Organizacional [Measures of Organizational Behavior]. Delhi: ArtMed; 2008. p. 265-274.
  38. Pinheiro FA, Tróccoli BT, Carvalho CVD. Validação do Questionário Nórdico de Sintomas Osteomusculares como medida de morbidade [Validity of the Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire as morbidity measurement tool]. Rev Saúde Pública. 2002;36(3):307-312. [In Portuguese] doi: 10.1590/S0034-89102002000300008
  39. Kuorinka I, Jonsson B, Kilbom A, et al. Standardised Nordic questionnaires for the analysis of musculoskeletal symptoms. Appl Ergon. 1987;18(3):233-237. doi: 10.1016/0003-6870(87)90010-X
Share
Back to top
Journal of Clinical and Basic Psychosomatics, Electronic ISSN: 2972-4414 Print ISSN: 3060-8562, Published by AccScience Publishing