The evidence
Every number on this site comes from a published study. Each one is below with its sample size, its limits and a link you can follow.
No study has tested BetterBreaks. The studies below test the habit the app reminds you to keep: taking breaks. That is a different thing, and we keep the two apart.
The strongest finding we have
higher risk of death from any cause among adults who mostly sat at work, compared with those who mostly did not. Hazard ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11 to 1.20.
higher risk of death from heart and blood vessel disease in that same group. Hazard ratio 1.34, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.46.
hazard ratio for adults who alternated between sitting and not sitting. 95% CI 0.97 to 1.05, which contains 1, so no measurable excess risk.
The study followed 481,688 adults in Taiwan for about 13 years, and 26,257 of them died. It allowed for sex, age, education, smoking, drinking and body mass index. Some people mostly sat and did little exercise in their free time. For them, 15 to 30 extra minutes of daily activity lowered their risk. It fell to the level of inactive people who did not sit at work.
This study watched a group of people over time. It shows that two things happen together. It does not show that one causes the other. It tested the posture, not any software, and it says nothing about what BetterBreaks does to anyone's risk.
Study by study
Journal of Optometry · 2024
Across all the studies, 69.0% of people had eye strain from screens (computer vision syndrome). The true figure is likely between 62.2% and 75.4%.
66,577 participants · 103 studies that each looked at one point in time
Individual estimates ranged from 12.1% to 97.3%, so the range tells you more than the single middle number. The pooled population includes students, not only office workers.
Read the studyInvestigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science · 2023
An eye-tracking headset counted blinks. People blinked 10.7 times a minute while reading. They blinked 32.4 times while talking and 31.3 times while walking. The change appeared within one minute and held.
24 participants · each person did all eight tasks, in random order
Print, laptop, TV and phone lowered blinking by the same amount, so screens alone do not explain it. The study also looked for a link between blink rate and eye symptoms and did not find one.
Read the studyContact Lens and Anterior Eye · 2023
Two weeks of 20-20-20 reminders reduced eye strain and dry eye symptoms (p ≤ 0.045). One week after the reminders stopped, the improvement was gone.
29 participants · before and after, no control arm
Tear film and ocular surface signs did not change, p ≥ 0.089. People said their eyes felt better, but the tests a doctor uses showed no change.
Read the studyPLOS ONE · 2022
The review pooled 22 samples. Breaks of ten minutes or less gave people a little more energy (d = 0.36). They also made people a little less tired (d = 0.35). The effect on how well people worked was smaller (d = 0.16), and it could be chance.
2,335 participants · a study that combines 22 groups of results (meta-analysis)
Longer breaks did predict better performance, b = .07, p = .006, and gains showed up for creative work but not for cognitive tasks. We do not tell you breaks will make you more productive, because the best available meta-analysis could not show it.
Read the studyPreventive Medicine · 2023
Sitting a lot raised the odds of neck pain by about half (odds ratio 1.5). Computer use alone raised them by about a third (odds ratio 1.3).
27 reports pooled · 46 reviewed
Three things weaken this. Sitting time on its own was not significant. Office workers alone, who are our audience, were not significant either. The authors also found publication bias (p < 0.0001). This means studies that found no link were less likely to be published.
Read the studyWhere the evidence disagrees
Cochrane is an independent group known for careful reviews of health research. Both reviews looked at whether breaks prevent neck and shoulder problems. Both are systematic reviews of randomised trials, and both graded their own evidence as weak. Here is each one, in its own words.
Cochrane · 2018 · Hoe et al.
Mean difference (MD) −0.25
Extra breaks reduced neck discomfort in people who type data all day, 95% CI −0.40 to −0.11, from two studies. Shoulder and upper arm discomfort fell by 0.33, forearm and wrist by 0.18. The review labels all of it very low-quality evidence.
15 randomised trials · 2,165 office workers
Cochrane · 2019 · Luger et al.
Standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.08
Extra work breaks made no real difference to muscle pain, discomfort or tiredness. Frequent breaks did no better than less frequent ones. Active breaks did no better than resting ones. The reviewers judged all six trials as likely to give unreliable results (high risk of bias).
6 randomised trials · 373 workers
The review designed specifically to test break schedules is the one that found nothing. So we do not say that breaks prevent neck or shoulder pain. We say that desk work is linked to neck pain, which is a different claim. We link both reviews so you can judge them yourself.
The 2019 review also searched for any trial testing how long a break should be, and found none. Nobody has tested break duration, ours included.
The limits
Two free sessions on macOS and Windows. Your break history stays on your computer.
