We should start measuring the economic cost of digital distraction: Daxa Patel
Have we become so accustomed to being constantly connected that we are losing our capacity to give our work, and one another, our undivided attention?
The Government's decision to ban social media for under-16s, with implementation planned for spring 2027, raises a few questions. If we are concerned about the impact of digital platforms on children's concentration and wellbeing, what are we doing to understand their effects on adults? Are we measuring the impact on workplace productivity and the potential economic cost at a time when the Government is keen to stimulate growth and reduce the national debt?
For the last year and a half, I have often sat in stationary traffic beside roadworks near my home. It is not unusual to see four or five workers in high-visibility clothing looking at their phones while one or two engaged in physical work.
Those using their phones may be checking instructions or consulting line managers; mobile devices are essential tools in many occupations. Yet, I have a personal stake in seeing an end to these tiresome so-called road improvements, I have wondered what impact this is having on getting the job done on target. Delays are easily attributed to weather or supply shortages, but is anyone examining the potential loss of working hours through inactivity, idle conversation, or personal phone use? How much time is being lost, and is anyone measuring it?
There is evidence that interruptions deserve to be taken seriously. Microsoft's 2025 Work Trend Index examined digital activity among Microsoft 365 users.
Imagine sitting down at 9am to draft a report. At 9.02am an email notification pops up, followed by a Teams message at 9.03am, another email at 9.04am and a meeting reminder at 9.05am. You might not respond, but each competes for your attention. Even a glance at the screen can interrupt your train of thought.
Microsoft found that, among its most heavily interrupted group of employees, digital notifications were happening, on average, every two minutes during working hours. People were barely getting a chance to settle into their work before something else demanded their attention. The cost is not simply the time spent looking at a screen; it is also the concentration lost getting back to the job.
These were digital communications, not exclusively personal phone use, and the findings do not represent every employee. Yet they illustrate the competing demands on attention.
A 2023 field experiment published in the Journal of Occupational Health involved 247 participants. Researchers examined what happened when employees disabled automatic communication notifications for a working day. Reducing notification-related interruptions benefited performance and reduced strain. It is a small sample, but it illustrates the significance. An interruption does not have to be lengthy to have a consequence.
I recognise the effect when writing. I can be concentrating on a piece of work, glance at my phone and return to find that my train of thought has disappeared. The check takes seconds; recovering my concentration takes far longer.
Researchers describe this as a resumption lag: the additional time required to return to a task after an interruption. Across a workforce, repeated interruptions could represent a substantial cost in time and productive capacity.
But where is that cost being measured if at all?
The Office for National Statistics measures UK labour productivity by examining output relative to hours worked. Yet national figures do not tell us how much time is lost through notifications, personal phone use or switching between tasks.
Digital distraction does not explain all of Britain's productivity difficulties. Workloads, staffing, investment, and management matter too. But are we measuring the concentration leakage that can have a domino effect on productivity and delivery targets?
For employers, the cost could include delayed deadlines, errors, duplicated work, missed opportunities, and extra hours spent finishing tasks. Longer completion times also affect costs, capacity, and customer service.
We cannot put a national price on these effects without better evidence. That is precisely why we should measure them.
The consequences may be different and serious where human attention is central to the service. In healthcare, social care and customer-facing jobs, simply being there is not enough. People need someone who listens, understands what they are saying and responds. When a device keeps drawing attention away, the quality of that interaction can suffer, even if nothing goes wrong.
Not every delay is caused by phones or other distractions. Staff may already have too much work to do or be held back by inefficient systems. There is a difference between having too much work and making that work take longer through avoidable interruptions.
Protecting children from potentially harmful digital environments is important, but they learn from adults. If we are to examine what humanity may lose if artificial intelligence takes over, we should also examine what we lose when devices constantly interrupt the work we are there to do.
Our devices are valuable tools. The question is whether we are still using them deliberately, or whether they have begun dictating where our attention goes.
If we are serious about productivity, wellbeing, and the quality of our services, we should measure what constant connectivity is costing us. Being permanently available is different from being fully present.