Last updated: October 2026
Most people look down at a phone many times a day. In a lab study of 18 adults, the head bent forward 33 to 45 degrees while using a smartphone, and texting while sitting produced the most bend (Lee et al., 2015). A meta-analysis of 7 studies covering 10,715 adults found smartphone overuse was linked to higher odds of neck pain (Chen et al., 2025). Below is what these studies show, what they do not, and where pillow height fits in the other part of the day.
Key takeaways
A laboratory study measured head flexion in 18 participants during texting, web browsing, and video watching, both sitting and standing (Lee et al., 2015).
The typical head flexion angle was 33 to 45 degrees across tasks. Texting while sitting produced the most flexion.
The study measured posture only. It did not measure pain or long-term effects.
A systematic review and meta-analysis pooled 7 studies covering 10,715 adults (Chen et al., 2025).
Smartphone overuse was linked to higher odds of neck pain, with a pooled adjusted odds ratio of 2.34 (95% CI 1.44 to 3.82).
All seven studies in the meta-analysis were cross-sectional, so they show an association, not proof that phones cause neck pain. The authors note moderate study quality and high heterogeneity, and "overuse" was defined differently from study to study (Chen et al., 2025).
The meta-analysis did not include adolescents. The posture study suggested its findings may relate to neck pain in heavy users, but did not test that (Lee et al., 2015).
Daytime posture is one part of how the neck spends its day. The hours on a pillow are another, and pillow height is the variable that shapes head and neck position through the night.
In a radiographic study of 16 adults, raising the pillow from 0 to 10 to 20 cm increased T1 slope and C2-7 Cobb angle while neck tilt decreased (Kim et al., 2015). A crossover study of 10 healthy participants paired with finite element modeling measured how heights from 110 to 170 mm shift pressure across the head and neck (Ren et al., 2016).
In a pilot EMG study of 15 adults lying on their side, the height matched to shoulder width produced the lowest neck and shoulder muscle activity (Jiao et al., 2025).
A standard contoured pillow, not fitted to the individual, performed no better than ordinary shapes in a randomized study of 106 side sleepers (Gordon et al., 2009). No single optimal pillow height can be specified, because it depends on four variables that differ from person to person: cervical alignment, body dimension, contact pressure, and muscle activity (Lei et al., 2021).
Read more: Why pillow fit matters more than shape
Related: Office Ergonomics and Cervical Alignment for Desk Workers
Pillowise is a fitted cervical pillow that licensed healthcare providers measure and dispense, made in seven sizes.
Our sleep specialists take three measurements: shoulder width, neck circumference, and neck length. Combined with sleeping position and bed type, an algorithm identifies the best-fitting pillow from seven sizes.
Shoulder width is the measurement the EMG study found mattered most. A height matched to it produced the lowest neck and shoulder muscle activity during side sleeping (Jiao et al., 2025), and body dimension is what drives the individual optimum (Tian et al., 2025).
A systematic review of 11 studies covering 309 participants identified a 7 to 11 cm unloaded central height among the parameters supporting spinal alignment and sleep comfort (Radwan et al., 2021). The size is chosen from those three measurements plus sleeping position and bed type, rather than from a single stock height.
Pillowise pillows are made from premium Dutch memory foam and certified to OEKO-TEX Standard 100, meaning every component has been tested against the standard's limits for harmful substances.
The phone studies measured daytime posture and self-reported neck pain, not pillows. No study has tested whether a fitted pillow changes neck pain linked to phone use, and we make no such claim. The most recent systematic review found no clear advantage for any pillow type in chronic neck pain (Ghosh et al., 2025).
Asking how many hours a patient spends looking down at a phone, and in which position, adds useful context to a neck pain history.
Asking which sleeping position they hold longest and what they sleep on covers the other end of the day.
A fitted pillow extends the work of the visit into the hours between visits, alongside the exercise, manual therapy, and other care the provider is already delivering.
Smartphone overuse has been linked to higher odds of neck pain across 7 studies of 10,715 adults (Chen et al., 2025). All the studies were cross-sectional, so the link is an association, not proof of cause.
In a lab study of 18 adults, texting while sitting produced the most head flexion of the tasks measured (Lee et al., 2015).
No study has tested that, and we make no such claim. A pillow fitting addresses head and neck height during sleep, which is a separate question from daytime posture.
Not reliably. A standard contoured pillow, not fitted to the individual, performed no better than ordinary shapes in a randomized study of 106 side sleepers (Gordon et al., 2009), and no single optimal height can be specified because it depends on four variables that differ from person to person (Lei et al., 2021). A contour helps only if its height matches the person using it. That is what the fitting settles, in a provider's office.
Pillowise pillows are clinically measured and dispensed exclusively through licensed healthcare providers as part of broader sleep, posture, and recovery education.
To locate a Pillowise provider near you, visit: Find a Reseller
Licensed healthcare providers interested in offering Pillowise may register here: Become a Reseller
Chen, Y.-J., Hu, C.-Y., Wu, W.-T., Lee, R.-P., Peng, C.-H., Yao, T.-K., Chang, C.-M., Chen, H.-W., & Yeh, K.-T. (2025). Association of smartphone overuse and neck pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 101(1197), 620-626. https://doi.org/10.1093/postmj/qgae200
Ghosh, S. K., Goyal, M., & Goyal, K. S. (2025). Effect of pillow on pain, disability and sleep quality in patients with chronic neck pain: A systematic review. Rehabilitación, 59(3), 100922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rh.2025.100922
Gordon, S. J., Grimmer-Somers, K., & Trott, P. (2009). Pillow use: The behaviour of cervical pain, sleep quality and pillow comfort in side sleepers. Manual Therapy, 14(6), 671-678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2009.02.006
Jiao, R., Xiao, W., Wang, M., Yu, S., & Li, H. (2025). The impact of pillow height on neck muscle activity: A pilot study. Sleep and Breathing, 29(1), 40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11325-024-03219-6
Kim, H. C., Jun, H. S., Kim, J. H., Ahn, J. H., Chang, I. B., Song, J. H., & Oh, J. K. (2015). The effect of different pillow heights on the parameters of cervicothoracic spine segments. Korean Journal of Spine, 12(3), 135-138. https://doi.org/10.14245/kjs.2015.12.3.135
Lee, S., Kang, H., & Shin, G. (2015). Head flexion angle while using a smartphone. Ergonomics, 58(2), 220-226. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2014.967311
Lei, J.-X., Yang, P.-F., Yang, A.-L., Gong, Y.-F., Shang, P., & Yuan, X.-C. (2021). Ergonomic consideration in pillow height determinants and evaluation. Healthcare, 9(10), 1333. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9101333
Radwan, A., Ashton, N., Gates, T., Kilmer, A., & VanFleet, M. (2021). Effect of different pillow designs on promoting sleep comfort, quality, & spinal alignment: A systematic review. European Journal of Integrative Medicine, 42, 101269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eujim.2020.101269
Ren, S., Wong, D. W.-C., Yang, H., Zhou, Y., Lin, J., & Zhang, M. (2016). Effect of pillow height on the biomechanics of the head-neck complex: Investigation of the cranio-cervical pressure and cervical spine alignment. PeerJ, 4, e2397. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2397
Tian, S., Yao, C., Wang, Y., Cao, X., Sun, Y., Wang, L., & Fan, Y. (2025). The individualized optimal pillow height and neck support design for side sleepers. Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing, 63(2), 535-544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-024-03204-x