Dimensional comparability of psychosocial working conditions as covered in European monitoring questionnaires

BMC Public Health

Irene Houtman⁴  Wendela Hooftman⁴  Agnes Parent-Thirion⁷  Greet Vermeylen⁷  Luz Galiana Blanco⁶  Francisco Javier Pinilla García⁶  Clara Isabel Díaz Aramburu⁶  Merja Perkio-Makela¹  Sannie Vester Thorsen⁵  Tore Tynes³  Cecilie Aagestad³  Hermann Burr²  Maren Formazin² 

[1] Työterveyslaitos (Finnish Institute of Occupational Health), Topeliuksenkatu 41 a A, 00250 Helsinki, Finland;Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin (Federal Institute for Occupational Safety & Health), Department "Work & Health", Nöldnerstraße 40-42, 10317 Berlin, Germany;Statens arbeidsmiljøinstitutt (National Institute of Occupational Health), Gydas vei 8, Majorstuen, Oslo, Norway;TNO, Postbus 3005, 2301, DA Leiden, Netherlands;Det Nationale Forskningscenter for Arbejdsmiljø (National Research Center for the Working Environment), Lersø Parkallé 105, 2100 København Ø, Denmark;Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo (National Institute of Safety and Hygiene at Work), Calle de Torrelaguna 73, 28027 Madrid, Spain;European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound), Wyattville Road, Loughlinstown, Dublin 18, Ireland

关键词: Dimension;    Effort-reward-imbalance model;    Job demand-control-support model;    Surveillance;    Monitoring;    Psychosocial working conditions;   

Others  :  1098214
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-14-1251

 received in 2014-06-26, accepted in 2014-11-10,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

In most countries in the EU, national surveys are used to monitor working conditions and health. Since the development processes behind the various surveys are not necessarily theoretical, but certainly practical and political, the extent of similarity among the dimensions covered in these surveys has been unclear. Another interesting question is whether prominent models from scientific research on work and health are present in the surveys – bearing in mind that the primary focus of these surveys is on monitoring status and trends, not on mapping scientific models. Moreover, it is relevant to know which other scales and concepts not stemming from these models have been included in the surveys. The purpose of this paper is to determine (1) the similarity of dimensions covered in the surveys included and (2) the congruence of dimensions of scientific research and of dimensions present in the monitoring systems.

Method

Items from surveys representing six European countries and one European wide survey were classified into the dimensions they cover, using a taxonomy agreed upon among all involved partners from the six countries.

Results

The classification reveals that there is a large overlap of dimensions, albeit not in the formulation of items, covered in the seven surveys. Among the available items, the two prominent work-stress-models – job-demand-control-support-model (DCS) and effort-reward-imbalance-model (ERI) – are covered in most surveys even though this has not been the primary aim in the compilation of these surveys. In addition, a large variety of items included in the surveillance systems are not part of these models and are – at least partly – used in nearly all surveys. These additional items reflect concepts such as "restructuring", "meaning of work", "emotional demands" and "offensive behaviour/violence & harassment".

Conclusions

The overlap of the dimensions being covered in the various questionnaires indicates that the interests of the parties deciding on the questionnaires in the different countries overlap. The large number of dimensions measured in the questionnaires and not being part of the DCS and ERI models is striking. These "new" dimensions could inspire the research community to further investigate their possible health and labour market effects.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Formazin et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Burr H, Bjorner JB, Kristensen TS, Tuchsen F, Bach E: Trends in the Danish work environment in 1990–2000 and their associations with labor-force changes. Scand J Work Environ Health 2003, 29(4):270-279.
• [2]Burr H, Ploug N: How to measure trends in the work environment - a workshop at the international NAM-NIVA summer school 2007. Scand J Work Environ Health Suppl 2008, 5:22-26.
• [3]Cox T, Griffiths A, Cox S: Work-Related Stress in Nursing: Managing the Risk. Geneva: International Labour Organization; 1995.
• [4]Cox T, Griffiths A: Assessment of Psychosocial Hazards at Work. In Handbook of Work and Health Psychology. Edited by Schabracq MJ, Winnubst JAM, Cooper CL. Chichester: Wiley & Sons; 1996:127-143.
• [5]Dollard M, Skinner N, Tuckey MR, Bailey T: National surveillance of psychosocial risk factors in the workplace: an international overview. Work Stress 2007, 21(1):1-29.
• [6]Weiler A: Working Conditions Surveys – A Comparative Analysis. Dublin, Ireland: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions; 2007.
• [7]European Agency for Safety and Health at Work: Promoting occupational safety and health research in the EU. [ https://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/reports/15 webcite]
• [8]Fink A: The Survey Kit. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications; 2002.
• [9]Eller NH, Netterstrøm B, Gyntelberg F, Kristensen TS, Nielsen F, Steptoe A, Theorell T: Work-related psychosocial factors and the development of ischemic heart disease: a systematic review. Cardiol Rev 2009, 17(2):83-97.
• [10]Backé EM, Seidler A, Latza U, Rossnagel K, Schumann B: The role of psychosocial stress at work for the development of cardiovascular diseases: a systematic review. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2012, 85(1):67-79.
• [11]Kivimäki M, Nyberg ST, Batty GD, Fransson EI, Heikkilä K, Alfredsson L, Bjorner JB, Borritz M, Burr H, Casini A, Clays E, De Bacquer D, Dragano N, Ferrie JE, Geuskens GA, Goldberg M, Hamer M, Hooftman WE, Houtman IL, Joensuu M, Jokela M, Kittel F, Knutsson A, Koskenvuo M, Koskinen A, Kouvonen A, Kumari M, Madsen IEH, Marmot MG, Nielsen ML, et al.: Job strain as a risk factor for coronary heart disease: a collaborative meta-analysis of individual participant data. Lancet 2012, 380(9852):1491-1497.
• [12]Bonde JPE: Psychosocial factors at work and risk of depression: a systematic review of the epidemiological evidence. Occup Environ Med 2008, 65(7):438-445.
• [13]Netterstrøm B, Conrad N, Bech P, Fink P, Olsen O, Rugulies R, Stansfeld S: The relation between work-related psychosocial factors and the development of depression. Epidemiol Rev 2008, 30:118-132.
• [14]Nieuwenhuijsen K, Bruinvels D, Frings-Dresen M: Psychosocial work environment and stress-related disorders, a systematic review. Occup Med 2010, 60(4):277-286.
• [15]Burr H, Pedersen J, Hansen JV: Work environment as predictor of long-term sickness absence: linkage of self-reported DWECS data with the DREAM register. Scand J Public Health 2011, 39(7 Suppl):147-152.
• [16]Allebeck P, Mastekaasa A: Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care (SBU). Chapter 5. Risk factors for sick leave - general studies. Scand J Public Health Suppl 2004, 63:49-108.
• [17]Duijts SF, Kant I, Swaenk GM, van den Brandt PA, Zeegers MP: A meta-analysis of observational studies identifies predictors of sickness absence. J Clin Epidemiol 2007, 60(11):1105-1115.
• [18]Christensen KB, Feveile H, Labriola M, Lund T: The impact of psychosocial work environment factors on the risk of disability pension in Denmark. Eur J Pub Health 2008, 18(3):235-237.
• [19]Karasek R: Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Adm Sci Q 1979, 24:285-308.
• [20]Karasek R, Theorell T: Healthy Work: Stress, Productivity and the Reconstruction of Working Life. New York: Basic Books; 1990.
• [21]Siegrist J: Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. J Occup Health Psychol 1996, 1:27-41.
• [22]Siegrist J: Soziale Krisen und Gesundheit [Social crisis and health]. Göttingen: Hogrefe; 1996.
• [23]Landsbergis PA, Dobson M, Koutsouras G, Schnall P: Job strain and ambulatory blood pressure: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Am J Public Health 2013, 103(3):e61-e71.
• [24]Hauke A, Flintrop J, Brun E, Rugulies R: The impact of work-related psychosocial stressors on the onset of musculoskeletal disorders in specific body regions: a review and meta-analysis of 54 longitudinal studies. Work Stress 2011, 25(3):243-256.
• [25]Stansfeld S, Candy B: Psychosocial work environment and mental health–a meta-analytic review. Scand J Work Environ Health 2006, 32(6):443-462.
• [26]Johannessen HA, Tynes T, Sterud T: Effects of occupational role conflict and emotional demands on subsequent psychological distress: a 3-year follow-up study of the general working population in norway. J Occup Environ Med 2013, 55(6):605-613.
• [27]Bültmann U, Kant IJ, van den Brandt PA, Kasl SV: Psychosocial work characteristics as risk factors for the onset of fatigue and psychological distress: prospective results from the Maastricht Cohort Study. Psychol Med 2002, 32(2):333-345.
• [28]Burr H, Albertsen K, Rugulies R, Hannerz H: Do dimensions from the Copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire predict vitality and mental health over and above the job strain and effort-reward imbalance models? Scand J Public Health 2010, 38(Suppl 3):59-68.
• [29]Pejtersen JH, Kristensen TS, Borg V, Bjorner JB: The second version of the Copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire. Scand J Public Health 2010, 38:8-24.
• [30]Dallner M, Elo A-L, Gamberale F, Hottinen V, Knardahl S, Lindström K, Skogstad A, Oerhede E: Validation of the General Nordic Questionnaire (QPS Nordic) for psychological and social factors at work. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers; 2000.
• [31]Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung & Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin [Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training & Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health]: BIBB/BAuA-Erwerbstätigenbefragung 2011/2012. [ http://www.baua.de/de/Informationen-fuer-die-Praxis/Statistiken/Arbeitsbedingungen/Erwerbstaetigenbefragung-2011-2012.html webcite]
• [32]Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo [National Institute of Safety and Hygiene at Work]: Spanish National Working Conditions survey (ENCT). [ http://www.oect.es/InshtWeb/Contenidos/Documentacion/FICHAS%20DE%20PUBLICACIONES/EN%20CATALOGO/OBSERVATORIO/Informe%20%28VII%20ENCT%29.pdf webcite]
• [33]Karasek R: Job Content Questionnaire and User’s Guide. Lowell, MA: University of Massachusetts Lowell; 1985.
• [34]Tynes T, Johannessen HA, Sterud T: Work-related psychosocial and organizational risk factors for headache: a 3-year follow-up study of the general working population in Norway. J Occup Environ Med 2013, 55(12):1436-1442.
• [35]Lund T, Labriola M, Christensen KB, Bultmann U, Villadsen E, Burr H: Psychosocial work environment exposures as risk factors for long-term sickness absence among Danish employees: results from DWECS/DREAM. J Occup Environ Med 2005, 47(11):1141-1147.
• [36]Vives A, Amable M, Ferrer M, Moncada S, Llorens C, Muntaner C, Benavides FG, Benach J: The Employment Precariousness Scale (EPRES): psychometric properties of a new tool for epidemiological studies among waged and salaried workers. Occup Environ Med 2010, 67:548-555.
• [37]Dragano N, Siegrist J, Wahrendorf M: Welfare regimes, labour policies and unhealthy psychosocial working conditions: a comparative study with 9917 older employees from 12 European countries. J Epidemiol Community Health 2011, 65(9):793-799.
• [38]Leineweber C, Baltzer M, Magnusson HLL, Westerlund H: Work-family conflict and health in Swedish working women and men: a 2-year prospective analysis (the SLOSH study). Eur J Pub Health 2013, 23(4):710-716.
• [39]Geuskens GA, Koppes LL, van den Bossche SN, Joling CI: Enterprise restructuring and the health of employees: a cohort study. J Occup Environ Med 2012, 54(1):4-9.
• [40]Hanson LL, Leineweber C, Chungkham HS, Westerlund H: Work-home interference and its prospective relation to major depression and treatment with antidepressants. Scand J Work Environ Health 2014, 40(1):66-73.