Distress, Work Satisfaction, and Work Ability are Mediators of the Relation Between Psychosocial Working Conditions and
- PDF / 646,018 Bytes
- 12 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 106 Downloads / 198 Views
Distress, Work Satisfaction, and Work Ability are Mediators of the Relation Between Psychosocial Working Conditions and Mental Health‑Related Long‑Term Sickness Absence Marieke F. A. van Hoffen1,2,5 · Judith J. M. Rijnhart2 · Giny Norder1 · Lisanne J. E. Labuschagne3,4 · Jos W. R. Twisk2 Accepted: 29 September 2020 © The Author(s) 2020
Abstract Purpose This study investigated the effects of psychosocial working conditions on mental health-related long-term sickness absence and whether distress, work satisfaction, burnout, engagement, and work ability mediated the associations between psychosocial working conditions and mental health-related long-term sickness absence. Methods This cohort study included 53,833 non-sick listed workers who participated in occupational health surveys between 2010 and 2013. The effects of the individual psychosocial working conditions on mental long-term sickness absence were analyzed using univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses. Mediation analyses were performed to examine the mediating role of distress, burnout, work satisfaction, engagement, and work ability between psychosocial working conditions and mental long-term sickness absence. The mediation analyses were performed using structural equation modeling. Results Role clarity, cognitive demands, emotional demands, work variety, learning opportunities, and co-worker support were related to mental health-related long-term sickness absence after adjustment for other working conditions. The relationship between emotional demands and mental health-related long-term sickness absence was the strongest, OR 1.304 (p 20 as high distress. Burnout was measured with the 15-item Dutch version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory – General Scale [31]. Items were scored on a 6-point frequency scale, summed, and averaged into a burnout score between 0 (i.e. low) and 6 (i.e. high). Work satisfaction was measured with 6 items (α = 0.87) about pleasure in work (e.g., “I am pleased to start my day’s work”, “I find my work stimulating”, “I enjoy my work”). Responses were given on a 5-point frequency scale ranging from ‘never’ (i.e. 1) to ‘always’ (i.e. 5). Items scores were summed and averaged, so that work satisfaction ranged between 1 (i.e. low) and 5 (i.e. high). Work engagement was measured with a 9-item short form of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale [32]. The items were scored on a 6-point frequency scale ranging from ‘never’ (= 0), ‘scarcely’ (= 1), ‘sometimes’ (= 2), ‘regularly’ (= 3), ‘often’ (= 4), ‘very often’ (= 5), and ‘always’ (= 6). The item scores were summed and averaged to a work engagement score between 0 (i.e. low) and 6 (i.e. high). Work ability was measured with a shortened version of the Work Ability Index (WAI) covering items on current
13
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation
work ability compared with lifetime best work ability in relation to the (physical and mental) demands of work, number of physician-diagnosed diseases, impaired work performance due to illness, sickness absence in the past 12 months
Data Loading...
