2014-15 hwc healthy workplace manage stress campaign ... · metabolic syndrome / type ii diabetes....
Post on 28-Jul-2020
5 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
2014-15 HWC Healthy Workplace Manage StressCampaign Partnership Meeting
Brussels, April 8 2014
Impact of stress and psychosocial risks on health and performance-
Evidence at the organizational level
Johannes Siegrist
Senior Professor of Workstress ResearchUniversity of Duesseldorf, Germany
-
Main Questions
• Is stress at work a real challenge to working populations across Europe?
• What is the scientific evidence linking stress at work with adverse health?
• What can be done at organizational level to manage stress and improve health at work?
-
Work …
provides a source of regular income and related opportunities
provides a source of personal growth and training of capabilities/competencies
provides social identity, social status and related rewards
enables access to social networks beyond primary groups
Impacts on personal health and well being by exposure to material and psychosocial stressors
Importance of work for health
-
Increase of work pressure, pace of work,and competition, including ‘high power work organization’ (impact of economic globalization)
High demand for flexibility, mobility, and adaption of workers to new taks/technologies
Fragmentation of occupational careers, de-standardized or atypical work, and growing job instability/insecurity
Increase of service and IT professions/occupations with high psychomental/emotional workload
Segmentation of labour market; social inequalities in quality of work and employment
Significant changes in the nature of work and labour market
-
Increased pressure of rationalisation(mainly due to wage competition)
Downsizing, Merging, Outsourcing
Work Job Low wage / intensification insecurity salary
Effects of economic globalisation: Labour market consequences in developed countries
-
Increase in work intensity 2004-2010: European Social Survey, 19 EU countries
Source: Gallie D (Ed.) (2013) ESS Topline Results Series 3, European Social Survey
-
Job insecurity 2004-2010European Social Survey, 19 EU countries
Source: Gallie D (Ed.) (2013) ESS Topline Results Series 3, European Social Survey
-
2. Question: What is the scientific evidence linking stress at work with adverse health?
Stress occurs if a person is exposed to a threatening demand(stressor) that taxes or exceeds her/his capacity of successful response risk of loss of control
Dimensions of stress reactions: • Cognitive appraisal (evaluation of threat)• Affective response (anxiety, anger)• Activation of stress axes in organism (SAM, HPA)• Behavioural reaction (fight or flight) (restricted option!)
Critical for health:• Chronic stressors requiring active coping allostatic load; risk of stress-related disorders (depression, CHD)
-
negative emotions
stress responses allostatic load
stress-related disorders
Working conditions as chronic stressors:How to identify ‘toxic’ components within complex
environments?
-
Demand-control model (R. Karasek, 1979; R. Karasek & T. Theorell, 1990)
Effort-reward imbalance model(J. Siegrist, 1996; J. Siegrist et al., 2004)
Organizational injustice model(J. Greenberg, 1990; M. Elovainio et al., 2002)
Focus on job task profile: high demand/low control
Focus on work contract: high effort/low reward
Focus on unfair procedures and interactions
Chronic psychosocial stress at work: Complementary stress-theoretical models
-
active
passive
lowdistress
highdistress
Quantitative demands
Scop
e of
dec
isio
n/co
ntro
l low high
low
high
The demand-control model(R. Karasek 1979; R. Karasek & T. Theorell 1990)
Psychometric scale of demand-control model: www.jcqcenter.org
-
effort
reward
demands / obligations
- labour income- career mobility / job security- esteem, respect
motivation(‘overcommitment‘)
motivation(‘overcommitment‘)
Extrinsic components
Intrinsic component
The model of effort-reward imbalance (J. Siegrist 1996)
Psychometric scale of effort-reward model: www.uniklinik-duesseldorf.de/med-soziologie
-
Mean level of work stress in 17 European countries(SHARE, ELSA, n = 14 254, aged 50-64)
Source: T. Lunau et al. (2013): Unpublished results
.75 1 1.25Mean ERI
Hungary
Portugal
Czechia
Poland
Italy
Estonia
Slovenia
England
Spain
France
Germany
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Netherlands
Sweden
Switzerland
3.5 4 4.5 5Mean Low Control
Poland
Hungary
Italy
Czechia
Spain
Austria
Estonia
England
France
Germany
Belgium
Slovenia
Portugal
Switzerland
Netherlands
Sweden
Denmark
Psychosocial Working Conditions
-
Social gradient of work stress
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Effort-Reward Imbalance Low control
Perc
ent h
igh
stre
ssed
Very low LowMediumHighVery high
Source: Wahrendorf M et al. (2013) European Sociological Review 29: 792-802
The social gradient of work stress in the European workforce (age 50-64): SHARE-study
Diagramm1
Effort-Reward ImbalanceEffort-Reward ImbalanceEffort-Reward ImbalanceEffort-Reward ImbalanceEffort-Reward Imbalance
Low controlLow controlLow controlLow controlLow control
Very low
Low
Medium
High
Very high
Percent high stressed
Social gradient of work stress
37.5
35.4
31.2
26
18.3
31.7
25.1
14.9
13.8
8.6
Tabelle1
Effort-Reward ImbalanceLow control
Occupational statusVery low37.531.7
Low35.425.1
Medium31.214.9
High2613.8
Very high18.38.6
Figure 2: Quality of life in wave II (mean scores of CASP-12 (range 12-48) and standard errors) according to voluntary work (3 categories) in wave I
Tabelle1
Very low
Low
Medium
High
Very high
Percent with poor Quality of Work
Occupational status and Quality of Work
Tabelle5
country_groupnoyes
EURO-DERInorthern0.11266620.1549296
western0.16007090.2367758
southern0.11293630.2071429
low controlnorthern0.11441210.1583794
western0.17389230.2270916
southern0.12453180.1951219
Figure 1: Prevalence of depressive symptoms in wave II (EURO-D) according to low quality of work in wave I (yes= highest tertile effort-reward ratio or low control; no= lower tertiles)
Tabelle5
yes
no
Effort-Reward imbalance Low control
Prevalence of depressive symptoms in %
-
• Depression:• ~ 30 studies (Europe, USA, Canada, Japan):
People exposed to stress at work: mean increase of relative risk: 80% = OR 1.8 (95% CI 1.1-3.1)
• Coronary heart disease:• ~ 20 studies (Europe, USA):
People exposed to stress at work: mean increase of relative . risk: 40% = OR: 1.4 (95% CI 1.2-1.6)• Additional evidence of elevated health risks:
Metabolic syndrome / type II diabetesAlcohol dependenceMusculoskeletal disorders
Scientific evidence from prospective cohort studies: Demand-control and effort-reward-imbalance models
Source: Steptoe A, Kivimäki M 2012. Nat Rev Cardiol.9 ; Stansfeld SA ,Candy B 2006 Scand J WEH 32: 443
-
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
1 2 3 1 2 3
High demand / low control
Source: Based on Kivimäki, M, et al. (2002), BMJ, 325: 857, doi:/10.1136/bmj.325.7369.857.
High effort / low reward
Tertile (work stress):1 = no 2 = low3 = high
#adj. for age, sex, SEP, smoking, phys. act., SBP, cholest., and BMI
**
Haz
ard
ratio
#Work stress and cardiovascular mortality: Finnish Cohort Study, n = 812 employees
-
Psychosocial stress at work and depressive symptoms: 13.128 employed men and women 50-64 yrs. from 17 countries in three
continents (SHARE, ELSA, HRS, JSTAR)
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
USA (N=1560) Europa (N=10342) Japan (N=1226)
ERILow control
Source: J. Siegrist et al (2012) Globalization and Health 8:27.
* *
** *
Diagramm1
USA (N=1560)USA (N=1560)
Europa (N=10342)Europa (N=10342)
Japan (N=1226)Japan (N=1226)
ERI
Low control
2.28
2.26
1.97
1.66
1.64
1.59
Tabelle1
ERILow control
USA (N=1560)2.282.26
Europa (N=10342)1.971.66
Japan (N=1226)1.641.59
Ziehen Sie zum Ändern der Größe des Diagrammdatenbereichs die untere rechte Ecke des Bereichs.
-
3. Question: What can be done at organizationallevel to manage stress and improve healthy work?
• Provide evidence of a business case• Provide shared commitment from management
and employees• Provide available expertise (e.g. occupational
safety & health) and equipment • Monitor working conditions and employees‘ health• Develop and implement programmes, invest in
improvements, consult models of best practice• Ensure continuity, evaluate outcomes, build
networks
-
Personal level: Stress prevention programs Interpersonal level: Leadership training;
communication skills; Structural level: Organizational/personnel
development (based on work stress models) Job enrichment/ enlargement (autonomy, control, responsibility) Skill utilization / active learning Participation / team work and social support Culture of recognition Fair wages/ gain-sharing Continued qualification/ promotion prospects
Develop and implement Healthy Workplace Programs
-
Personal level: Effects of worksite stress prevention programs: Meta-analysis
Source: D Montano et al. (2014) Scand J Work Environ Health, doi: 10.5271/sjweh.3412 .
-
Source: T. Theorell et al. (2001), Psychosom Med, 63: 724-733.
Intervention group Control group
Baseline
390.4
6.2
After 1 year
345.2
6.1
Mean Cortisol (nmol/l)
Mean decision latitude(range 2-8)
Interaction group X time: *p = .05, **p = .02
Baseline
387.2
6.0
After 1 year
391.3
5.7
**
*
Interpersonal level: Leadership training of managers and stress hormone excretion in subordinates
-
Variable
DemandControlSocial supportRewardEffort-reward imbal.Work-rel. burnout
Means at t2 adj. for t0
experimental - control hospital p
11.970.023.731.21.0
43.2
12.668.723.030.21.1
48.3
.008
.051
.011
.003
.001
.003
Source: R. Bourbonnais et al. (2011), Occup Environ Med, 68: 479-486.
Structural – level: Organizational intervention in a Canadian hospital vs. control hospital*
*36 month-follow-up, two Canadian hospitals, N=248 (intervention) vs. 240 (control hospital) (ANCOVA, adj. for baseline values)
-
1. Employment security2. Selective hiring of new personnel3. Self-managed teams; decentralization of decision
making4. Comparatively high compensation contingent
on performance5. Extensive training6. Reduced status distinctions and barriers7. Extensive sharing of financial and performance
information
Seven practices of successful organizations: Reconciling health promotion with economy!
-
Productivity and quality of outcomes
Health and wellbeing of employees
Client satisfaction
Workplace/-environment
Investments intogood quality
of work
The Sirdal Model of Improved Work
-
Thank you!
Slide Number 1Slide Number 2Main QuestionsImportance of work for healthSignificant changes in the nature of work and labour marketEffects of economic globalisation: Labour market consequences in developed countriesIncrease in work intensity 2004-2010: �European Social Survey, 19 EU countriesJob insecurity 2004-2010�European Social Survey, 19 EU countries2. Question: What is the scientific evidence linking stress at work with adverse health? Working conditions as chronic stressors:� How to identify ‘toxic’ components within complex environments?Chronic psychosocial stress at work: �Complementary stress-theoretical models The demand-control model�(R. Karasek 1979; R. Karasek & T. Theorell 1990)The model of effort-reward imbalance �(J. Siegrist 1996)Mean level of work stress in 17 European countries�(SHARE, ELSA, n = 14 254, aged 50-64)The social gradient of work stress in the European workforce (age 50-64): SHARE-studyScientific evidence from prospective cohort studies: Demand-control and effort-reward-imbalance modelsWork stress and cardiovascular mortality: �Finnish Cohort Study, n = 812 employeesPsychosocial stress at work and depressive symptoms: 13.128 employed men and women 50-64 yrs. from 17 countries in three continents (SHARE, ELSA, HRS, JSTAR)3. Question: What can be done at organizational level to manage stress and improve healthy work?�Develop and implement �Healthy Workplace ProgramsPersonal level: Effects of worksite stress prevention programs: Meta-analysisInterpersonal level: Leadership training of managers and stress hormone excretion in subordinatesStructural – level: Organizational intervention in a Canadian hospital vs. control hospital*Seven practices of successful organizations: Reconciling health promotion with economy!The Sirdal Model of Improved WorkSlide Number 26
top related