PURPOSE: It is unknown whether immigrants working in the cleaning industry have a poorer health and work ability than cleaners from the native population. The main aim was to investigate differences in objective and self-reported health measures between immigrant and Danish cleaners. METHODS: Three hundred and fifty-one cleaners, consisting of 166 Danes (88% women) and 179 immigrants (74% women) (6 with unknown ethnicity), from 9 workplaces in Denmark participated in the study. Health and work ability were obtained by objective (e.g., BMI and blood pressure) and self-reported measures (e.g., work ability, self-rated health, and musculoskeletal symptoms). In order to investigate differences between Danish and immigrant cleaners, logistic regression analyses and General Linear Models were performed. RESULTS: When controlling for age, sex, workplace, job seniority, and smoking, more Danish compared with immigrant cleaners were current smokers (42% vs. 28%, p < 0.001 (not controlled for smoking)), had hypertension (46% vs. 26%, p < 0.05) and drank more alcohol (3.0 vs. 0.8 units per day, respectively, p < 0.001). Contrary, more immigrants compared with Danish cleaners were measured to be overweight (47% vs. 30%, p < 0.05), reported less than good work ability (57% vs. 42%, p < 0.01), considered it unthinkable/unsure to be able to perform work 2 years ahead (37% vs. 23%, p < 0.01), reported reduced self-rated health (46% vs. 38%, p < 0.01) and everyday pain in the neck/shoulder (28% vs. 11%, p < 0.01), wrist (18% vs. 7%, p < 0.01), and lower back (21% vs. 10%, p < 0.01). There were no differences in self-reported chronic diseases. CONCLUSIONS: Although the health of the cleaners was alarmingly poor, the immigrant cleaners generally had a poorer self-reported health and work ability than the Danish cleaners. These findings highlight the need for occupational health actions among cleaners, particularly tailored to the immigrant subpopulation.
PURPOSE: It is unknown whether immigrants working in the cleaning industry have a poorer health and work ability than cleaners from the native population. The main aim was to investigate differences in objective and self-reported health measures between immigrant and Danish cleaners. METHODS: Three hundred and fifty-one cleaners, consisting of 166 Danes (88% women) and 179 immigrants (74% women) (6 with unknown ethnicity), from 9 workplaces in Denmark participated in the study. Health and work ability were obtained by objective (e.g., BMI and blood pressure) and self-reported measures (e.g., work ability, self-rated health, and musculoskeletal symptoms). In order to investigate differences between Danish and immigrant cleaners, logistic regression analyses and General Linear Models were performed. RESULTS: When controlling for age, sex, workplace, job seniority, and smoking, more Danish compared with immigrant cleaners were current smokers (42% vs. 28%, p < 0.001 (not controlled for smoking)), had hypertension (46% vs. 26%, p < 0.05) and drank more alcohol (3.0 vs. 0.8 units per day, respectively, p < 0.001). Contrary, more immigrants compared with Danish cleaners were measured to be overweight (47% vs. 30%, p < 0.05), reported less than good work ability (57% vs. 42%, p < 0.01), considered it unthinkable/unsure to be able to perform work 2 years ahead (37% vs. 23%, p < 0.01), reported reduced self-rated health (46% vs. 38%, p < 0.01) and everyday pain in the neck/shoulder (28% vs. 11%, p < 0.01), wrist (18% vs. 7%, p < 0.01), and lower back (21% vs. 10%, p < 0.01). There were no differences in self-reported chronic diseases. CONCLUSIONS: Although the health of the cleaners was alarmingly poor, the immigrant cleaners generally had a poorer self-reported health and work ability than the Danish cleaners. These findings highlight the need for occupational health actions among cleaners, particularly tailored to the immigrant subpopulation.
Authors: Salim Yusuf; Steven Hawken; Stephanie Ounpuu; Leonelo Bautista; Maria Grazia Franzosi; Patrick Commerford; Chim C Lang; Zvonko Rumboldt; Churchill L Onen; Liu Lisheng; Supachai Tanomsup; Paul Wangai; Fahad Razak; Arya M Sharma; Sonia S Anand Journal: Lancet Date: 2005-11-05 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Andreas Holtermann; Marie B Jørgensen; Bibi Gram; Jeanette R Christensen; Anne Faber; Kristian Overgaard; John Ektor-Andersen; Ole S Mortensen; Gisela Sjøgaard; Karen Søgaard Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2010-03-09 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Kasper Olesen; Isabella G Carneiro; Marie B Jørgensen; Reiner Rugulies; Charlotte D N Rasmussen; Karen Søgaard; Andreas Holtermann; Mari-Ann Flyvholm Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2011-12-17 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Kasper Olesen; Isabella G Carneiro; Marie B Jørgensen; Mari-Ann Flyvholm; Reiner Rugulies; Charlotte D N Rasmussen; Karen Søgaard; Andreas Holtermann Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2011-05-10 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Jennifer M Cavallari; Manik Ahuja; Alicia G Dugan; John D Meyer; Nancy Simcox; Sara Wakai; Jennifer L Garza Journal: Am J Ind Med Date: 2016-07-13 Impact factor: 2.214
Authors: Isabella G Carneiro; Charlotte D N Rasmussen; Marie B Jørgensen; Mari-Ann Flyvholm; Kasper Olesen; Pascal Madeleine; Dorte Ekner; Karen Søgaard; Andreas Holtermann Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2012-04-18 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Marie Birk Jørgensen; John Ektor-Andersen; Gisela Sjøgaard; Andreas Holtermann; Karen Søgaard Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2011-10-10 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Marie B Jørgensen; Anne Faber; Jørgen V Hansen; Andreas Holtermann; Karen Søgaard Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2011-11-01 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Mette Korshøj; Peter Krustrup; Marie Birk Jørgensen; Eva Prescott; Åse Marie Hansen; Jesper Kristiansen; Jørgen Henrik Skotte; Ole Steen Mortensen; Karen Søgaard; Andreas Holtermann Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-08-13 Impact factor: 3.295