| Literature DB >> 22966903 |
Jenni Ervasti1, Mika Kivimäki, Ichiro Kawachi, S V Subramanian, Jaana Pentti, Tuula Oksanen, Riikka Puusniekka, Tiina Pohjonen, Jussi Vahtera, Marianna Virtanen.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Poor indoor air quality (IAQ) and psychosocial problems are common in schools worldwide, yet longitudinal research on the issue is scarce. We examined whether the level of or a change in pupil-reported school environment (IAQ, school satisfaction, and bullying) predicts recorded sick leaves among teachers.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22966903 PMCID: PMC3490775 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-770
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Descriptive statistics of study sample by the level of or change in indoor air quality (IAQ) as evaluated by pupils
| Mean age, years | 47.9 | 47.6 | 48.1 | 48.4 | 47.6 | 0.57 |
| Percentage of male teachers | 26.5 | 25.0 | 29.0 | 21.5 | 25.5 | 0.20 |
| Percentage of teachers with fixed-term job contracts | 14.0 | 14.6 | 13.6 | 20.7 | 11.8 | 0.10 |
| Percentage of special education teachers | 5.5 | 6.2 | 5.7 | 1.7 | 5.6 | 0.58 |
| high PTR* | 46.8 | 50.5 | 36.3 | 76.9 | 52.0 | <0.001 |
| high pupil cohort socioeconomic composition** | 48.1 | 36.7 | 47.6 | 66.9 | 57.6 | <0.001 |
| school satisfaction | 13.8 | 20.8 | 4.3 | 14.1 | 22.5 | <0.001 |
| pupils being bullied | 20.9 | 28.0 | 20.6 | 25.6 | 10.5 | <0.001 |
| pupils bullying others | 17.1 | 16.5 | 15.2 | 36.4 | 15.3 | <0.001 |
| Metropolitan area | 66.5 | 77.9 | 53.7 | 100 | 64.9 | <0.001 |
| Other | 33.5 | 22.1 | 46.3 | 0 | 35.1 | |
* Indicates above baseline median pupil-teacher ratio both at baseline and at follow-up.
** Indicates the percentage of pupils at school whose mothers had higher than a vocational education both at baseline and at follow-up (high pupil cohort socioeconomic composition).
*** Indicates a change from baseline (2001/2002) median to follow-up (2004/2005).
**** Helsinki metropolitan area: 2-year follow-up; Other: 4-year follow-up.
***** x2 test for nominal variables, ANOVA for continuous variable (least square means).
Summary of random effects of associations between changing school environment and teacher sick leave
| Empty | 0.056 | 0.043 | 0.10 | 0 | - | - |
| with IAQ | 0.019 | 0.037 | 0.20 | 0 | - | - |
| Model I* | 0.031 | 0.042 | 0.23 | 0.039 | 0.036 | 0.14 |
| Model II** | <0.001 | - | - | 0.028 | 0.035 | 0.21 |
| Empty | 0.038 | 0.049 | 0.22 | 0.016 | 0.021 | 0.21 |
| with IAQ | 0.029 | 0.047 | 0.27 | 0.017 | 0.021 | 0.21 |
| Model I* | <0.001 | - | - | 0.121 | 0.083 | 0.07 |
| Model II** | <0.001 | - | - | 0.084 | 0.076 | 0.13 |
* Model adjusted for follow-up time, teachers’ sex, age, employment contract, occupation, and teacher sick leaves during 2001–2002. ** Model adjusted as Model I + pupil-teacher ratio, pupil cohort socioeconomic composition, school satisfaction, and bullying at school from baseline to follow-up.
Multinomial regression models.
Change in or the level of pupil-reported school environment as predictor of teachers’ short-term sick leave (vs. no sick leaves) in 2004–05
| Women vs. men | | | 1.41 (1.08-1.86) | 0.01 | 1.45 (1.10-1.91) | 0.009 |
| Age/10 years | | | 0.66 (0.57-0.76) | <0.001 | 0.67 (0.58-0.77) | <0.001 |
| Special vs. general education (2004–05) | | | 0.82 (0.49-1.38) | 0.46 | 0.90 (0.53-1.50) | 0.68 |
| Fixed-term vs. permanent job (2004–05) | | | 0.88 (0.62-1.26) | 0.49 | 0.89 (0.62-1.27) | 0.52 |
| Short-term sick leaves in 01–02: yes vs. no | | | 3.05 (2.22-4.19) | <0.001 | 3.14 (2.28-4.32) | <0.001 |
| School location/follow-up time: 2 vs. 4 years | | | 1.20 (0.79-1.83) | 0.39 | 1.22 (0.78-1.91) | 0.38 |
| High vs. small PTR at school*** | | | | | 0.84 (0.54-1.29) | 0.41 |
| Low vs. high pupil socioeconomic composition**** | | | | | 0.63 (0.43-0.90) | 0.01 |
| 1 Poor at both times, 22 schools (n = 414) | | | | | 1.00 = Referent | |
| 2 Good at both times, 36 schools (n = 619) | | | | | 1.00 (0.69-1.44) | 0.99 |
| 3 Negative change; from good to poor, 13 schools (n = 232) | | | | | 1.78 (1.13-2.81) | 0.01 |
| 4 Positive change; from poor to good, 22 schools (n = 413) | | | | | 1.44 (0.98-2.11) | 0.06 |
| 1 Poor at both times, 27 schools (n = 501) | | | | | Referent | |
| 2 Good at both times, 29 schools (n = 488) | | | | | 1.15 (0.79-1.69) | 0.47 |
| 3 Negative change; from good to poor, 18 schools (n = 350) | | | | | 0.97 (0.68-1.40) | 0.89 |
| 4 Positive change; from poor to good, 19 schools (n = 339) | | | | | 0.90 (0.60-1.36) | 0.61 |
| 1 Poor at both times, 28 schools (n = 464) | | | | | Referent | |
| 2 Good at both times, 28 schools (n = 549) | | | | | 0.96 (0.66-1.40) | 0.83 |
| 3 Negative change; from good to poor, 16 schools (n = 287) | | | | | 1.51 (1.01-2.25) | 0.04 |
| 4 Positive change; from poor to good, 21 schools (n = 378) | | | | | 1.42 (0.97-2.08) | 0.07 |
| 1 Poor at both times, 28 schools (n = 485) | 1.00 = Referent | | Referent | | Referent | |
| 2 Good at both times, 37 schools (n = 699) | 0.60 (0.45-0.79) | <0.001 | 0.63 (0.46-0.86) | 0.003 | 0.61 (0.45-0.85) | 0.003 |
| 3 Negative change; from good to poor, 7 schools (n = 121) | 0.80 (0.50-1.30) | 0.37 | 0.78 (0.50-1.30) | 0.34 | 0.80 (0.47-1.35) | 0.40 |
| 4 Positive change; from poor to good, 21 schools (n = 373) | 0.59 (0.42-0.83) | 0.002 | 0.64 (0.45-0.92) | 0.02 | 0.60 (0.41-0.88) | 0.009 |
* Model adjusted for teachers’ sex, age, employment contract, occupation, sick leaves during 2001–2002, and school location/follow-up time. ** Model adjusted as Model I + pupil-teacher ratio, pupil cohort socioeconomic composition, school satisfaction, and bullying at school from baseline to follow-up. *** Indicates above baseline median pupil-teacher ratio (>10.29) both at baseline and at follow-up vs. below baseline median or decreased pupil-teacher ratio. **** Indicates the percentage of pupils at school whose mothers had no more than a vocational education both at baseline and at follow-up and those with a negative change (low pupil cohort socioeconomic composition) vs. the percentage of pupils whose mothers have higher than a vocational education at both times high pupil cohort socioeconomic composition).
Multinomial logistic regression.