Cecilie Aagestad1, Håkon A Johannessen, Tore Tynes, Hans Magne Gravseth, Tom Sterud. 1. From the Department of Occupational Health Surveillance (Ms Aagestad and Drs Johannessen, Tynes, Gravseth, and Sterud), National Institute of Occupational Health, Oslo; and Department of Behavioral Sciences (Ms Aagestad), Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Norway.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of work-related psychosocial exposures on long-term sick leave (LTSL) in the general working population. METHODS: A prospective study of the general working population in Norway. Eligible respondents were interviewed in 2009 and registered with at least 100 working days in 2009 and 2010 (n = 6758). The outcome was medically confirmed LTSL of 40 days or more during 2010. RESULTS: In the fully adjusted model, high exposure to role conflict (odds ratio [OR], 1.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20 to 2.09), emotional demands (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.69), and low supportive leadership (OR = 1.50; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.96) predicted LTSL. A test for trend was statistically significant for all factors (P ≤ 0.05). We estimated that 15% of LTSL cases were attributable to these factors. CONCLUSIONS: This study underlines the importance of taking into account psychosocial exposures as risk factors for LTSL.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of work-related psychosocial exposures on long-term sick leave (LTSL) in the general working population. METHODS: A prospective study of the general working population in Norway. Eligible respondents were interviewed in 2009 and registered with at least 100 working days in 2009 and 2010 (n = 6758). The outcome was medically confirmed LTSL of 40 days or more during 2010. RESULTS: In the fully adjusted model, high exposure to role conflict (odds ratio [OR], 1.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20 to 2.09), emotional demands (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.69), and low supportive leadership (OR = 1.50; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.96) predicted LTSL. A test for trend was statistically significant for all factors (P ≤ 0.05). We estimated that 15% of LTSL cases were attributable to these factors. CONCLUSIONS: This study underlines the importance of taking into account psychosocial exposures as risk factors for LTSL.
Authors: Cecilie Aagestad; Reidar Tyssen; Håkon A Johannessen; Hans Magne Gravseth; Tore Tynes; Tom Sterud Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2014-09-29 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Stef Bouwhuis; Anne Helene Garde; Goedele A Geuskens; Cécile R L Boot; Paulien M Bongers; Allard J van der Beek Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Elisabeth Framke; Jeppe Karl Sørensen; Mads Nordentoft; Nina Føns Johnsen; Anne Helene Garde; Jacob Pedersen; Ida E H Madsen; Reiner Rugulies Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2019-10-29 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Eszter Török; Alice Jessie Clark; Annette Kjær Ersbøll; Jakob Bue Bjorner; Andreas Holtermann; Reiner Rugulies; Anthony D LaMontagne; Allison Milner; Naja Hulvej Rod Journal: Scand J Work Environ Health Date: 2019-12-16 Impact factor: 5.024