| Literature DB >> 28407025 |
Yasuhiko Deguchi1, Shinichi Iwasaki1, Hideyuki Ishimoto1, Koichiro Ogawa1, Yuichi Fukuda1, Tomoko Nitta1, Tomoe Mitake1, Yukako Nogi1, Koki Inoue1.
Abstract
Insomnia among workers reduces the quality of life, contributes toward the economic burden of healthcare costs and losses in work performance. The relationship between occupational stress and insomnia has been reported in previous studies, but there has been little attention to temperament in occupational safety and health research. The aim of this study was to clarify the relationships between temperament, occupational stress, and insomnia. The subjects were 133 Japanese daytime local government employees. Temperament was assessed using the Temperament Evaluation of Memphis, Pisa, Paris, and San Diego-Auto questionnaire (TEMPS-A). Occupational stress was assessed using the Generic Job Stress Questionnaire (GJSQ). Insomnia was assessed using the Athens Insomnia Scale (AIS). Stepwise multiple logistic regression analyses were conducted. In a stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis, it was found that the higher subdivided stress group by "role conflict" (OR = 5.29, 95% CI, 1.61-17.32) and anxious temperament score (OR = 1.33; 95% CI, 1.19-1.49) was associated with the presence of insomnia using an adjusted model, whereas other factors were excluded from the model. The study limitations were the sample size and the fact that only Japanese local government employees were surveyed. This study demonstrated the relationships between workers' anxious temperament, role conflict, and insomnia. Recognizing one's own anxious temperament would lead to self-insight, and the recognition of anxious temperament and reduction of role conflict by their supervisors or coworkers would reduce the prevalence of insomnia among workers in the workplace.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28407025 PMCID: PMC5391062 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175346
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Demographic variables, GJSQ scores, TEMPS-A scores, and AIS scores
| Range | n | (%) | Mean ± SD | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 45 | (33.8) | ||
| Female | 88 | (66.2) | |||
| Position classification | Non-managerial | 90 | (67.7) | ||
| Managerial | 43 | (32.3) | |||
| Occupation | Clerical | 95 | (71.4) | ||
| Professional | 38 | (28.6) | |||
| Type of employment | Regular | 101 | (75.9) | ||
| Temporary | 32 | (24.1) | |||
| Age | 41.6 ± 11.9 | ||||
| Service years | 14.0 ± 12.3 | ||||
| GJSQ scores | Quantitative workload | (11–55) | 34.7 ± 7.4 | ||
| Job control | (16–80) | 42.0 ± 11.9 | |||
| Role conflict | (8–56) | 25.8 ± 8.2 | |||
| Role ambiguity | (6–42) | 18.7 ± 5.2 | |||
| Intragroup conflict | (8–40) | 19.3 ± 5.5 | |||
| Supervisors support | (4–20) | 15.5 ± 3.3 | |||
| Coworkers support | (4–20) | 16.1± 3.1 | |||
| Temperaments | Depressive | (0–21) | 8.1 ± 3.5 | ||
| Cyclothymic | (0–21) | 4.4 ± 3.9 | |||
| Hyperthymic | (0–21) | 5.3 ± 4.2 | |||
| Irritable | (0-Male 21, Female 22) | 2.9 ± 3.2 | |||
| Anxious | (0–26) | 6.3 ± 5.5 | |||
| AIS scores | Total | (0–24) | 4.5 ± 3.6 | ||
| Insomnia Group | 48 | (36.1) | 8.5 ± 2.4 | ||
| Non-Insomnia Group | 85 | (63.9) | 2.3 ± 1.6 |
GJSQ: Generic Job Stress Questionnaire
TEMPS-A: Temperament Evaluation of Memphis, Pisa, Paris, and San Diego-Auto questionnaire
AIS: Athens Insomnia Scale
Spearman's correlation between the TEMPS-A temperament scores and occupational stress
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | -0.021 | 0.266 | 0.131 | 0.074 | -0.11 | -0.161 | 0.125 | 0.075 | -0.006 | 0.217 | 0.109 | |||||||||||
| - | 0.041 | -0.29 | 0.057 | -0.045 | 0.003 | -0.188 | -0.094 | 0.234 | -0.024 | -0.119 | ||||||||||||
| - | 0.306 | 0.461 | -0.461 | -0.455 | 0.124 | 0.266 | 0.012 | 0.433 | 0.27 | |||||||||||||
| - | 0.216 | -0.219 | -0.178 | 0.12 | 0.256 | -0.29 | 0.226 | 0.137 | ||||||||||||||
| - | -0.408 | -0.451 | -0.003 | 0.238 | 0.114 | 0.326 | 0.126 | |||||||||||||||
| - | 0.652 | -0.169 | -0.168 | 0.006 | -0.252 | -0.203 | ||||||||||||||||
| - | -0.143 | -0.209 | 0.061 | -0.287 | -0.284 | |||||||||||||||||
| - | 0.412 | -0.183 | 0.293 | 0.494 | ||||||||||||||||||
| - | 0.095 | 0.559 | 0.483 | |||||||||||||||||||
| - | 0.173 | -0.089 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| - | 0.468 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| - |
* p < 0.05,
** p < 0.01,
*** p < 0.001
TEMPS-A: Temperament Evaluation of Memphis, Pisa, Paris, and San Diego-Auto questionnaire
qua; quantitative workload, jc; job control, rc; role conflict, ra; role ambiguity, int; intragroup conflict, sup; support from supervisors, cow; support from coworkers, dep; depressive temperament, cyc; cyclothymic temperament, hyp; hyperthymic temperament, irr; irritable temperament, anx; anxious temperament
Analysis of risk factors for insomnia by crude and stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis.
| Crude model | Adjusted model | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Temperaments and occupational stress | OR | (95% CI) | p | OR | (95% CI) | p | |||
| Quantitative Workload | (Low) | 1.00 | |||||||
| Middle | 1.01 | 0.40–2.59 | 0.98 | ||||||
| High | 1.99 | 0.83–4.77 | 0.12 | ||||||
| Job Control | (High) | 1.00 | |||||||
| Middle | 1.41 | 0.55–3.67 | 0.48 | ||||||
| Low | 1.26 | 0.49–3.18 | 0.63 | ||||||
| Role Conflict | (Low) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||||
| Middle | 2.63 | 0.90–7.69 | 0.08 | 2.12 | 0.63–7.14 | 0.224 | |||
| High | 8.60 | 3.03–24.41 | <0.001 | 5.29 | 1.61–17.32 | 0.006 | |||
| Role Ambiguity | (Low) | 1.00 | |||||||
| Middle | 0.81 | 0.32–2.06 | 0.66 | ||||||
| High | 2.23 | 0.93–5.34 | 0.07 | ||||||
| Intragroup Conflict | (Low) | 1.00 | |||||||
| Middle | 1.51 | 0.64–3.55 | 0.35 | ||||||
| High | 1.77 | 0.72–4.33 | 0.21 | ||||||
| Social Support from Supervisor | (High) | 1.00 | |||||||
| Middle | 2.71 | 1.14–6.42 | 0.02 | ||||||
| Low | 0.72 | 0.29–1.79 | 0.48 | ||||||
| Social Support from Coworker | (High) | 1.00 | |||||||
| Middle | 4.55 | 1.76–11.75 | <0.01 | ||||||
| Low | 3.00 | 1.17–7.69 | 0.02 | ||||||
| Depressive | 1.17 | 1.05–1.31 | <0.01 | ||||||
| Cyclothymic | 1.27 | 1.14–1.42 | <0.001 | ||||||
| Hyperthymic | 0.98 | 0.90–1.07 | 0.71 | ||||||
| Irritable | 1.26 | 1.11–1.42 | <0.001 | ||||||
| Anxious | 1.36 | 1.22–1.51 | <0.001 | 1.33 | (1.19–1.49) | <0.001 | |||
| Age | 1.02 | 0.99–1.05 | 0.19 | ||||||
| Gender | (Female) | 1.00 | |||||||
| Male | 0.97 | 0.46–2.04 | 0.93 | ||||||
| Position classification | (Non-managerial) | 1.00 | |||||||
| Managerial | 1.67 | 0.79–3.51 | 0.18 | ||||||
| Occupation | (Clerical) | 1.00 | |||||||
| Professional | 1.23 | 0.56–2.66 | 0.61 | ||||||
| Type of employment | (Regular) | 1.00 | |||||||
| Temporary | 0.62 | 0.26–1.48 | 0.28 | ||||||
OR: Odds Ratio. CI: Confidence Interval.
* p < 0.05,
** p < 0.01,
*** p < 0.001 compared with non-insomnia group.
Parenthesis denotes reference category.
†: Adjusted for all listed variables.