Isabelle Niedhammer1,2, Allison Milner3, Anthony D LaMontagne3,4, Jean-François Chastang5,6. 1. INSERM, U1085, Research Institute for Environmental and Occupational Health (IRSET), Epidemiology in Occupational Health and Ergonomics (ESTER) Team, 28 rue Roger Amsler, Cedex 74521, 49045, Angers Cedex 1, France. isabelle.niedhammer@inserm.fr. 2. University of Angers, Epidemiology in Occupational Health and Ergonomics (ESTER) Team, Angers, France. isabelle.niedhammer@inserm.fr. 3. Centre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia. 4. Work, Health and Wellbeing Unit, Centre for Population Health Research, School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, 3125, Australia. 5. INSERM, U1085, Research Institute for Environmental and Occupational Health (IRSET), Epidemiology in Occupational Health and Ergonomics (ESTER) Team, 28 rue Roger Amsler, Cedex 74521, 49045, Angers Cedex 1, France. 6. University of Angers, Epidemiology in Occupational Health and Ergonomics (ESTER) Team, Angers, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of the study were to construct a job-exposure matrix (JEM) for psychosocial work factors of the job strain model, to evaluate its validity, and to compare the results over time. METHODS: The study was based on national representative data of the French working population with samples of 46,962 employees (2010 SUMER survey) and 24,486 employees (2003 SUMER survey). Psychosocial work factors included the job strain model factors (Job Content Questionnaire): psychological demands, decision latitude, social support, job strain and iso-strain. Job title was defined by three variables: occupation and economic activity coded using standard classifications, and company size. A JEM was constructed using a segmentation method (Classification and Regression Tree-CART) and cross-validation. RESULTS: The best quality JEM was found using occupation and company size for social support. For decision latitude and psychological demands, there was not much difference using occupation and company size with or without economic activity. The validity of the JEM estimates was higher for decision latitude, job strain and iso-strain, and lower for social support and psychological demands. Differential changes over time were observed for psychosocial work factors according to occupation, economic activity and company size. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that company size in addition to occupation may improve the validity of JEMs for psychosocial work factors. These matrices may be time-dependent and may need to be updated over time. More research is needed to assess the validity of JEMs given that these matrices may be able to provide exposure assessments to study a range of health outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of the study were to construct a job-exposure matrix (JEM) for psychosocial work factors of the job strain model, to evaluate its validity, and to compare the results over time. METHODS: The study was based on national representative data of the French working population with samples of 46,962 employees (2010 SUMER survey) and 24,486 employees (2003 SUMER survey). Psychosocial work factors included the job strain model factors (Job Content Questionnaire): psychological demands, decision latitude, social support, job strain and iso-strain. Job title was defined by three variables: occupation and economic activity coded using standard classifications, and company size. A JEM was constructed using a segmentation method (Classification and Regression Tree-CART) and cross-validation. RESULTS: The best quality JEM was found using occupation and company size for social support. For decision latitude and psychological demands, there was not much difference using occupation and company size with or without economic activity. The validity of the JEM estimates was higher for decision latitude, job strain and iso-strain, and lower for social support and psychological demands. Differential changes over time were observed for psychosocial work factors according to occupation, economic activity and company size. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that company size in addition to occupation may improve the validity of JEMs for psychosocial work factors. These matrices may be time-dependent and may need to be updated over time. More research is needed to assess the validity of JEMs given that these matrices may be able to provide exposure assessments to study a range of health outcomes.
Entities:
Keywords:
Company size; Economic activity; Job strain; Job stress; Job title; Job–exposure matrix; Occupation; Psychosocial work factors
Authors: Benjamin C Amick; Peggy McDonough; Hong Chang; William H Rogers; Carl F Pieper; Greg Duncan Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2002 May-Jun Impact factor: 4.312
Authors: Isabelle Niedhammer; Thomas Lesuffleur; Thomas Coutrot; Jean-François Chastang Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2016-05-19 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Bo Netterstrøm; Nicole Conrad; Per Bech; Per Fink; Ole Olsen; Reiner Rugulies; Stephen Stansfeld Journal: Epidemiol Rev Date: 2008-06-27 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: I Andersen; H Burr; T S Kristensen; M Gamborg; M Osler; E Prescott; F Diderichsen Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Mika Kivimäki; Solja T Nyberg; G David Batty; Eleonor I Fransson; Katriina Heikkilä; Lars Alfredsson; Jakob B Bjorner; Marianne Borritz; Hermann Burr; Annalisa Casini; Els Clays; Dirk De Bacquer; Nico Dragano; Jane E Ferrie; Goedele A Geuskens; Marcel Goldberg; Mark Hamer; Wendela E Hooftman; Irene L Houtman; Matti Joensuu; Markus Jokela; France Kittel; Anders Knutsson; Markku Koskenvuo; Aki Koskinen; Anne Kouvonen; Meena Kumari; Ida E H Madsen; Michael G Marmot; Martin L Nielsen; Maria Nordin; Tuula Oksanen; Jaana Pentti; Reiner Rugulies; Paula Salo; Johannes Siegrist; Archana Singh-Manoux; Sakari B Suominen; Ari Väänänen; Jussi Vahtera; Marianna Virtanen; Peter J M Westerholm; Hugo Westerlund; Marie Zins; Andrew Steptoe; Töres Theorell Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-09-14 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Isabelle Niedhammer; Allison Milner; Béatrice Geoffroy-Perez; Thomas Coutrot; Anthony D LaMontagne; Jean-François Chastang Journal: Scand J Work Environ Health Date: 2020-05-21 Impact factor: 5.024
Authors: Hanifa Bouziri; Alexis Descatha; Yves Roquelaure; William Dab; Kévin Jean Journal: Scand J Work Environ Health Date: 2022-03-08 Impact factor: 5.492
Authors: Matthew L Stevens; Kristina Karstad; Leticia Bergamin Januario; Svend Erik Mathiassen; Reiner Rugulies; David M Hallman; Andreas Holtermann Journal: Ann Work Expo Health Date: 2022-10-11 Impact factor: 2.779
Authors: Ida E H Madsen; Nidhi Gupta; Esben Budtz-Jørgensen; Jens Peter Bonde; Elisabeth Framke; Esben Meulengracht Flachs; Sesilje Bondo Petersen; Annemette Coop Svane-Petersen; Andreas Holtermann; Reiner Rugulies Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2018-07-25 Impact factor: 4.402