INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to identify psychosocial work factors that may individually or, in combination, influence injury outcomes among aging United States (U.S.) workers. METHODS: Data from the U.S. Health and Retirement Study (HRS) of 3305 working adults, aged 50 years and above, were used to identify associations between work-related psychosocial factors and injury incidence from 2006 to 2014, using adjusted incidence rate ratios. RESULTS: Employees perceiving their work as high in psychological and physical demands/efforts, low in support, and rewards, compared to those in workplaces with low demands, high support, and high rewards, had a risk of injury two times greater. Males, compared with females, had a greater risk for injuries when interactions among several psychosocial work-related factors were modeled. CONCLUSIONS: The fact that important gender-based differences emerged when interactions among the psychosocial factors and injury were modeled, suggests opportunities for further research and potential interventions to enhance the working environment.
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to identify psychosocial work factors that may individually or, in combination, influence injury outcomes among aging United States (U.S.) workers. METHODS: Data from the U.S. Health and Retirement Study (HRS) of 3305 working adults, aged 50 years and above, were used to identify associations between work-related psychosocial factors and injury incidence from 2006 to 2014, using adjusted incidence rate ratios. RESULTS: Employees perceiving their work as high in psychological and physical demands/efforts, low in support, and rewards, compared to those in workplaces with low demands, high support, and high rewards, had a risk of injury two times greater. Males, compared with females, had a greater risk for injuries when interactions among several psychosocial work-related factors were modeled. CONCLUSIONS: The fact that important gender-based differences emerged when interactions among the psychosocial factors and injury were modeled, suggests opportunities for further research and potential interventions to enhance the working environment.
Authors: Jeanne M Sears; Beryl A Schulman; Deborah Fulton-Kehoe; Sheilah Hogg-Johnson Journal: Ann Work Expo Health Date: 2021-06-12 Impact factor: 2.779
Authors: Francesco Chirico; Tarja Heponiemi; Milena Pavlova; Salvatore Zaffina; Nicola Magnavita Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-07-11 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Ahmad Shahrul Nizam Isha; Muhammad Umair Javaid; Amir Zaib Abbasi; Sobia Bano; Muhammad Zahid; Mumtaz Ali Memon; Umair Rehman; Matthias Nübling; Asrar Ahmed Sabir; Saif Ur Rehman; Nazish Imtiaz Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2020-02-03 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Pernille Weber Hansen; Vivi Schlünssen; Kirsten Fonager; Jakob Hjort Bønløkke; Claus D Hansen; Henrik Bøggild Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2022-01-06 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Aviroop Biswas; Shireen Harbin; Emma Irvin; Heather Johnston; Momtaz Begum; Maggie Tiong; Dorothy Apedaile; Mieke Koehoorn; Peter Smith Journal: Am J Ind Med Date: 2022-05-16 Impact factor: 3.079