| Literature DB >> 31261635 |
Shu-Ling Huang1,2, Ren-Hau Li1, Shu-Yi Fang2, Feng-Cheng Tang3,4,5,6.
Abstract
The present study aims to apply gender-specific analyses to examine how work-to-family conflict (WFC) and burnout are related to well-being among the workers in Taiwan. A cross-sectional research design was adopted. A questionnaire was distributed to obtain information pertaining to demographic characteristics, WFC, burnout, and well-being. In total, 4259 full-time workers in the manufacturing industry were recruited. Gender-specific statistical analyses were used. The results showed that no significant gender difference occurred on WFC; however, females had higher scores on burnout compared to males. In the correlation analyses, WFC as well as burnout were negatively associated with well-being in both genders. In the regression analyses when demographic factors were controlled, burnout explained larger variances of well-being in both genders compared with WFC. WFC made a smaller contribution to the models predicting well-being in males in contrast to females. Moreover, the significant association between WFC and well-being for males disappeared when burnout was taken into account. The conclusion reached was that to improve workers' well-being, organizations should develop relevant policies to decrease the extent of burnout for different genders. The policies that the organization adopted should consider females' needs beyond work-related burden. Moreover, merely decreasing the extent of WFC is insufficient to enhance males' well-being.Entities:
Keywords: burnout; gender; mental health; work-to-family conflict; workplace health promotion
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31261635 PMCID: PMC6651233 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16132291
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Comparing demographic characteristics and research variables by gender.
| Total (n = 4259) | Male (n = 3495) | Female (n = 764) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | n (%) a | n (%) a | n (%) a | χ2 |
| Age (year) | 220.531 *** | |||
| 20–29 | 321 (7.5) | 270 (7.7) | 51 (6.7) | |
| 30–39 | 1401 (32.9) | 1254 (35.9) | 147 (19.2) | |
| 40–49 | 785 (18.4) | 507 (14.5) | 278 (36.4) | |
| 50–59 | 1592 (37.4) | 1325 (37.9) | 267 (34.9) | |
| 60 and over | 160 (3.8) | 139 (4.0) | 21 (2.7) | |
| Marital status | 0.187 | |||
| not married | 1018 (23.9) | 840 (24.0) | 178 (23.3) | |
| married | 3241 (76.1) | 2655 (76.0) | 586 (76.7) | |
| Education | 46.600 *** | |||
| junior high | 56 (1.3) | 29 (0.8) | 27 (3.5) | |
| senior high | 922 (21.7) | 759 (21.8) | 163 (21.4) | |
| university | 2674 (62.9) | 2178 (62.5) | 496 (65.1) | |
| postgraduate | 597 (14.1) | 521 (14.9) | 76 (10.0) | |
| Occupation | 12.850 *** | |||
| white-collar | 3237 (76.0) | 2618 (74.9) | 619 (81.0) | |
| blue-collar | 1022 (24.0) | 877 (25.1) | 145 (19.0) | |
| Economic status | 46.921 *** | |||
| very poor | 92 (2.2) | 81 (2.3) | 11 (1.5) | |
| poor | 405 (9.6) | 365 (10.6) | 40 (5.3) | |
| ordinary | 2775 (65.8) | 2291 (66.2) | 484 (63.9) | |
| good | 771 (18.3) | 578 (16.7) | 193 (25.5) | |
| excellent | 174 (4.1) | 144 (4.2) | 30 (4.0) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| WFC b (5–20) | 9.2 (2.3) | 9.2 (2.3) | 9.1 (2.2) | 1.39 |
| Burnout (0–100) | 37.6 (17.3) | 37.3 (17.4) | 38.9 (16.5) | -2.30 * |
| Personal burnout (0–100) | 37.7 (18.5) | 37.3 (18.6) | 39.6 (17.9) | -3.17 ** |
| Work-related burnout (0–100) | 37.5 (17.4) | 37.3 (17.6) | 38.2 (16.7) | -1.3 |
| Well-being (0–30) | 13.4 (5.3) | 13.2 (5.4) | 13.9 (5.0) | -3.30 ** |
a Calculated according to a percentage of the valid count. b WFC denotes work-to-family conflict. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001 calculated using t or χ2 test.
The correlations of research variables in male and female workers.
| Male | Female | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | WFC a | Burnout | WFC a | Burnout |
| WFC a | -- | -- | ||
| Burnout | 0.246 ** | -- | 0.330 ** | -- |
| Well-being | −0.113 ** | −0.564 ** | −0.256 ** | −0.565 ** |
a WFC denotes work-to-family conflict. ** p < 0.01.
Summary of multiple linear regressions predicting the well-being for male and female workers.
| Male | Female | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model A1 | Model A2 | Model A3 | Model A4 | Model B1 | Model B2 | Model B3 | Model B4 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Age | 0.184 *** | 0.177 *** | 0.054 ** | 0.054 ** | 0.186 *** | 0.185 *** | 0.066 * | 0.073 * |
| Marital Status a | 0.066 *** | 0.075 *** | 0.093 *** | 0.092 *** | 0.065 | 0.075 * | 0.078 * | 0.080 ** |
| Education | 0.001 | 0.013 | 0.003 | 0.002 | −0.011 | 0.031 | −0.028 | −0.013 |
| Occupation a | −0.058 *** | −0.063 *** | −0.050 *** | −0.050 ** | 0.017 | −0.006 | 0.027 | 0.018 |
| Economic Status | 0.287 *** | 0.279 *** | 0.178 *** | 0.178 *** | 0.271 *** | 0.235 *** | 0.153 *** | 0.147 *** |
| WFC b | −0.098 *** | 0.010 | −0.239 *** | −0.081 * | ||||
| Burnout | −0.474 *** | −0.477 *** | −0.501 *** | −0.471 *** | ||||
| Total R2 | 0.184 | 0.193 | 0.373 | 0.374 | 0.147 | 0.200 | 0.360 | 0.366 |
| ∆R2 | 0.009 | 0.189 | 0.190 | 0.053 | 0.213 | 0.219 | ||
| F | 155.07 *** | 137.27 *** | 342.16 *** | 293.32 *** | 25.80 *** | 31.20 *** | 70.29 *** | 61.59 *** |
β denotes standardized regression coefficient. a Not married and white-collar were coded as 0; married and blue-collar were coded as 1. b WFC denotes work-to-family conflict. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.