| Literature DB >> 31337012 |
Prakash K C1,2, Jodi Oakman3, Clas-Håkan Nygård4,5, Anna Siukola4,5, Kirsi Lumme-Sandt4,5, Pirjo Nikander5,6, Subas Neupane4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We investigated work ability and trajectories of work life satisfaction (WLS) as predictors of intention to retire (ITR) before the statutory age.Entities:
Keywords: ageing workers; intention to retire; psychosocial work exposures; work ability; work wellbeing
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31337012 PMCID: PMC6678099 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16142500
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Fit indices for trajectories of work life satisfaction.
| Classes | BIC | AIC | Entropy | Posterior Probability |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 27,466.58 | 27,371.44 | 0.73 | 0.92/0.93 |
| 3 | 26,528.19 | 26,382.68 | 0.73 | 0.91/0.89/0.86 |
| 4 | 25,934.67 | 25,738.79 | 0.75 | 0.87/0.88/0.92/0.84 |
BIC, Bayesian Information Criteria; AIC, Akaike Information Criteria.
Figure 1Trajectories of work life satisfaction among the respondents.
Cross tabulation of Basic characteristics of study population and exposure variables.
| Characteristics of the Study Population | n = 1466 a | Work Ability (1466) b | Satisfaction in Working Life (n = 1413) b,c | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Good/Excellent | Mode-Rate | Poor | High | Mode-Rate | Decreasing | Low | ||||
|
| ||||||||||
| Women | 587 | 42 | 31 | 27 | 0.082 | 35 | 38 | 21 | 6 | 0.009 |
| Men | 879 | 39 | 37 | 24 | 32 | 33 | 24 | 11 | ||
|
| ||||||||||
| 51–53 | 327 | 47 | 34 | 19 | 0.053 | 31 | 36 | 24 | 9 | 0.001 |
| 54–56 | 435 | 40 | 33 | 27 | 32 | 31 | 26 | 11 | ||
| 57–59 | 397 | 36 | 37 | 27 | 31 | 37 | 25 | 7 | ||
| ≥60 | 293 | 40 | 35 | 25 | 39 | 40 | 13 | 8 | ||
|
| ||||||||||
| White-Collar | 188 | 63 | 24 | 13 | <0.001 | 38 | 50 | 6 | 6 | <0.001 |
| Blue-Collar | 1264 | 37 | 36 | 27 | 32 | 33 | 26 | 9 | ||
|
| ||||||||||
| High | 668 | 55 | 32 | 13 | <0.001 | 42 | 42 | 9 | 7 | <0.001 |
| Low | 786 | 28 | 37 | 35 | 25 | 29 | 35 | 11 | ||
|
| ||||||||||
| High | 659 | 54 | 30 | 16 | <0.001 | 43 | 41 | 11 | 6 | <0.001 |
| Low | 797 | 30 | 38 | 32 | 25 | 31 | 33 | 11 | ||
|
| ||||||||||
| Good | 469 | 82 | 15 | 3 | <0.001 | 44 | 38 | 10 | 8 | <0.001 |
| Moderate | 684 | 28 | 55 | 17 | 31 | 40 | 21 | 8 | ||
| Poor | 302 | 4 | 18 | 78 | 19 | 21 | 48 | 12 | ||
|
| ||||||||||
| 3–35 | 187 | 31 | 28 | 41 | <0.001 | 27 | 32 | 24 | 16 | 0.004 |
| 36–40 | 1066 | 42 | 36 | 22 | 34 | 36 | 22 | 8 | ||
| >40 | 129 | 43 | 35 | 22 | 29 | 36 | 28 | 7 | ||
|
| ||||||||||
| Low | 884 | 45 | 32 | 23 | <0.001 | 37 | 35 | 18 | 10 | <0.001 |
| Moderate | 432 | 35 | 39 | 26 | 29 | 38 | 27 | 6 | ||
| High | 141 | 27 | 35 | 38 | 19 | 26 | 44 | 11 | ||
Notes: Column total is not equal to N in some variables; row percentage; n = 1413 due to selection for developmental pathways; χ2-test.
Association between work ability and intention to retire with simultaneous adjustments for different characteristics of the study population.
| Models | Good/Excellent | Moderate | PERM | Poor | PERM | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RR | RR | 95% CI | % | RR | 95% CI | % | |
| Adjusted for age + gender | 1.0 | 2.07 | 1.72–2.51 | Reference | 3.73 | 3.14–4.42 | Reference |
| +Occupational class | 1.0 | 2.05 | 1.69–2.48 | 1.9 | 3.65 | 3.07–4.34 | 2.9 |
| +Perceived Health | 1.0 | 1.58 | 1.28–1.95 | 45.8 | 2.01 | 1.56–2.60 | 63.0 |
| +Job control | 1.0 | 1.98 | 1.63–2.41 | 8.4 | 3.46 | 2.89–4.14 | 9.9 |
| +Job support | 1.0 | 1.95 | 1.61–2.37 | 11.2 | 3.32 | 2.77–3.97 | 15.0 |
| +Working hours/week | 1.0 | 2.02 | 1.66–2.45 | 4.7 | 3.62 | 3.05–4.30 | 4.0 |
| +Work stress | 1.0 | 2.03 | 1.67–2.45 | 3.7 | 3.59 | 3.02–4.27 | 5.1 |
| +All above factors | 1.0 | 1.36 | 1.09–1.70 | 66.4 | 1.79 | 1.40–2.29 | 71.1 |
Notes: RR, Relative Risk; CI, Confidence Interval; All separate analyses are adjusted with age and gender; PERM, Percentage of excess risk mediated (age and gender adjusted estimate used as referent group for calculation); WLS, satisfaction in working life.
Association between satisfaction in working life (WLS) and intention to retire with simultaneous adjustments for different characteristics of the study population.
| Models | High | Moderate | Low | PERM | Decreasing | PERM | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RR | RR | 95% CI | RR | 95% CI | % | RR | 95% CI | % | |
| Adjusted for age + gender | 1.0 | 1.09 | 0.92–1.29 | 1.59 | 1.30–1.95 | Reference | 2.26 | 1.95–2.60 | Reference |
| +Occupational class | 1.0 | 1.07 | 0.89–1.29 | 1.48 | 1.17–1.87 | 18.6 | 2.10 | 1.80–2.46 | 12.7 |
| +Perceived Health | 1.0 | 1.05 | 0.89–1.23 | 1.14 | 0.93–1.39 | 76.3 | 1.35 | 1.17–1.55 | 72.2 |
| +Job control | 1.0 | 1.03 | 0.86–1.24 | 1.40 | 1.11–1.77 | 32.2 | 1.92 | 1.62–2.28 | 27.0 |
| +Job support | 1.0 | 1.04 | 0.86–1.24 | 1.38 | 1.09–1.73 | 35.6 | 1.83 | 1.55–2.16 | 33.9 |
| +Working hours/week | 1.0 | 1.05 | 0.88–1.27 | 1.46 | 1.15–1.86 | 22.0 | 2.11 | 1.80–2.48 | 11.9 |
| +Work stress | 1.0 | 1.05 | 0.88–1.26 | 1.49 | 1.18–1.88 | 16.9 | 2.04 | 1.73–2.42 | 17.4 |
| +All above factors | 1.0 | 1.07 | 0.92–1.26 | 1.07 | 0.91–1.26 | 88.0 | 1.29 | 1.13–1.46 | 77.0 |
Notes: RR, Relative Risk; CI, Confidence Interval; All separate analyses are adjusted with age and gender; PERM, Percentage of excess risk mediated (age and gender adjusted estimate used as referent group for calculation).
Risk Ratio (RR) and 95% CI on the association between exposures (work ability and satisfaction in work life (WLS)) and outcome (intention to retire) with Job support as the mediator.
| Method of Analysis | RR | 95% CI | Proportion Mediated (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Traditional analysis for work ability | |||
| Poor + Moderate versus Good + Excellent work ability a | 2.78 | 2.34–3.30 | Reference |
| Poor + Moderate versus Good + Excellent work ability b | 2.50 | 2.10–2.98 | 15.7 |
| Counterfactual analysis a | |||
| Good + Excellent versus Poor + Moderate work ability | |||
| (effect), without exposure mediator interaction | |||
| Direct effect | 1.37 | 1.31–1.44 | |
| Indirect effect | 1.04 | 1.03–1.06 | |
| Total effect | 1.43 | 1.36–1.50 | 14 |
| Good + Excellent versus Poor + Moderate work ability | |||
| (effect), with exposure mediator interaction | |||
| Direct effect | 1.30 | 1.21–1.39 | |
| Indirect effect | 1.02 | 1.00–1.05 | |
| Total effect | 1.33 | 1.23–1.44 | 9 |
| Traditional analysis for WLS | |||
| Low + Decreasing versus High + Moderate WLS a | 1.92 | 1.71–2.16 | Reference |
| Low + Decreasing versus High + Moderate WLS b | 1.68 | 1.48–1.90 | 26.1 |
| Counterfactual analysis a | |||
| High + Moderate versus Low + Decreasing WLS (effect), | |||
| without exposure mediator interaction | |||
| Direct effect | 1.27 | 1.11–1.23 | |
| Indirect effect | 1.06 | 1.03–1.08 | |
| Total effect | 1.34 | 1.27–1.41 | 20.6 |
| High + Moderate versus Low + Decreasing WLS (effect), | |||
| with exposure mediator interaction | |||
| Direct effect | 1.19 | 1.08–1.31 | |
| Indirect effect | 1.05 | 1.02–1.07 | |
| Total effect | 1.24 | 1.12–1.38 | 21 |
Notes: RR, Risk Ratio; CI, Confidence Interval; Adjusted for age and gender; Adjusted for age, gender and job support.
Risk Ratio (RR) and 95% CI on the association between exposures (work ability and satisfaction in work life (WLS)) and outcome (intention to retire) with Job Control as the mediator.
| Method of Analysis | RR | 95% CI | Proportion Mediated (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Traditional analysis for work ability | |||
| Poor + Moderate versus Good + Excellent work ability a | 2.78 | 2.34–3.30 | Reference |
| Poor + Moderate versus Good + Excellent work ability c | 2.58 | 2.16–3.08 | 11.2 |
| Counterfactual analysis a | |||
| Good + Excellent versus Poor + Moderate work ability | |||
| (effect), without exposure mediator interaction | |||
| Direct effect | 1.39 | 1.32–1.46 | |
| Indirect effect | 1.03 | 1.01–1.04 | |
| Total effect | 1.43 | 1.36–1.50 | 9.3 |
| Good + Excellent versus Poor + Moderate work ability | |||
| (effect), with exposure mediator interaction | |||
| Direct effect | 1.36 | 1.27–1.46 | |
| Indirect effect | 1.02 | 1.00–1.04 | |
| Total effect | 1.40 | 1.29–1.51 | 10 |
| Traditional analysis for WLS | |||
| Low + Decreasing versus High + Moderate WLS a | 1.92 | 1.71–2.16 | Reference |
| Low + Decreasing versus High + Moderate WLS c | 1.74 | 1.53–1.98 | 19.6 |
| Counterfactual analysis a | |||
| High + Moderate versus Low + Decreasing WLS (effect), | |||
| without exposure mediator interaction | |||
| Direct effect | 1.29 | 1.22–1.37 | |
| Indirect effect | 1.04 | 1.02–1.06 | |
| Total effect | 1.34 | 1.27–1.42 | 14.7 |
| High + Moderate versus Low + Decreasing WLS (effect), | |||
| with exposure mediator interaction | |||
| Direct effect | 1.29 | 1.17–1.43 | |
| Indirect effect | 1.04 | 1.01–1.06 | |
| Total effect | 1.34 | 1.21–1.49 | 14.7 |
Notes: RR, Risk Ratio; CI, Confidence Interval; Adjusted for age and gender; Adjusted for age, gender and job control.