Differential economic stability and psychosocial stress at work: associations with psychosomatic complaints and absenteeism
Stressful working conditions are well known to have a negative impact on the worker's health. We investigated this association in a Belgian study with a psychosocial health perspective, including individual work characteristics as well as firms' features. These data come from the first measure of the Somstress study. This is a 4 year project, initiated in 1999 and conducted in four different firms. The objective of this article is to investigate the relationships between stress, working conditions and absenteeism, self-reported health and psychosomatic complaints. Firms were selected according to their degree of structural environment and job stability. Among the four work sites, one can be considered as stable, one unstable and the remaining ones in an in-between situation. Stress is generally measured according to one of the following models: the job demands control model (Karasek) and the effort-reward imbalance model (Siegrist). We used here both models, along with the social support at work (Karasek) and overcommitment (Siegrist). Sex, age and education are important health determinants. After adjustment for those three variables and additionally for the work instability, it appeared that poor health outcomes (measured by the self-rated health, depression (SCL-90), anxiety (SCL-90), somatisation (SCL-90), chronic fatigue (Vercoulen) and reported absenteeism) are mainly associated with a low control, low social support at work, high overcommitment and high level of imbalance. Inversely, job demands do not make any significant contribution in the logistic regression models for the above-mentioned health outcomes.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 58 (2004)
Issue (Month): 8 (April)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:58:y:2004:i:8:p:1543-1553. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.