Upload
maris-hawkins
View
29
Download
4
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
L:\PSA01\8. PERSONLIGE ARKIVER\LNA\Forskere\Tage. 27th International Congress on Occupational Health Iguassu Falls, Brazil. A national survey of the psychosocial work environment in Denmark: A comparison of industries. T. S. Kristensen, V. Borg, H. Burr Psychosocial Department - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
A national survey of the psychosocial work environment in Denmark:
A comparison of industries.
T. S. Kristensen, V. Borg, H. Burr
Psychosocial DepartmentNational Institute of Occupational Health
Copenhagen, Denmark
27th International Congress on Occupational Health
Iguassu Falls, Brazil
L:\PSA01\8. PERSONLIGE ARKIVER\LNA\Forskere\Tage
A national survey of the psychosocial work environment in Denmark:
A comparison of industries.
T. S. Kristensen, V. Borg, H. Burr
Psychosocial DepartmentNational Institute of Occupational Health
Copenhagen, Denmark
27th International Congress on Occupational Health
Iguassu Falls, Brazil
L:\PSA01\8. PERSONLIGE ARKIVER\LNA\Forskere\Tage
Background:The national work environment policy
The Danish government has decided that the
psychosocial work environment should be
improved with 5% by year 2005. The changes
from 2000 to 2005 should be monitored by
NIOH with national surveys.
1. Influence
2. Meaning
3. Predictability
4. Social support
5. Rewards
6. Demands
How to monitor the development of the psychosocial work environment?
The Copenhagen Six Basic Dimensionsof Stressors:
Survey:The Danish Work Environment Cohort Study,
2000.
7.428 respondents
18-59 years of age
52% females
Response rate: 75%
Psychosocial questions from the Copenhagen
Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ)
Influence
Proportion with low influence over own working conditions:
Industry Proportion
Transportation of goods 55%
Cleaning & washing 46%
Building industry 46%
ALL, 18-59 YEARS 28%
Pharmaceutical industry 19%
Teaching & research 13%
Daycare, children 11%
Meaning of work
Proportion with a low level of meaning of work:
Industry Proportion
Slaughterhouses 53%
Cleaning & washing 41%
Hotels & restaurants 38%
ALL, 18-59 YEARS 22%
Automobiles, sales & service 15%
Daycare, children 11%
Hospitals 11%
Predictability
Proportion with low level of relevant information:
Industry Proportion
Slaughterhouses 42%
Printers & publishers 41%
Transportation of goods 41%
ALL, 18-59 YEARS 29%
Electronics 23%
Shops (retail) 22%
Daycare, children 20%
Social support
Proportion with low level of social support fromsupervisors and colleagues:
Industry Proportion
Cleaning & washing 43%
Slaughterhouses 42%
Transportation of goods 40%
ALL, 18-59 YEARS 26%
Pharmaceutical industry 19%
Daycare, children 19%
Military & police 17%
Rewards
Proportion with low levels of recognition and esteem:
Industry Proportion
Slaughterhouses 51%
Wood & furniture industry 41%
Transportation of goods 33%
ALL, 18-59 YEARS 23%
Doctors & dentists 14%
Insulation & installation 11%
Pharmaceutical industry 8%
Demands
Proportion with high work pace:
Industry Proportion
Hotels & restaurants 64%
Slaughterhouses 58%
Hospitals 51%
ALL, 18-59 YEARS 37%
Pharmaceutical industry 27%
Automobiles, sales & service 25%
Daycare, children 17%
Overall picture
Number of ”top 5” and ”bottom 5” positions:
Influ-ence Meaning
Predic-tability
Social support Rewards Demands
The worst:
Slaughterhouses - - - - - Cleaning & washing - - - - - Transportation, passengers- - - - -The best:
Daycare, children + + + + +
Pharmaceutcal industry + + + + +
Perpectives
Special initiatives will be taken with regard to ”problem industries”:
Slaugterhouses
Transportation of passengers (e.g. bus drivers)
Cleaning & washing (e.g. cleaners)
Conclusions
The survey has pinpointed a number of
psychosocial risk factors.
A few high risk industries have been
identified.
Focused initiatives will be possible during
2000-2005.
The survey will be repeated in 2005 and
changes will be evaluated.
This presentation can be seen on:www.ami.dk/presentations
The End