a national survey of the psychosocial work environment in denmark: a comparison of industries. t. s....

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