Page 182 - Petelin, Ana, Nejc Šarabon, Boštjan Žvanut, eds. 2017. Zdravje delovno aktivne populacije ▪︎ Health of the Working-Age Population. Proceedings. Koper: Založba Univerze na Primorskem/University of Primorska Press
P. 182
avje delovno aktivne populacije | health of the working-age population 180 Stress has been given several definitions, but generally refers to individu-
al’s physical, mental and emotional response to environmental demands
or pressures that are perceived as straining or exceeding individual’s per-
ceived adaptive capacities (Cohen et al., 1986). So far, a growing body of evi-
dence suggests that excess or long-term stress contributes to impaired physical
and psychological health (i.e. Schneiderman et al., 2005). Similarly, impaired
employee’s physical and psychological health has been shown to be one of the
most undesirable consequences of high-levels of stress at work (i.e. Cox, Grif-
fiths and Rial-Gonzales, 2000; Novak, Sedlar and Šprah, 2014; Stansfeld and
Candy, 2006).
Stress at work gained increased attention among professionals and re-
searchers over the last decades, mostly due to its high economic and human
costs for organisations. Numerous studies (i.e. Biron et al., 2006; MacGregor,
Cunningam and Caverley, 2008) have confirmed that impaired employee’s
health and high levels of stress at the workplace result in lost productivity, aris-
ing from two sources: absenteeism and presenteeism. The first one refers to an
employee’s time away from work due to illness or disability (i.e. Johns, 2003),
while the second one occurs when employee comes to work ill and his job per-
formance is limited in some aspects by a health problem (i.e. Johns 2010). Both
outcomes are considered part of a continuum, with presenteeism being placed
between full work engagement and absenteeism (Johns, 2009) and employees
are likely to transit from one to another over time (i.e. Escorpizo et al., 2007).
To measure work-related stress across various types of jobs and organi-
zations several self-report instruments have been developed. However, some-
times when monitoring stress at work comprehensive scales might not be ac-
cepted by the target organisations. Therefore researchers (i.e. Elo et al., 2003)
proposed the use of a single-item measure of stress. The scale refers to the gen-
eral experience of stress, not explicitly to work-related stress, but was shown to
be a valid instrument for group-level analysis when monitoring stress at work.
In a similar vein, a single-item measure of self-rated health is generally accept-
ed as an easy to implement and valid indicator to measure individual’s health
status (i.e. Borg, Kristensen and Burr, 2000).
Employee’s stress and its negative outcomes have become a concern for
many organisations. Therefore there is a growing interest in programs and in-
terventions to reduce stress at work (González, Cockburn and Irastorza, 2010;
Irastorza et al., 2016). Implemented stress management interventions in occu-
pational settings most often focus on reducing the presence of work related-
stress or aim to minimize the negative outcomes of exposure to these stressors.
However, the research shows that their effect most importantly depends on the
intervention type (Richardson and Rothstein, 2008).
Using a sample of Slovenian industrial workers, our study investigated
the relationship between employees’ level of perceived stress in terms of fre-
quency, self-rated health, sickness presenteeism, sickness absenteeism and im-
plemented stress management interventions in included organisations.
al’s physical, mental and emotional response to environmental demands
or pressures that are perceived as straining or exceeding individual’s per-
ceived adaptive capacities (Cohen et al., 1986). So far, a growing body of evi-
dence suggests that excess or long-term stress contributes to impaired physical
and psychological health (i.e. Schneiderman et al., 2005). Similarly, impaired
employee’s physical and psychological health has been shown to be one of the
most undesirable consequences of high-levels of stress at work (i.e. Cox, Grif-
fiths and Rial-Gonzales, 2000; Novak, Sedlar and Šprah, 2014; Stansfeld and
Candy, 2006).
Stress at work gained increased attention among professionals and re-
searchers over the last decades, mostly due to its high economic and human
costs for organisations. Numerous studies (i.e. Biron et al., 2006; MacGregor,
Cunningam and Caverley, 2008) have confirmed that impaired employee’s
health and high levels of stress at the workplace result in lost productivity, aris-
ing from two sources: absenteeism and presenteeism. The first one refers to an
employee’s time away from work due to illness or disability (i.e. Johns, 2003),
while the second one occurs when employee comes to work ill and his job per-
formance is limited in some aspects by a health problem (i.e. Johns 2010). Both
outcomes are considered part of a continuum, with presenteeism being placed
between full work engagement and absenteeism (Johns, 2009) and employees
are likely to transit from one to another over time (i.e. Escorpizo et al., 2007).
To measure work-related stress across various types of jobs and organi-
zations several self-report instruments have been developed. However, some-
times when monitoring stress at work comprehensive scales might not be ac-
cepted by the target organisations. Therefore researchers (i.e. Elo et al., 2003)
proposed the use of a single-item measure of stress. The scale refers to the gen-
eral experience of stress, not explicitly to work-related stress, but was shown to
be a valid instrument for group-level analysis when monitoring stress at work.
In a similar vein, a single-item measure of self-rated health is generally accept-
ed as an easy to implement and valid indicator to measure individual’s health
status (i.e. Borg, Kristensen and Burr, 2000).
Employee’s stress and its negative outcomes have become a concern for
many organisations. Therefore there is a growing interest in programs and in-
terventions to reduce stress at work (González, Cockburn and Irastorza, 2010;
Irastorza et al., 2016). Implemented stress management interventions in occu-
pational settings most often focus on reducing the presence of work related-
stress or aim to minimize the negative outcomes of exposure to these stressors.
However, the research shows that their effect most importantly depends on the
intervention type (Richardson and Rothstein, 2008).
Using a sample of Slovenian industrial workers, our study investigated
the relationship between employees’ level of perceived stress in terms of fre-
quency, self-rated health, sickness presenteeism, sickness absenteeism and im-
plemented stress management interventions in included organisations.
