Page 184 - 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. 184
avje delovno aktivne populacije | health of the working-age population 182 3 – sometimes; 4 –often; 5 – every day). Response categories 4 and 5 were used
to define groups with high, 3 with medium, and 1 or 2 with low perceived stress
levels. Subjective assessment of individual’s health was measured through a
question: ‘How would you assess your present health? (1 – very good; 2 – good;
3 – fair; 4 – poor; 5 – very poor). Additionally, respondents were asked to indi-
cate whether they had experienced any of the stated health problems in the pre-
vious month (chest pain during physical activity, low back pain, neck/shoulder
pain, joint pain, chronic cough and mucus, swollen legs, allergy, constipation,
headache, insomnia, depressive symptoms, toothache, urination problems).
The total number of reported health problems per participant was calculated.
All three questions were adapted from CINDI Health Monitor Core Question-
naire (Prättälä et al., 2001).
Sickness absenteeism was measured through the question: ‘How many
days in the last 12 months have you been absent from work because of sick
leave? (ie. Gustafsson and Marklund, 2011). To measure sickness presenteeism
the question: ‘Did you go to work even though you should have taken sick leave
during the past 12 months? (yes; no; I have not been sick). If yes, how many
times?’ was used (Aronsson et al., 2000).
Furthermore, management of each included organisation was asked
about implemented stress management interventions (i.e. provision of train-
ing; a redesign of the work area; for total list see Table 3), adapted from Euro-
pean Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks, ESENER (Cox et al.,
2010).
Health and safety representative from each organisation was asked to as-
sist with distribution and collection of questionnaires for management and
employees. Employee participation was voluntary and anonymity guaranteed;
the questionnaires were collected immediately after completion and sent to the
project coordinator.
In total, there were 0.2 - 14.8% missing values per variable. Missing data
were imputed using the EM algorithm, which has been demonstrated to be an
effective method of dealing with missing data (Graham, 2009), and all analy-
ses were conducted using a total of 796 participants. Kendall’s tau b rank corre-
lation coefficient was calculated to evaluate the associations between frequen-
cy of perceived stress and other variables (health-related characteristics, the
number of implemented stress management interventions). Multiple linear re-
gression was conducted to examine which of the included variables predict fre-
quency of perceived stress. All analyses were performed using SPSS V.21 (SPSS,
Chicago, Illinois, USA).
Results
Almost half of the participants (46.0%) reported medium, 28.5% low and 25.5%
high perceived stress level. Regarding self-rated health, more than half (62.3%) of
the sample reported good or very good, 31.4% fair and 6.3% poor or very poor
to define groups with high, 3 with medium, and 1 or 2 with low perceived stress
levels. Subjective assessment of individual’s health was measured through a
question: ‘How would you assess your present health? (1 – very good; 2 – good;
3 – fair; 4 – poor; 5 – very poor). Additionally, respondents were asked to indi-
cate whether they had experienced any of the stated health problems in the pre-
vious month (chest pain during physical activity, low back pain, neck/shoulder
pain, joint pain, chronic cough and mucus, swollen legs, allergy, constipation,
headache, insomnia, depressive symptoms, toothache, urination problems).
The total number of reported health problems per participant was calculated.
All three questions were adapted from CINDI Health Monitor Core Question-
naire (Prättälä et al., 2001).
Sickness absenteeism was measured through the question: ‘How many
days in the last 12 months have you been absent from work because of sick
leave? (ie. Gustafsson and Marklund, 2011). To measure sickness presenteeism
the question: ‘Did you go to work even though you should have taken sick leave
during the past 12 months? (yes; no; I have not been sick). If yes, how many
times?’ was used (Aronsson et al., 2000).
Furthermore, management of each included organisation was asked
about implemented stress management interventions (i.e. provision of train-
ing; a redesign of the work area; for total list see Table 3), adapted from Euro-
pean Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks, ESENER (Cox et al.,
2010).
Health and safety representative from each organisation was asked to as-
sist with distribution and collection of questionnaires for management and
employees. Employee participation was voluntary and anonymity guaranteed;
the questionnaires were collected immediately after completion and sent to the
project coordinator.
In total, there were 0.2 - 14.8% missing values per variable. Missing data
were imputed using the EM algorithm, which has been demonstrated to be an
effective method of dealing with missing data (Graham, 2009), and all analy-
ses were conducted using a total of 796 participants. Kendall’s tau b rank corre-
lation coefficient was calculated to evaluate the associations between frequen-
cy of perceived stress and other variables (health-related characteristics, the
number of implemented stress management interventions). Multiple linear re-
gression was conducted to examine which of the included variables predict fre-
quency of perceived stress. All analyses were performed using SPSS V.21 (SPSS,
Chicago, Illinois, USA).
Results
Almost half of the participants (46.0%) reported medium, 28.5% low and 25.5%
high perceived stress level. Regarding self-rated health, more than half (62.3%) of
the sample reported good or very good, 31.4% fair and 6.3% poor or very poor
