L PSA 01 8 PERSONLIGE ARKIVER LNA Forskere Tage 27 th International

L: PSA 018. PERSONLIGE ARKIVERLNAForskereTage 27 th 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 National Institute of Occupational Health Copenhagen, Denmark

L: PSA 018. PERSONLIGE ARKIVERLNAForskereTage 27 th 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 National Institute of Occupational Health Copenhagen, Denmark

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.

How to monitor the development of the psychosocial work environment? The Copenhagen Six Basic Dimensions of Stressors: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Influence Meaning Predictability Social support Rewards Demands

Survey: The Danish Work Environment Cohort Study, 2000. Ä 7. 428 respondents Ä 18 -59 years of age Ä 52% females Ä Response rate: 75% Ä 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 from supervisors 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. Predicence Meaning tability Social support Rewards Demands The worst: - - - Daycare, children + + Pharmaceutcal industry + + + Slaughterhouses Cleaning & washing Transportation, passengers - - The best: + + +

Perpectives Special initiatives will be taken with regard to ”problem industries”: Ä Slaugterhouses Ä Transportation of passengers (e. g. bus drivers) Ä Cleaning & washing (e. g. cleaners)

Conclusions Ä The survey has pinpointed a number of psychosocial risk factors. Ä A few high risk industries have been identified. Ä Focused initiatives will be possible during 2000 -2005. Ä The survey will be repeated in 2005 and changes will be evaluated.

The End This presentation can be seen on: www. ami. dk/presentations