Occupational stress and associated risk factors among 13,867 industrial workers in China.

Tenglong Yan, Fang Ji, Mingli Bi, Huining Wang, Xueting Cui, Baolong Liu, Dongsheng Niu, Leilei Li, Tian Lan, Tingting Xie, Jie Wu, Jue Li, Xiaowen Ding
Author Information
  1. Tenglong Yan: Beijing Institute of Occupational Disease Prevention and Treatment, Beijing, China.
  2. Fang Ji: Beijing Institute of Occupational Disease Prevention and Treatment, Beijing, China.
  3. Mingli Bi: Beijing Institute of Occupational Disease Prevention and Treatment, Beijing, China.
  4. Huining Wang: Beijing Institute of Occupational Disease Prevention and Treatment, Beijing, China.
  5. Xueting Cui: School of Public Health, North China University of Science and Technology, Tangshan, China.
  6. Baolong Liu: Beijing Institute of Occupational Disease Prevention and Treatment, Beijing, China.
  7. Dongsheng Niu: Beijing Institute of Occupational Disease Prevention and Treatment, Beijing, China.
  8. Leilei Li: Beijing Institute of Occupational Disease Prevention and Treatment, Beijing, China.
  9. Tian Lan: Beijing Institute of Occupational Disease Prevention and Treatment, Beijing, China.
  10. Tingting Xie: Beijing Institute of Occupational Disease Prevention and Treatment, Beijing, China.
  11. Jie Wu: Canvard College, Beijing Technology and Business University, Beijing, China.
  12. Jue Li: Beijing Institute of Occupational Disease Prevention and Treatment, Beijing, China.
  13. Xiaowen Ding: Beijing Institute of Occupational Disease Prevention and Treatment, Beijing, China.

Abstract

Objective: Occupational stress is a critical global public health problem. We aimed to evaluate the prevalence of occupational stress among the workers in the electricity, heat, gas, water production and supply (EHGWPS), manufacturing, and transportation industries in Beijing, China. We explored the demographic differences in occupational stress status among workers in industrial enterprises.
Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on 13,867 workers. The self-administered New Brief Job Stress Questionnaire was used to evaluate high occupational stress status, which includes four sub-dimensions (job stressors, stress response, social support, job stressors & social support). Multiple regression and logistic regression models were used to estimate the association between high occupational stress and the four occupational stress sub-dimensions with risk factors.
Results: A total of 13,867 workers were included. The prevalence of high occupational stress was 3.3% in the EHGWPS industries, 10.3% in manufacturing, and 5.8% in transportation. The prevalence of high occupational stress was higher than in the other two categories ( < 0.05) in manufacturing industries. Logistic regression analysis showed that male workers with lower educational status, more job experience, and working in manufacturing were vulnerable to high occupational stress. Further analysis of the four occupational stress sub-dimensions showed that male workers, older adult workers, workers with lower educational levels, and longer working time were associated with higher scores in job stressors, stress response, social support, and job stress & social support (all < 0.05). Moreover, divorced or widowed workers had higher occupational stress scores.
Conclusion: Male workers with lower educational levels and longer working time may have an increased risk of occupational stress.

Keywords

References

  1. J Nurs Manag. 2015 Apr;23(3):346-58 [PMID: 24330154]
  2. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Sep 21;16(19): [PMID: 31546681]
  3. Int Marit Health. 2018;69(4):233-242 [PMID: 30589062]
  4. J Prof Nurs. 2021 Sep-Oct;37(5):907-915 [PMID: 34742521]
  5. Syst Rev. 2020 May 31;9(1):121 [PMID: 32475353]
  6. China CDC Wkly. 2020 Feb 28;2(9):131-134 [PMID: 34594840]
  7. Soc Sci Med. 2004 Feb;58(3):449-61 [PMID: 14652043]
  8. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017 Apr 10;14(4): [PMID: 28394294]
  9. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2018 Jun;31(3):351-356 [PMID: 29474215]
  10. Contemp Nurse. 2019 Apr - Jun;55(2-3):237-249 [PMID: 31334691]
  11. Int Nurs Rev. 2018 Sep;65(3):361-369 [PMID: 29380381]
  12. BMJ Open. 2017 May 12;7(5):e014894 [PMID: 28501813]
  13. Ind Health. 2022 Oct 1;60(5):407-419 [PMID: 34719579]
  14. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Feb 01;17(3): [PMID: 32024195]
  15. BMC Public Health. 2021 Nov 12;21(1):2076 [PMID: 34772388]
  16. Rev Esc Enferm USP. 2013 Oct;47(5):1186-93 [PMID: 24346460]
  17. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Dec 25;16(1): [PMID: 30585250]
  18. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013 Jan 14;10(1):375-89 [PMID: 23343989]
  19. Hum Resour Health. 2020 Dec 17;18(1):100 [PMID: 33334335]
  20. Workplace Health Saf. 2017 May;65(5):197-209 [PMID: 27758938]
  21. J Nurs Manag. 2021 Apr;29(3):395-403 [PMID: 32985046]
  22. Fukushima J Med Sci. 2020 Aug 4;66(2):88-96 [PMID: 32595178]
  23. Am J Ind Med. 2021 Apr;64(4):310-319 [PMID: 33543533]
  24. Int J Nurs Stud. 2015 Feb;52(2):635-48 [PMID: 25480459]
  25. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Nov 19;17(22): [PMID: 33228259]
  26. Front Public Health. 2021 Jun 15;9:664013 [PMID: 34211952]
  27. BMC Public Health. 2021 Mar 19;21(1):539 [PMID: 33740920]
  28. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Nov 08;17(21): [PMID: 33171618]
  29. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2021 Apr;30(2):533-543 [PMID: 33222350]
  30. Am J Ind Med. 2020 Dec;63(12):1145-1154 [PMID: 33075156]
  31. Ann Ist Super Sanita. 2016 Jul-Sep;52(3):443-456 [PMID: 27698304]
  32. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Dec 27;16(1): [PMID: 30591627]
  33. EXCLI J. 2017 Jul 21;16:1057-1072 [PMID: 28900385]
  34. Ann Ig. 2021 Nov-Dec;33(6):615-627 [PMID: 33797548]
  35. Chin Med J (Engl). 2008 Sep 5;121(17):1741-3 [PMID: 19024109]
  36. J Nurs Manag. 2020 Oct;28(7):1653-1661 [PMID: 32770780]

MeSH Term

Humans
Male
Aged
Cross-Sectional Studies
Occupational Stress
China
Risk Factors
Employment

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0stressoccupationalworkersjobhighmanufacturingsocialsupportriskprevalenceamongindustriesstatusindustrial13867foursub-dimensionsstressorsregressionfactorshigherlowereducationalworkingOccupationalevaluateEHGWPStransportationChinaenterprisesusedresponse&3%<005analysisshowedmalelevelslongertimeassociatedscoresObjective:criticalglobalpublichealthproblemaimedelectricityheatgaswaterproductionsupplyBeijingexploreddemographicdifferencesMethods:cross-sectionalstudyconductedself-administeredNewBriefJobStressQuestionnaireincludesMultiplelogisticmodelsestimateassociationResults:totalincluded31058%twocategoriesLogisticexperiencevulnerableolderadultMoreoverdivorcedwidowedConclusion:Malemayincreasednewbriefquestionnaire

Similar Articles

Cited By (3)