The scale of occupational stress The Bristol Stress and Health at Work Study Prepared by the Department of Experimental Psychology and the Department of Social Medicine for the Health and Safety Executive CONTRACT RESEARCH REPORT 2685/2000| HSE wie. The scale of occupational stress The Bristol Stress and Health at Work Study Andrew Smith, Sarbjit Johal and Emma Wadsworth Department of Experimental Psychology University of Bristol 8 Woodland Road Bristol BS8 1TN George Davey Smith and Tim Peters Department of Social Medicine University of Bristol Canynge Hall Whiteladies Road Bristol BS8 2PR “The research reported here had three main ims. Fft, to dotomine the scale and severty of ‘osupational sree in a random population sample, Second, Gstnguich the effects of stress ‘St work rom those of gone mine whether objective indicators of Fealth status and perfomance ficiency wer related to perceived occupational stress. “These aime wo selected people from the Béstol electoral regi etailee investigation of a echort from the “pproxmately 20% ofthe sample reported that ney had vory high or extemely high ove of ‘Ziose at work, This eftect was relable overtime, related to potentially stressful working ondiions and associated wih impaired physcal and mental haath. The effects of occupational Gtess could not be atriouted to Me etrees or negative affectviy. The cohort study also iweatigated by conducting an epidemiclogical suvey of 17 000 randomly followup survey 12 months later, nd ‘of occupational stress may Influence physiology and mental perfomance, “This report ane the workit desetbes wore funded by the Hoath and Safety Executive (HSE), to Contents, Including any opmons andor conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone land do not necessarily reflect HSE policy. HSE 800KS© Crown copyright 2000 Applications for reproduction shouldbe made in writing to: Copyright Unt, Her Majety's Stationery Office, ‘Si Clements House, 2-16 Colegat, Norwich NR3 BQ Firs published 2000 1SBN07176 1783 1 llrightsreserved. No par of this publication may be reproduced, stored ina retrieval sytem, o transite in sny form or by any means (electronic, meckanical, ‘Photocopying, recording or etherwise) without the prior ‘written permission ofthe copyright ownerCONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE BRISTOL STRESS & HEALTH AT WORK STUDY BACKGROUND ‘Occupational stress: previous estimates ofthe extent of the problem Problems with the existing database ‘Am approach fo the study of occupational stress Definition of stress ‘The pilot study RESULTS FOR MAIN STUDY Questionanire response rates Demographic characteristics ‘THE SCALE OF OCCUPATIONAL STRESS Categorisation of work stress General format of reporting of results WORK STRESS BY GENDER, WORK TYPE AND BY AGE CATEGORY AT BOTH TIME POINTS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WORK STRESS AS MEASURED BY ‘THE STRESS & HEALTH STUDY SINGLE ITEM, AND THE KARASEK SCALE. ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN WORK CHARACTERISTICS AND WORK STRESS AT TIME 1 Hours of work Physical agents at work Characteristics of job Control and decision latitude Consistency and clarity at work Job involvement ‘Support at work Job satisfaction Attitudes to work Pressures at work Racial abuse, sexual harassment and bullying 29 3Job security “ Fanily/work interface 0 ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN WORK CHARACTERISTICS AND 0 WORK STRESS AT TIME 2 Hours of work 0 Physical agents at work n (Characteristics of job ™ Control and decision ltirude 8 Consistency and clarity at work cy Job involvement 8 Support at work 86 Job satisfaction 88 Abttieudes to work a Pressures at work 9s Racial abuse, sexual harassment and bullying 100 Job security 102 Family/work interface 104 1 THERE A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 108 ASSOCIATIONS WITH PERCEIVED WORK STRESS FOR THOSE WITH VARYING WORK CHARACTERISTICS IN THEIR JOBS? Hours of work 109 Characteristics of job 110 Control and decision Intitude m Consistency and clarity at work 2 Job involvement m2 ‘Support at work 13 Job satisfaction 13 Attitudes to work 4 Pressures at work ns Racial abuse, sexual harassment and bullying u7 Job security a7 Family/work interface 18ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN HEALTH STATUS AND PERCEIVED WORK STRESS AT TIME 1 ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN HEALTH STATUS AND PERCEIVED WORK STRESS AT TIME 2 CROSS-SECTIONAL AND CROSS-LAGGED ASSOCIATIONS. BETWEEN PERCEIVED STRESS AND HEALTH ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN WORK STRESS AND HEALTH STATUS FOR THOSE THAT DO NOT HAVE HIGH LEVELS OF GENERAL LIFE STRESS ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN HEALTH STATUS AND PERCEIVED ‘WORK STRESS AT TIME 1, EXCLUDING THOSE WITH HIGH LIFE STRESS ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN HEALTH STATUS AND PERCEIVED ‘WORK STRESS AT TIME 2, EXCLUDING THOSE WITH HIGH LIFE STRESS DESCRIPTIVE COMMENTARY OF ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN SELECTED HEALTHRELATED BEHAVIOURS AND PERCEIVED WORK STRESS AT TIME 1 PERCEIVED CHANGES IN HEALTH AND STRESS OVER THE LAST 12 MONTHS, PRODUCTIVITY AT WORK, INJURIES, HOSPITAL VISITS AND SICK LEAVE DOES WORK STRESS CAUSE ILL HEALTH, OR MAKE ILL HEALTH WORSE? RETROSPECTIVE PERCEPTIONS OF THE SAMPLE, ‘THE COHORT STUDY Aims Methods Sample ‘Selection of those doing Laboratory phase of the Study Procedures Questionnaires sent out prior tothe visit ie ‘Simple variable fore-period reaction time Repeated numbers vigilance task ‘The New Adult Reading Test (NART) The Stroop Colour-Word Test Mood rat 10 13s 150 156 187 162 166 7 180 198 198 194 194 196 196 17 197 198 198 198‘Work Related Questions Clinical examination Blood samples RESULTS OF THE COHORT STUDY Questionnaire data Negative affectvity, (Clinical examination and blood assays Cortisol levels Mood and performance Discussion CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ‘The Scale of Perceived Occupational Stress Reliability and validity of perceptions of occupational stress ‘Demographic variation in the scale of stress Job type ‘Work characteris and perceived stress Health outcomes Health-related behaviours ‘Accidents and human errors ‘Work stressor life stress? [Negative affectivity Objective indicators of stress Overall summary REFERENCES APPENDIX 1 ‘Results from Pilot Studies Details of the questionnaire Results Stress at work APPENDIX 2 ‘Questionnaires used at Time 1 and Time 2 APPENDIX 3 Results from the Main Study 19 200 202 203 203 206 208 209 210 2 212 213 213 213 23 a4 18 218 218 218 216 216 219 21 m1 4 24 230 317EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE BRISTOL STRESS & HEALTH AT WORK STUDY Phase 1 of the study involved the successful completion of the study of occupational stress. ‘After extensive piloting, 17,000 randomly selected people from the Bristol electoral register ‘were mailed a 32-page questionnaire, eliciting a final response rate of 49%. The final figures indicated that occupational stress was at levels described as ‘very’ or ‘extremely stressful” (described as ‘highly stressed") for approximately 20% of the working sample that responded, Full demographic analyses of the sample at both time points are presented, including comparison of rates of illness for chronic conditions when compared with other large sample databases, and comparison of selected working conditions experienced by other samples ‘comparable to the one reported in the Bristol Stress and Health Study. Occupational stress has been described according to various demographic profiles, including ‘gender, age category, and whether the person has a full-time or part-time job ‘Associations wit the various components of the Karasek job strain model indicate that the ‘work stress measure in the Bristol Suess and Health Study is best thought of as representing respondents’ job demand. High occupational stress was significantly associated with a number of work characteristics that have been identified with occupational stress inthe existing literature High occupational stress was also strongly related to & number of health outcomes (as measured by different instruments), including; chronic ill-health conditions, symptoms over the last 12 months, symptoms over the last 14 days, and with the use of prescribed ‘medication High occupational stress was also strongly related to @ number of health-related behaviours, such as number of hours of sleep during weekdays. At approxi ly 12 months after the initial phase of the study, @ second mailing to 4673 participants who agreed to be contacted again took place, yielding a response rate of 69%. At ‘this point, participants were also recruited to the laboratory phase of the study.Analyses of the Time 2 data set revealed a regression of work stress scores towards the mean Point, as was expected. Approximately 18% of those working at Time 2 indicated that their ‘occupational stress was a levels described as ‘very’ or ‘extremely stressful’, AA similar pattern of results regarding associations between work stress and health, health- related behaviours, and work characteristies were found at Time 2, compared to Time I Analyses of change scores for Time 1 work stress upon Time 2 health status revealed that the effects of high job stress upon acute gastro-inestinal symptoms, fatigue, tension, depression, and anxiety, as well as a numberof other symptoms were robust. Analyses of change scores for Time 1 work characteristics upon Time 2 work stress indicated that certain work characteristics were significantly associated with work stress, including items indicating that work issues interfered strongly with family life ‘At Time 2, analyses revealed that work stress was significantly associated with sick leave, GP visits and accidents ‘There was litle difference in the overall pattern of associations ketween work stress and health at Time 1, Time 2, or when examining change scores across time, when those with high general lie stress scores (at Time 1) were excluded from the ar yses. This indicated that the effects of work stress are to a large degree independent from those of general life stress as measured by this questionnaire, ‘The cohort study involved comparisons between a group of people identified as work ‘stressed’ at both time points and a group of randomly selected respondents from the Femaining pool of parcipants, excluding those who were experienced ‘high’ work stress at either time point. Detailed investigation of the cohort study (approximately 200 people) verified subjective reports of stress using other validated measures (e.g. the Occupational Stress Indicator). Many of the associations between stress and health remained even after controlling for the possible confounding influence of negative affectivity. Subjective reports of mood on the day also showed a difference between the ‘stressed’ and non-stressed” groups.Some differences were found between the groups with respect to clinical measures, haematological assays and objective performance indicators. There was no effect of work stress on cortisol levels although these were elevated inthe high lif stress group.“There are no reliable e ates ofthe incidence of occupational stress and related disorders in the British working population” '. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and severity of occupational stress in a random community sample, BACKGROUND OCCUPATIONAL STRESS: PREVIOUS ESTIMATES OF THE EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM ‘There is now considerable evidence that occupational stress is widespread and can be a major cause of ill health at work, For example, the 1990 trailer to the Labour Force Survey! suggested 182,700 cases of stress/depression in England and Wales caused or made worse by work in that year. Estimates based on the 1995 Survey of Selireported Work-related Ill Health (SWI)? indicated that approximately $00,000 people in Great Britain believed they were suffering from work-related stress, depression or anxiety, or from an illness brought on by stress. Stress, depression and anxiety, with an estimated 302,000 cases in Great Bri represented the second most commonly reported group of wor related illnesses after ‘musculo-skeletal disorders. An estimated 261,000 people described stress at work as causing, ‘or making theie complaint worse. ‘These figures suggest a 30% increase in occupational stress from 1990 to 1995. Some of this ‘may be due to differences in the survey designs ofthe studies. However, other factors may be responsible forthe increase. For example, increased awareness of stress changing attitudes to stress, and changes in social and economic conditions may all be important factors, Such data are, for a number of reasons, imprecise and can only be used as a basis for “educated guesses” of the extent of occupational stress, In summary, while different studies all suggest that stress is a major problem, there is considerable disagreement about the extent of it. Keams * has suggested that 40 million days are lost each year due to stress-related disorders and that up to 60% of work absence is caused by them. More recent estimates suggest that some 91.5 million working days are lost each year through stress-related illness. It is clearly important, therefore, to provide more definitive figures on the prevalence of eccupetional stress, and the effects of stress on health,PROBLEMS WITH THE EXISTING DATABASE Previous studies have methodological problems which need to be rectified by new research. For example, there has been no clear definition of occupational stress and despite the fact that the inadequacy of non-valdated single one-off measures of stress is well known, they continue to be used. In addition, previous research has failed to distinguish between stress at ‘work and stress elsewhere, This isa difficult issue to examine. On the one hand it is clearly erroneous to believe that work and non-work activities are unrelated in their psychological, physiological and health effects (the “myth of separate worlds™ ). However, its possible t0 classify certain types of stress as occupational or non-work related even though this will clearly leave many types thet involve interactions between the two. These interactions may take several forms. For example, the primary source of stress may occur outside work but be ‘exacerbated by work. Similarly, stress may be work-related but have an influence on home life. Only further empirical research will provide evidence on the prevalence of these various sub-types of sess. In addition, most previous research has focused on the individual without considering either the effects on the organisation or on the person's family end the community, This research on the costs of occupational stress is beyond the remit of the present project but clearly needs to be examined in further new research. ‘A major problem with much of the previous work inthis area is tha the assessment of stress has not been driven by any clear model and there has been little attempt at validation. This thas important implications for the type of measurements that are necessary, and for the techniques that need to be used to validate these assessments of stress. Indeed, while itis widely acknowledged that stress may influence health and job effectiveness, we have litle precise information on how frequently such effects oceur. It is quite plausible to distinguish between the “subjective distress” produced by stress at work and objective health and performance outcomes. Estimates ebout the seale of stress effects may show great variation depending on the indicators used. Indeed, itis important to recognise that occupational stress ‘and the impact of it are both usually measured by self-report, which meens that associations could reflect the influence of such biases. AN APPROACH TO THE STUDY OF OCCUPATIONAL STRES' “This section is intended to serve two purposes. First, it will show that many of the problems associated with earlier work can be overcome using recent approaches to the study of stress.Secondly, it will be shown that the present approach to the definition of oecupational stress ‘can be incorporated into an epidemiological study to address the issues raised above. DEFINITION OF STRESS Stress can be defined in several ways and itis important to use an approach which covers the different aspects of the concept. First of all, occupational stress has often been regarded as an aversive characteristic ofthe working environment. This has often led to stress being grouped with physical hazards (e.g, noise) and research being directed to measurement of exposure levels and examination of the cel wship between these and health/performance outcomes, Secondly, stress has been viewed as a physiological response to a threatening or demaging ‘environment. Another approach has viewed stress in terms of an interactional framework, one of the best examples being Karasek’s model ° suggesting that job demands and decision latitude interact to influence health. Information relevant to all of these approaches to stress is easy to collect. However, more recent views of stress (eg. Lazarus & Folkman‘; Cox” ) suggest that they are inadequate and should be replaced by transacticnal theories which focus fon the cognitive processes and emotional reactions underpinning individuals’ interactions With their environment. ‘The lest approach has strong implications for the measures which need to be used. First, it suggests that selfeports of the appraisal process and the emotional experience of stress are required. This will involve perceptions of demands, measures of primary appraisal (“Do 1 have a problem?") and secondary appraisal ("I have a problem what should I do about it”). The ability to cope should also be assessed as should the needs of the individual and the ‘extent to which they are fulfilled by work. Similarly, the level of control is an important factor to measure. Other psychosocial factors also need to be taken into account. For example, support at work may well act as a buffer against the effects of occupational stress. All of the factors need to be analysed to account for possible interactions between them (e.g. job demand/controlisupport - see Payne & Fletcher’), In addition, it is essential to provide ‘quantitative data about the frequency, duration or level of the different measures rather than. merely assessing the presence or absence Self-reports of occupational stress and health outcomes can be criticised in several ways. First, associations between the two may be partly explained by commion method co-variance (Alldag, etal) job anitudes (Spector, et al.),” negative affectivis ‘of both work and health (Brief etal). or reverse causation (Kas. S.V.) - poor health leads leading to negative reports ‘© a deterioration in perceived or actual working conditions. Some of these problems ean becliminated by methodological features (e.g. by covarying negative affectivity and seeing ‘whether any relationships remain). However, it is clearly desirable to use other types of _measuresto validate self-reports of appraisal and the emotional experience of stress. Cox” has argued that this can be achieved by considering evidence relating self-reports of stress to changes in behaviour, physiology and health status. This category of measures may include objective indicators of functioning (e.g. biochemical and haematologicel assays; cardiovascular parameters, or measurement of mental performance) or information fom clinical assessments, In addition, archival data such as absentecism or accident statistics may also be important, Health-related behaviours, such as aleohol consumption and smoking, also need to be measured as they may act as important mediators of stress/health effects, The self reports of stress should also be related to the objective and subjective antecedents of individuals’ experience of suess, An audit of the working environment is also highly desirable, not only to assess physical and psychosocial antecedents of stress, but to compare workers’ perceptions and provide unobtrusive measures of health and job effectiveness However this is beyond the scope of a community sample based study such as this. ‘The above sections have described the type of information that needs to be collected t0 address the issue ofthe seale of occupational stress (see Smith etal. for further discussion. “The specific aims of this study were as follows: 1) To determine the prevalence and severity of occupational stress in a random population sample. 2) To distinguish stress caused by work ftom that caused by other factors. 3) Toassess the futher health impact of stress using a cohor design. ‘THE PILOT STUDY ‘The pilot study had two main aims, First, to develop and confirm the efficacy of the procedures to be used in the main survey. Secondly, to ensure that essential information was collected and thatthe questionnaire was ina form that was acceptable tothe respondents. Three plot studies were conducted (see Smith etal. for further details). ‘The first and third studies used a version of the questionnaire that was very similar to that finally chosen forthe main study. The second study used a one page screening questionnaire followed by the tonger questionnaire for those who agreed to take part. This procedure resulted in a lower response rate soit was abandoned in favour ofthe original method.Pilot 1 ‘The pilot study questionnaire and covering letter were sent, and followed by postal reminders three weeks later. Telephone reminders were made, where possible, after farther three weeks Overall, 79 of the 200 questionnaires (40%) were returned, 69 completed (35%) Pilot 3 Questionnaires and covering letters were sent by recorded delivery. Follow-up was made by regular mil, then telephone (where possible), and finally by a third regular mail leter: (Of the 200 questionnaires, 15 (84) were retumed because the addressee was unknown. Of the remaining 185, 95 (51%) were completed, 48 (26%) were returned not completed, and for 42 (23%) no response was received, ‘The major problem to emerge from the pilot studies was the ow response rate. This is unlikely to reflect the procedures used as standard survey techniques were adopted to minimise non- responding. Rather, itis more likely thatthe response rate reflects the nature ofthe topic and ‘ange of information collected. Psychological surveys using similar sized questionnaires (over thirty pages long) typically get response rates of about thity percent. The respondents were also given the option of retuming the blank questionnaire immediately and if this happened they were not followed up. Finally, it must be remembered that the samples were random ‘community samples rather than selected samples from specific occupations, with respondents allowed to complete questiounares during work time, The low response rate showed that it ‘was essential to determine the comparability of responders and nor-responders in our main study. This was achieved by collecting a limited amount of information on demographic, work and health characteristis ofthe non-responders, ‘The pilot studies did indicate that the methodology used in Pilot 3 produced a higher response ‘ate It also allowed us to distinguish between non-responders and those who were no longer at the address, and reflect this accordingly in the response rate. In addition, we were able to ‘assess the acceptability of the questionnaire content (for details and results see Appendix 1) For reasons of cos, it was decided that recorded delivery should be reserved for the final reminder mailingRESULTS FOR MAIN STUDY In this section of the final report, the main study will be deseribed, including procedures for all mailings at both Time 1 and Time 2 Time 1 procedures Each of the 17,000 project packs consisted of a covering letter, the questionnaire, and @ freepost envelope to return the questionnaires. These were posted using regular mail Reminder leters and questionnaires were sent by regular mail four weeks later. Telephone reminders followed after # further month, and a final leter and questionnaire were sent by recorded delivery after another four weeks. Time 2 procedures ‘Time 2 mailing began approximately one year after Time 1. Questionnaires were sent to all those 4673 who indicated at Time 1 that they would be prepared to complete another questionnaire. The mailing strategy was the same as that used at Time I “The questionnaires sent out at time 1 and time 2 are shown in Appendix 2 QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE RATES “This section examines the response rates to the mailed questionnaires at both times one and two. In addition, the response to @ short questionnaire seat to non-responders at time one will be considered (see Smith etal. | for further discussion). “Table 1 below presents detailed breakdown ofthe response to the first questionnaire, which ‘was mailed to the 17,000 popul March 1998, n randomly selected from the Bristol electoral register in‘Tablet Response rates at tie 1 TLR Oe GEG those response sent out (baseline (baseline 14497) 17000) Completed 069 at 0 Blank Total oa 8 3 included Refused eG 8 Blank no comment m9 1S 7 Completed by someone else 4 }u souapyUED 9456) PsIPaEpUEIS BY stain,RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WORK STRESS AS MEASURED BY THE STRESS & HEALTH STUDY SINGLE ITEM, AND THE KARASEK SCALE In this section we report the degree of relationship between the single item measure of perceived work stress and an established work stress measurement instrument - the Karasek Role Strain model. This enables us to establish whether our measure of work stess is an adequate instrument that sufficiently encapsulates the properties of the more complex and established scale, The table below presents the test-retest matrix for the five Karasek subscales, giving us en cstimate as tothe reliability of the established validating instrument, using this working sample, Only those who were working at both Time I and Time 2 were included in these analyses. Table 19 Reliability of the Karasek subscales “Karasek Subscale ~“Spearman’s Rho Skill disereton at vas Job Demand 50 1732 Work social support 0 147 Decision authority n 1705 Decision latitude 68 1683 “The table shows that there isa reasonable to good level of association over time between the various subscales for the Karasek scale measuring job strain, This indicates that the Karasek scale has a reasonable level of internal consistency. ‘The following tables present the associations between the various Kerasek subscales and the single item measure of perceived work stress as measured by the Bristol Stress é& Health Study. For each ime point, oly those who stated they were in paid jobs were included in the analyses,Table20 Relationship between single item work stress measures and dimensions ofthe Karasek Seale ere are Sale Skill Job demand Work social Decision Decision discretion support auther latitude Work stress 21% 3i* =a a 12+ Time 6975) 945) 3960) G92) 4883) Work stress 22* 3s oat 0 10" Time2 (1827) 1825) (1834)— (1815) (1800) denotes p< OT ‘The tables show that the single item measure of perceived work stress is related most strongly 10 the subscale of job demand, a both Time | and Time 2. It sis also significantly related to some of the other subscales ofthe Karasek scale, but to a lesser Also noteworthy is the lack of relationship between the single item measure and the subscale that measures decision authorityASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN WORK CHARACTERISTICS AND WORK STRESS AT TIME 1 ‘This section describes the associations between work characteristics and work stress, for each ‘question asked in the survey, they are presented in the order in which they appeared in the questionnaire. Only the data for those indicating that they were in paid employment are presented. In these analyses, the responses are grouped according to category of work stress (High / Low). ‘The number of respondents endorsing eech category is indicated, along with percentage of total respondent in each group (either high or low work stress). HOURS OF WORK “The first set of analyses addresses questions that ask the respondents about their hours of work Q6.ta) Do you work at night? ‘There isa significant difference between work stress groups. Those respondents with high work stress are likely to also report working at night more frequently than those in the low stress group. Chi-Square = 39.85, 3 df, p<001 Q6.1b) Do you do shift work? “Those respondents who have high work stess are more likely to report working in shift patterns ‘than those who have low work stress. Chi-Square = 13.12, 3 df, p<.005, 6.16) Do you have to work long or unsociable hours? 'A greater proportion of people who report high work stress report indicate that they work long ‘or unsociable hours compared to those who report low work stress. ‘Chi-Square = 177.69, 3 f, p<001 316.16) Do you have unpredictable working hours? ‘A greater proportion of people who report high work stress indicate that they work ‘unpredictable hours compared to those who report low work CChisSquare = 118.82, 3 df, p<001 2« fe Lut o8z Sl 001 OZ ~—BOZ_— OT SST SSM HON UBT loo> OE LBS ENGL OLE HTP EME SSMS HOM HOT 100> Is 9190 0c Vor 9% «98 SIZE OT SSANS WOM UBL 10> = e9te LTS GLE v6 = BOE VGI EE SRL C09 SEAS HON MOT fel O'8L ws oz ost ss ov sv SsauS HOA VBI Soo> EE STR S997 es 0 96 eel SANS HOM MOT] —_| HOM YI OP IL 6s vie o6 9 Lt te LE 62k ssn OM UHH Soo> — seze_ 949 OTT Ve BEL Sh STE we. ‘nf 90% NOK OG, 6 Neos N Nee on souvoytuiig VOL YOUN / 19AON, woprs soumpawios wuo 1 oun ye ssans y20m q 2000 8100}, oe,PHYSICAL AGENTS AT WORK. Q6.1e) Does your job ever expose you to breathing fumes, dusts or other potentially harmful substances? Responses show that a higher proportion of people in the work stress group are often exposed to fumes, dusts or other potentially harmful substances than in the low work stress groups. Chi- 65,3 df, p<0S Square 6.19 Does your job require you to handle or touch potentially harmful substances or materials? ‘The table below indicates that there is no significant difference between stress groups with respect tothe frequency with which workers are required to handle or touch potentially harmful substances. Chi-Square = 2.84, 3 df, p>.10 6.18) Do you ever have work tasks that leave you with a ringing in your ears or @ feeling of temporary deafness? Although there is a significant difference between groups on tasks that leave workers with @ ringing in ears or temporary deafness, the overall reporting of this is relatively low. Chi-Square = 13.90, 3 df, p<.005 Q6.1h Do you work in an environment where the level of background noise disturbs your concentration? ‘There isa significant difference between the work stress groups, with those that report high ‘ork stress also reporting that there is often a level of background noise in the environment 00.75, 3 df, p<.0001 that disturbs their concentration. ChisSquarese oe TOS ESL SH LOT ESL SEL 001 SsaNS HON loo> Lee 69 OIT:S ZEN eh TLE USS LEST SANS ION MOT te ur 310m NOK OL essouyeap Aserodura 308 40 59 snow EL BYR DTD HS WYSE SANS HION UBEH HUA MOK 9489] ON SYST soo> SEER OHRZSwS SLT. OSI S'S SSaNS HOM MOT ere c89 Los eB] HL OLE 98 by SSNS HOM UNH N luce OO = ote THEE EEH SL Oe SANS HOM NOT wre £59 BY SLs ts Ssh SIL ssn Yom USK (levee ice necdee ivi ee cue rie Rip BIT 16 SANS HOM ROT 4919 qof ano sa0q N % N % ON % N eee SouNoH IS TeIO, SOWIE / HOON 20. 1 oun 18 s55195 200 .10 new things through work. Chi-Squarqin Does your work demand 2 high level of skill or expertise? There is a significant difference between the work stress groups. Workers with high occupational stress are more likely to feel that their work often demands a high level of ski cor expertise. Chi-Square = 140.08, 3 df, p<.001 Qs) Does you job require you to take the initiative? ‘A hiigher proportion of the high stress group indicate that their job often requires them to take the initiative in their work (85% to 64%). This is significant difference. Chi-Square = 117.84, 3 af, p<001 7h) Do you have to do the same thing over and over again? Compared to those in the high stress group, the workers in the low stress group are significantly more likely to report that they often have to do the same thing in their work over and over again, Chi-Square = 14.99, 3 df, p<. 005 qi Do you have a choice in deciding how you do your work? ‘There is no difference between the werk stress groups, with about 80% of each group reporting that they often or sometimes have a choice in desiding how they do their work, Chi 43,3 df, p>.10 Square: Qn Do you have a choice in deciding what you do at work? Both groups report an equal distribution concerning their freedom to decide what they do at work. Chi-Square = 1.07, 3 df, p10ee {p3»02) sek SGI BOE Sy BoE SoS HOM, SN OIE SB we wOK aE SIY ae LE ee SSO HOM loo> eee LOL Lie oOL Las Hom BT oo> S86] OEY ST S9F SSH HEL THE ek SSANS HOM NOT ae Ce | EE Ose ote $6 tL sons HOM WH 10> og0e FOI vee Tet vik vst SOE 1S SSNS HOA MOT {pSnous aavy NOK OC] we St " 62 18D Ry eAponysuonut loo> soe Zea: wEC Sas] E10 “Yo of 2489 906 oct ou tl Sh TE SBE Less Boe HONS HOM YEH amy hon 100> 6C0E v8 oor Loe wes seol OE £16 — ssaNS YON MO] Hom oF avy NOX OG] N % N % N % N % = ~ 10 _rrowe vaN2y mops soumouog uo. 7 1 aun. ye ssans 408 £@ got Jo sonsunesEy> erates,o I 912 9st S41 ALLEL: fH POI_ ONS HOM SN ROE GTZ OLS SBI CLS OEE BIOT_ SZ RL ONS HOM. SN StL 0% 99 SL is ERE OS LE SSNS HOM HLH oe 88 GZ EST_ CSTE © 66H L'IS. BEBE SANS HOM MOT “anyede so10 oe PO de ELL LEI PLE SUZ OGE ERE SSANS HOM UHH ——_pue sono Sup ours soo> ooze OS «= LL OLS EE SLOT LOY HHT MOK MOT aL OO} anBY NOK Och sur € 61 ph TEL 8G PR OED. SSBNS HONK ULE ‘219 998101 20K Oss cree Oe 86) 09 L9H BSB_ HD. LO SEONG WIM NOT ——_auinbos gof NOX so0q, ete C3 9c 6st SLL] 1 81] JO TPA] 1OO> —660E. FB STL HE NTE 966 Lh SFL SANS HOA MOT] PrEWAP YHOM 4NOK SoOCL N % NW % N % N % N sounsguiis OL —_ssoue/4949N—_—_—_HOPIAS, sowppuios wo (p109) eva,‘CONTROL AND DECISION LATITUDE ‘The next set of questions and results examine the worker's control and decision latitude. Each respondent was asked to indicate how often the following statements applied Q8.1a) Others take decisions concerning my work ‘There is no significant difference between the work stress groups concerning the frequency ‘that others take decisions concerning their work. (Chi-Square = 2.03, 3 f, p>10 ge.ib) Ihave a great deal of say in decisions about my work ‘There is a marginally significant difference between the work stress groups, where those in the high stress group indicate that they have a great deal of say in dec 97,3 df, p=.07 jons about their work ‘more often than those with low work stress, Chi-Square 8.tc) I have a say in my work speed ‘There isa grester proportion of workers with low work stress indicating that they often have a say in their work speed compared to those workers with high occupaticnal stress. Chi-Square =25.55,3 df, p<.001 8.10) My working time can be flexible A significantly greater proportion of low stress workers indicate that their working time is often flexible than high stress workers. ChisSquare = 8.06, 3 df, p<.0S Qs.te) lean decide when to take a break Responses show that @ greater proportion of those in the low stress group often decide when to take a break at work, when compared to those that have high work stress ChisSquare » 13.36,3 df, p<.005 40win Tean take my holidays more or less when I wish Compared to those in the high work stress group, workers in the low stress group are more Tikely to say that they can often take their holidays more o less when they wish. Chi-Square = 78.63, 3 df, p<001 8.18) Thave a say in choosing who I work with ‘There is no significant association between level of work stress and whether individuals have 1 say in choosing who they work with. ChisSquare = 1.93, 3 df, p>10 s.in) I have a great deal of say in planning my work environment “There is no significant association between level of work stress and whether individuals have a say in planning their work environment, Chi-Square = 1.45, 3 df, p>.10 4(me) we eget Cor LS Oz ZH BOE SONS HOM UBL ysTa | uDysH 29} 30 a4our loo> wel rol ace $9 902 OST GL HRS ZBI SSANS AION KOT BkepHON Kus o4R1 WED | vie o1z ost sol Se Beem L'sh ze song quo dt -yoaug Boye, Os ite ui ce ues) FS 98 SIZ 19 LTS EOL ssANS HOM MOT —_ oy uayM apIDop ueD | 969 cet (O6T vst uot ZOE lz eat est song HOM HSH aiqnoy S0> pl0g GE GIL BFL Shh LOE 96 LOE Hz6 AN YIOM MOY] quo au BuryioN AyH vor TI 6L Sst SIE ez Se. t6z— ssa HOM URINE aods Woo> — c00e OL Sor FTL BE RTE S56 OG ILL B8BNS LOM MOT Ys0m Aur UH Kes Wan | som vel o8 6s StL $6 LB NZ EOS 69 ssONg ATOM YSHH] ws MoGe suoIstoap UL Lo” Iie 64 We TS LTE 166 TSh HoT stag OM MO] Kus Jo fp Heal v aby | Ie 98. Set Oct Like whE OLE S61 SSOMg HOM BIA tom Aur BUONO SN lore 26 © zo WS ble 9 GEL SRT ESBS OAL MOT] suoIsIONP axe SiaNND Nees N % NN % N oneal souvsylusis (HO, ysoupe /1949N, woprs sompomog cor {ety 1 sans 9200 4a apne] wosts9p pu Yos340:9 reste,wousuosAu WoL Lee | BRE O61 FEL «OF OLT. EET SON sas HOANURHHE tom Kun Sune uy nN west OTE 906 B02 209 GET PEZ«—« BLD SEAN HON, MOT es Jo Hop WH BNET 699 $9 ket mel Vel tL Nagra po TEM N suz stp 902 BSS HOT SSS SST Oth (ANS HON MOT Nea W Soieee Neen N % NN = soe /2949N woprs. soupamiog yO HOOT FERALCONSISTENCY AND CLARITY AT WORK The next set of questions and responses are about the respondent's perceptions about consistency and clarity of work. Each respondent was asked to indicate how often the following statements applied, 98.20) Do different groups demand things from you that you think are hard to combine? ‘When compared to the responses ofthe low stress group, a significantly greater proportion of the high stress group often found that different groups demand things that they think are hard to combine. Chi-Square = 238.17, 3 df, p<.001 98.26) Do you get sufficient information from line management (your superiors)? A significantly smaller proportion of the high stress workers feel that they often get sufficient information from line management when compared with the low stress group. Chi-Square 75.47, 3 4f, p<001 8.20) Do you get consistent information from line management (your superiors)? A significantly smaller proportion ofthe high stress workers feel that they often get consistent information from line management when compared with the low stress group. Chi-Square = 77.61,3 df, p04, 49 cH sk ore eo. se) Leh ssong o/ loo> 998 te £02 Wel cree Oey cl £06 ssn eo vw ro; OLLI REIT Toh ssa HOM UBLHL loo> sz 661 O91 6sh TRH CATZL: GE ODT SSA HOM HOTT wo 8L es o% | str SUC 95% ssoug 290K HEEL loo> gz vel 66h sso vty Thi $8E_ssaNS HOM MOT sdnos8 ywas0)1p OC esa N N % % ON souvoywuis yevog, __IS0uNe / 4989, opps sompawos fon aun, e 824)8 o0M ha 08 ye Ase pur KouastsU0 scaie,JOB INVOLVEMENT ‘The next set of questions and responses are about the respondent's perceptions about their job involvement. Each respondent was asked to indicate how often the following statements applied. 0838) Does your job provide you with a variety of interesting things to do? ‘The high stress group reported that their job often provided them with a variety of interesting ‘things to do at a significantly higher level than the low stress group. ChisSquare = 16.65, 3 df, p=.001 98.36) Is your job boring? The high stress group reported chat their job was never or almost never boring at a significantly higher level than the low stress group. Chi-Square = 12,64, 3 df, p=.00S 46o ou SE WELLE te se sans HOM HB oo, ee Gat re tr OL, ose IS Oe ese 109 gof sn0K s] 100" ze 09 w Coe) eee We Cee et ene ea ee 'o Saba B pias NOX 100" sore 9 807 ou we GLE HITE Ob OPE SSANS HOA MOT —_apIAo4d Gof NOK sO, N% N Nees N % NN soumayiulig (wi0y, _WOWNE/ 19AONL opps, soup2wios, wo 1 oui ve ss2up 40m Kq uouoNoAN Gor 9zage,SUPPORT AT WORK The following set of questions asked respondents about difficulties at work due to lack of support. Each respondent was asked to indicate how often the following statements applied 84a) How often do you get help and support from colleagues? A significantly lower proportion ofthe high stress group reported that they often got help and suppor from their colleagues when compared with the low stress group. ChisSquare = 36.31, 3 df, p<001 8b) How often are your colleagues willing to listen to your work problems? People in the high work stress group reported that they their colleagues were often witling to listen to work problems at a lower rate than those in the low stress group. This was a highly significant difference. Chi-Square = 49.28, 3 df, p<001 84e) How often do you get help and support from your immediate superior? A significantly lower proportion ofthe high stress group reported that they often got help and support from their immediate superior when compared with the low stress group. Chi-Square 1.00, 3 df, p<001 8a) How often is your immediate superior willing to listen to your problems? People in the high work stress group reported that they their immediate superior was often willing to listen to work problems at a lower rate than those in the low stress group. This was ‘highly significant difference. Chi-Squere = 68.14, 3 df, p<001 46 eswaygoud he ee Lie ee Lines Ore etic; ee a eens SOM Ua loo> 68 OS = ShELUL_CONEE'SE_— GIDL or «SIL SANS HOM MOT ‘yeypatuun sno 099 «BR 09 SELF HRT ST_— HLA SANG HOM Wi wows Hoddns pu loo> dose «SSS SL Mey OH OBIT_wBE OTE 07 19H NOK Op UDYIO MOL ee ce Gon rl 0) ile Serge Gc) ck) cee LinlH) loo> gone: «EC ZHTC(RCST:SCE'VE:= OWLS BUS. ESI. | SNS HOM MOT a nd pon HB ie CR ee N % _N ee aed N % NI aowesyiutig Iwo ome /s.9N__ wopag wos yo. 1 um. ye sous rom Aq tow pe oddng eratesJOB SATISFACTION ‘The following questions were further general explorations about the respondent's job. They were asked to rate their satisfaction with the following work-related issues. Each respondent Was asked to indicate how satisfied they were withthe following. 85a) ‘Your usual take home pay A greater proportion ofthe high stress group were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with their usual take home pay when compared with the low stress group. This was a significant difference. Chi-Square = 45.86, 3 df, p<001 98.56) ‘Your work prospects A greater proportion of the low stress group were either satisfied or very satisfied with their ‘work prospects when compared with the high stress group. This was a significant difference, ChieSquare = $1.77, 3 df, p< 001 850) The people you work with Those in the iow stress group were significantly more likely to be satisfied or very satisfied withthe people they worked with than those in the high stress, ChisSquare = 75:96, 3 df, p<001 98.54) Physical working conditions A significantly greater proportion of those inthe low stress group were either satisfied or very satisfied with their physical working conditions when compared fo those in the high stress sr0up. Chi-Square = 135.76, 3 df, p<001 8.se) The way your section is run ‘Those in the high work stress group were significantly more likely to be dissatisfied withthe \way their section is run. Chi-Square = 95.04, 3 df, p<001,98s ‘The way your abilities are used ‘There is a significantly greater level of dissatisfaction with the way in which the respondents abilities are used in the high stress group compared to the low stress group. Chi-Square = 43.56, 3 df, p<.001 0858) The interest and skill involved in your job “There is no significant difference between the groups in the interest and skill involved in their jobs. Chi-Square = 1.30,3 df, p>10 stws tek ot 8 val 88 v19 8hP wm or ssang OM HEH goFsnok wy parjoaus NIE SE OLE koe] 961 Ge 99M HAL MOT PS EHO gle BL 9s Le 007 SPS 16e 66 Ie SSNS YOM YBIH (Pash ave sor 00> scle ey sel 66l 29. e19 £61 el wey SANS YOM MOT amok Kem 2141, 890 SR 8s see lee see lee. v6 9 SSOIS HOM UTIH st 100> cost SE zor 60t ‘09 sw Logt 1 08e SSONS YOM M07] GONDSE NOK AEM HLL gL LS 9 Vee L6t wes 6st 60r L ‘ssauig HOM (IH loo> IE ZOE ey 5] ROOT ees ssa HOM MOT zt te ® o> tie He 08 BOE] BGO TL SFOS HON MOT oR MOK afdood aU se sl wee zIZ 6h see) ssang Hom Woo> eave. 79 BT Sez RD ST] aR Gz_—_—SSANS HOA MOT sradkond Hom snOR etl GOL 08 Tat 4 SOs OLE 9 SsaS YOM Uf fed ee Ci are ara 09 _SsaNS 9Ho94 o7_swou aye nn Jno, ca N% ON % ON N SouoySis Wen poyspess Ki9A __ poustENH mousey _ poystes C294 ot ve stan 420m 6q won den staiaeATTITUDES TO WORK “The next section contained questions that asked the respondents to agree or disagree with various statements about how they felt about their jobs. 8.68) Ifa task has to be done well, I'd better take care of it myself [A significantly higher proportion ofthe high stess group agreed that if a task has to be done 1.53,3 df p<01 well, they had better take care of it themselves. Chi-Square 08.66) Team get very upset when someone hinders me in my duties A significantly higher proportion of the high stress group indicated that they can get very ‘upset whten someone hinders them in their duties. Chi-Square = 115.40, 3 df, p<001 Q8.6e) [As soon as { getup in the morning | start thinking about work problems ‘A much larger proportion of the high stress group agreed that as soon as they get up in the morning they start thinking about work problems. This was a highly significant difference. Chi-Square = 482.36, 3 df, p see OF 66 ror ee SHESCSL:SCCOT] GO: SHANG MOT ee ale Sle esl Srl OES OECTA HOM HLH yoo> See Gye SHI IZ wo «LZ ETL: NOH SNS HON MOT Hom Woy Je ie te ce Fr fogs «Gores eee 20a Se O6Z— SHH SY LGPL ‘yon mor] 131404 90100 PT ec) wel for ree ooze sans HOM Mt se rece ctcee ete = OPC 18 Ob RL RTL: STR SSMS HOA MOT 89 s cou 08 yor coe IY TE SONS HON UB itose acre ttl vie Cel meee oe cir ecie | cles aces tOM eo im te st zor 9 bee eG oe Sans HOM HLH lo> see, SSL ou se | Oe OLS SER SIL SANS HOM MOT N % N % N % ON souwoytuig (805, aaidesip yeussuos 2213 eymouog saity, 1 sm. ye seus 200 Kq 400 01 pMIBTY OTAINEL,9s ‘atqnon ancy i 1 Kop Sst su var oe Fee GE BST OL SSG HOM UTNE 01 pasoddns sem Woo> sce ede Sesto HL OIE RD EB Oe SSNS HOM MOT] —BuNPoNIOS auodsod | JL Buryiow way yooq aur eee SR ote Bel eee tt) te Oc to> eae eek Gite 20) = 7 fone 29 01 08 | uous Sr. SL ROL ssi SIL SE tL Sz SSNS HOM YAH puss sit Wor> see Ouest ee. ol eee OL VL ZEZ ssam§ 0A MOT 2] Kanes 0, N % N % N % N ean aouvoytuiis wo, sates aariesip xeymouos 9043 eysouog aauay. Piwes 6 AIMELPRESSURES AT WORK “The following questions continue to explore the respondent's feelings about their work. They ‘were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements 8.78) T have constant time pressure due to a heavy workload “Those in the high stress group are significantly more likely to report constant time pressure ‘due toa heavy workload compared to those in the low stress group, Chi-Square = 359.89, | df, p<001 28.78) [have many interruptions and disturbances in my job, ‘An overwhelming majority of respondents in the high stress group report many interruptions and disturbances in their job, and this is significantly differen tothe level of reporting in the low stress group. Chi-Square = 189.25, | df, p<.001 08.76) have alot of responsibility in my job “Those in the high stress group are significantly more likely to agree that their jobs have a lot of responsibility, athough the level of agreement is quite high in both groups. Chi-Square = 156.01, 1 df, p.10 08.76) My job security is poor A significantly greater proportion of workers in the high stress group of workers indicate that they feel their job security is poor compared to those in the low stress group. (ChisSquare = 14.83, 1 df, p<001 8.7m) 1 am treated unfairly at work ‘Around one quarter of those in the high stress group feel that they are treated unfairly at work, and this is significantly different to those inthe low stress group. Chi-Square = 151.27, 1 df, p<001 36 ou veces Sew von NL 20m 10> ais 016 our HE pom a ve Aepun payeon ut] ce tis ae woe aS HOM HB 00> aL ely IZ 18D SANS HOM. MOT sod 51 £0295 g0F A ML 9ty goes gop SONS HANI N soe yh ERCL ESE ZIL_SSONS HOM MOT so, Tor HES BSE NS HOM BIH ae 100°> sole 91k eae: aR SSMS HONLMOT oe ey soz 00> mie «669 ole OE:S wo SUE LG 199 100> croc LZR STL LORE mm DOSED 100> wor «S'S HOLS OLG]_— SNS HOM ooc GOL 6R— «wD SHS HOMUBAHL —_PHOPYIOM Anta 10> a30c © TOS Gast Ser ESL SONS HOM MOT a % N % N aouwaytnys 1 oui, sass aoa 9208 Ye saunsse4 cana,88a) Considering all my efforts and achievements, my work prospects are adequate When considering effort and achievements at work, a significantly lower proportion of the high stress group feel that their work prospects are adequate. ChisSquare = 36.23, 1 df, p<001 8.8) receive the respect I deserve ftom my superiors and colleagues A significantly lower proportion ofthe high stress group feel that they receive the respect they ste Seok HOALCT oc. eon 69S aly SS YOM AB o> Gre} OR IST. SANS HOM ACT sonfeayo9 we Vee FE OSD. ote pu ssopiadns us wo4y 2A1089p ee tees 99995 aenbop ae sso e899 TED HS SNS HOM ABH] HON Au BUENA pe SHON 100> SPIE 9st 908 WrL — GEEZ SSMS HOM MOT ‘Sursapss0;) en soursyyutg OL fn = 1 au ye ssans yi0w Kq 20m 38 odds Teo1aedRACIAL ABUSE, SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND BULLYING ‘The next set of questions explored whether the respondents had been affected emotionally or physically by the issues of racial abuse, sexual harassment, and bullying at work. 8.94) Racial abuse at work ‘There was a significant difference showing that those respondents in the high stress group ‘were more likely to be affected by racial abuse at work. However, the levels of responding overall were low, and there are low numbers of ethnic minority respondents in this survey. Chi-Square = 12.03, 1 df, p=.001 98.96) Sexual harassment ‘There was a significant difference showing thet those respondents in the high stress group were more likely to be affected by sexual harassment at work. However, the levels of responding overall were low. Chi-Square = 3.87, | df, p<05 98.9) Bullying at work There was a significantly greater proportion of respondents in the high stess group agreeing, ‘that they had been physically or emotionally affected by bullying at work. (Chi-square = 87.82, 1 df, p<001 2es es eee 100" pon che triers es) Ol eee cu BOLE SANS HON ALT so pore | UG eve S59H15 HOM MOT sere fomKg e068 LC 00" ie ees sles (OY yoo ye asnge [eI N % ON % N sounayuiig VOL, on. OR oun. ye 28s 1100 A pute yuousseae yonxos 25098 1790 10JOB SECURITY 98.10) ‘Are you worried about lesing your job? There was a significant difference showing that those respondents in the high stress group \were more likely to be wortied about losing their job. Chi-Square = 98.78, 1 df, p<001 o° caf anos OL CE Fe OL HLL BEL 9 LOL DR aE sso HONK HIE noge potas loo> _ssee 8 steko Seek FG! SONS HOMMOT _HOK IY PS ee patasos, pasos, paso partow, wey Appmanxa —_poutom k19q_Ares9poW pH. 90M 1 oui. re ssn) 20m Kg Kyuno3s gor score,FAMILY / WORK INTERFACE ‘The next set of questions asked the respondent about how family life and family responsibilities interfered with job performance. Respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed withthe following statements: Qa.tay Family matters red the time you can devote to your job ‘There was a significant difference showing that those respondents inthe high stress group ‘were more likely to agree that family matte 8.35, 1 df, p<001 iuced the time they could devote to ther job, Chi-Square @.1b) Family worries or problems distract you from your work. ‘Those respondents in the high stress group were significantly more likely to agree that family worries or problems distracted them from their work to some extent. Chi-Square = 58.18, 1 df, p<001 @.te) Family activities stop you getting the amount of sleep you need 10 do your job well Family activities stopped a significantly greater proportion of high work-stressed respondents getting the amount of sleep needed to do ther job well Chi-Square = 33.67, 1 df, p GLIE LI LE OSE PPL EzS B91 sag HOM MOT Ime 69 OS ELIE SED By seang HOM UBIHL 00> tic ty Eel LIZ SRD HL SeEZ—_ssaNS HOM MOT L990 th OS. OE vtec ssa OM UM 10> Wig ry ZL OBE BOLT LS LWT ssag 390M MOT LSS OE te was: te 109> Beicymos (Ll Cocen0e act). ccle N % N % N % N yuayeo soumsywusis 0 ap yeasBy amos OL es 10N 1 oui, ye sans oom £q 298101 peaiaen,‘The next set of questions asked the respondent about how job responsibilities interfered with family life, Respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed with the following statements: 92a) ‘Your job reduces the amount of time you cen spend with your family A significantly greater proportion of the high stress group feel that their job extensively reduced the amount of time they can spend with their family, when compared to the responses of the low stress group. ChicSquare = 203.32, 1 df, p<001 99.26) Problems at work make you irritable at home ‘There is a significant difference indicating that those in the high stress group are more likely to say that problems at work make them irritable at home, (ChisSquare = 464.16, 1 df, p<001 B26) ‘Your job involves a lot of travel away from home ‘There was a significant difference showing that those respondents in the high stress group ‘were more likely to have jobs involving lot of travel away from home. Chi-Square = $1.67, 1 df, p<001 99.24) ‘Your job takes up so much energy you don't feel up to doing things that need attention at home A far greater proportion of those inthe high stress group indicate that ther job takes so much ‘energy that they do not feel up to doing things that need attention at home (ChisSquare = 421.07, 1 df p<001 6wig ie cee IY OE Ly SE HLL sang on nL loo> WIE HTL LEIS BOE BIT 018 HOH MOT 19 90 Ith BD Soh sang 2094 HL loo> zoe SLL EL doy LOR pe S018 HOM MOT ever LIZ t9S hyo sons 0m HHL loo dle DLO ELF SUSE S9F SRO SSNS HOA MOT swargoid tee we shee eee scons yom ¥BIH woh too> suite WE GZy EEL OSh Gah SSNS HOA MOT on Jo unowre 4) S20np01 Gof 904 N % oN % N % N wpe soueny nig repwaidy __owoso eye 10N os aauysayuy gat que,ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN WORK CHARACTERISTICS AND WORK STRESS AT TIME 2 HOURS OF WORK The first set of questions (Q6.1) ask generally about the place at which the respondent works. Q6.12) Do you work at night? ‘There is a significant difference, showing that those with high work stress report working at night ata higher frequency than workers in the low stress group. ChisSquare = 10.27, 3 df, p<.05 Q6.1b) Do you do shift work? ‘At Time 2, there is little difference between the work stress groups in the frequency of ‘working in shift patterns. Chi-Square = 0.53, 3 df, p>.10 Q6.1e) Do you have to work long or unsociabe hours? ‘About 30% of highly stressed workers indicate that they often have to work long or tnsociable hours, compared to 1796 ofthe low stress group. This difference is significant Chi-Square = 68.21, 3 df, p<001 Q6.16)Do you have unpredictable working hours? There isa significantly greater likelihood that workers inthe high stress group have to work ‘more unpredictable hours compared to workers in the low stress group. Chi-Square = 50.33, 3 df, p<001 10ele ose Cul ys Se BBLS SSONS HON UBHNT loo> zs] 6S Vel oz) FBT 94H SL SSNS HOA MOT sinoy ajgeisosun vie BOL 6 Se ERR HTH AMIS HOM UE 40 840] 320m 1oo> est Lvs eR TL TLL EST OL LSE SSBB HIOMN MOT] —_0F 2A] NOK OG. oc tte owSt ZLB 6 6E sang Hom NT 20m ON feere ced eicleeece sett. 1c) w IL sang wom MOT YEU op noK og Slee Oo) tele oL getic cos! 0s) eh ssang HOM BIH ania Ss, Orel ei 000 ce le At) ut 951 SANG WOM MOT —_TeAHOM NOK OG N % ON % ON % N % ON : souenyiutis 180], SOME /4949N__ HOLES soupamos 20 ‘Lau, ve ssans 08 £08 Jo NOH seaimePHYSICAL AGENTS AT WORK Q6.1e) Does your job ever expose you to breathing fumes, dusts or other potentially harmful substances? At tis time point, there is Title difference between the groups in the frequency with which the respondent's job exposes them to breathing fumes, dusts, or other potentially harmful substances. Chi-Square = 0.23, 3 df, p>.10 Q6.1f) Does your jab require you to handle or touch potentially harmful substances or materials? ‘There is no significant difference between the work stress groups in the frequency in which the respondent's job req) them to handle or touch potentially harmful substances or materials, Chi-Square = 5.20, 3 df, p>.10 Q6.1g) Do you ever have work tasks that leave you with a ringing in your ears ora feeling of temporary deafness? There is a marginally significent difference indicating that those inthe high stress group have ‘work tasks that leave them with a ringing in their ears, or temporary feeling of deainess ‘more often than those in the Jow stress group. Chi-Square = 7.35, 3 df, px0.06 Q6.1h) Do you work in an environment where the level of background noise disturbs your concentration? At this time point, there is a highly significant difference that indicates workers with higher levels of work stress work in an environment where background noise disturbs their concentration more often than low stressed workers. Chi-Square © 45.45, 3 df, p<001a sit or set coz wee SB Ltr yon wit, loo> ors 6ss_ 958 Oz LEST NGS OH MOT cle oss oe ek ees LL >on u8aH S988 om SN ofS] WOR KTS Rh] SHON OT 4210 no8 oc isjusreu sie ck oe otk 1 se 89 ssans wo LH N tS SL MDL SOL ST i 6S GANS HOM NOT Gis (ei) co eel ee) | Gor ie) eens ea ns 1 m0 as0d39 N mo wo re wc le Ee 22a gof nok S900, N% oN % ON % N N : some edis 12090, 20 sons 200 9(CHARACTERISTICS OF JOB ‘Question 7.1 asks respondents about their work and the sorts of things they have todo. 1a) Do you have to work very fast? ‘There is a highly significant difference berween the groups, indicating that workers in the high stress group are more likely to have to work very fast than those in the low stress group, Chi-Square = 82.59, 3 df, p<001 QT-1b) Do you have to work very intensively? Over two thirds of the respondents in the high stress group have to work very intensively, compared to one third of the workers in the low stress group. This is a highly significant difference. Chi-Square = 114.40, 3 df, p<001 Q7.1c) Do you have enough time to do everything? At Time 2, almost one third of highly stressed workers indicate that they never or almost never have time todo everything, compared to 10% of the low stress group. This difference is significant. ChisSquare = 170.13, 3 df, p<001 Q1.1d) Are your tasks such that others can help you ifyou do not have enough time? ‘There is a significant difference indicting that those in the low stress group feel that others can help them with their work tasks if they do not have enough time, o a greater extent than those in the high stress group. Chi-Square = 41.54, 3 df, p<.001 Q7.1¢) Do you have the possibility of learning new things through your work? ‘There is no significant difference between the work stress groups in the frequency in which ‘the respondents report the possibilty of learning new things through work, Both groups report these possiblities ata relatively high level, Chi-Square © 1.20, 3 df, p>.10 4Q7.1f) Does your work demand a high level of skill or expertise? ‘The high stress group responses indicate that their work often requires a significantly higher level of skill or expertise than the low work stress group. 52.72, 3 df, p<001 Chi-Square Q7.1g) Does your jab require you to take the initiative? 'A large proportion of workers in the high work stress group (84%) reported that their job ‘often required them to take the initiative. This was significantly different to the proportions reported by the low work stress group (65 groups. Chi-Square = 43:30, 3 df, p<001 although the rate was relatively high in both Q7.1h) Do you have todo the same thing over and over again? “There is no significant difference between the work stress groups in the frequency with which the respondents report having to do the same thing over and over again at work. Chi-Square = 4.93, 3.4, p>.10 Q7.11) Do you have a choice in deciding how you do your work? [At this time point, there is no significant difference between the work stress groups in the frequency with which the respondents report a choice in deciding how to do their work ChisSquare = 4.96, 3, p>10 Q7.1j) Do you have a choice in deciding what you do at work? ‘There is no significant difference between the work stress groups in the frequency with which the respondents report a choice in deciding what to do at work. ‘Chi-Square = 0.41, 3 df, p>10 81 (pres) a Z yOM snOk ysnoxy oie SS LE G6 SHH SEL OT oz] SANS HOM UBT ue 9, 091 Sz S19 Oh 18S SAMS HOM 807 SOE 9 MLAS BE LIES Se SSAS HOM UBL doy we sHoMjo YH 1oo> —6LEL_ LE COLLET LH HOD LIZ 66 SSANG HOM MOT Yons SysEL MOK aay zie PCE OO eee TIE PL SANS HONG UBL too> cori OL HL SZ LE TEL GLOSS HOM MOT or cl oF (Gee tc tee eco et). C6 pom W8IH, loo> -sehl 9G GSE 10S ALE ZE_ HOF SANE HIOM MOTT —_ oH aABY NOK Og, soe eek Ol yr EL oF SL Ssang HOM AIH —_eASH) DA HOM 1oo> 6c TLL EL GOL OES OLN BE SANG HOM MT — cL aAEY NOK OG N % N % N % N ee ew POL _SowTe /IKN—__woPIES soupowog 20 aU yess8a9s OM 4g got yo sHsta}PEIEHD wcomae,au 20% se 0p wok eu ee coc OCI 9 Oct. Ol PST SL SONS HOM YT] — Bumproap ut o2104 SN Iybl 10% 067 sor S6z Vee toy oot POE SONS OA, MO] 1B anny NOK OG] pen 06 0p HO MOM v9 te £9 LL BOF SS} SONS BON UBIAT — Suppa9p ut aH049 SN se ve O0E Lye ws 608 SSANS HOM MOT Baney nos og {yee sno pue ce Lk ve BL SRG se 1 ssang {pom yt} J9x0 Bump auues o4p Nor 9 16 SDL SSE OSI TD. SHAMS HIM MOT POL BNE NOK OG sit oo z el ¥ cv se see 9% SsaNS HON YH 1oo> zis), 9TH LCS LZ TTD 98H SSNS HOA MOT vie ot ry ck tse OL V69 LIZ ssanig YOM. loo> ay LL Wiles (ee Cotes Gly) erica, cis eas TOM me Ts N on Nee soupawos wo. (p10) ge ra,CONTROL AND DECISION LATITUDE The following set of questions asked respondents how often they agreed with several statements regarding their position at work Q8.18) Others take decisions conceming my work ‘There is little difference between the two work stress groups with regard to the frequency ‘with which others take decisions about the respondents” work Chi-Square = 0.58, 3 df, p>.10 Q8.1b) I have a great deal of say in decisions about my work At this time point, respondents in both work stress groups reported similar levels of autonomy concerning the amount of say they had in decisions about their work. ChieSquare = 3.06, 3 df, >.10 QB.tc) Thave a say in my work speed Respondents in the low stress group are significantly more likely to report that they often hhave some influence over their work speed when compared to those in the high work stress ‘group. Chi-Square = 27.13, 3 df, p<.001 Q8.14) My working time can be flexible At Time 2, a greater proportion of workers in the low work stress group reported that they often had flexible working times. This was significantly different to the proportions reported by the high work stress group. Chi-Square = 10.79, 3 df, p=01 Q8.1e) I can decide when to take a break Workers in the low stress group could decide more often when they could take a break from ‘work than workers with high stress. This was a significant difference. ChisSquare = 17.23, 3 df, p=.001 aQ8.1f) I can take my holidays more or less when I wish At this time point, those with high work stress had significantly less freedom in deciding hen they could take their holidays than workers with relatively low work stress, ChiSquare = 56.67, 3 f, p<001 Q8.1g) Ihave @ say in choosing who I work with ‘There was relatively litle difference between the work groups in the degree of say that respondents had in choosing who they worked with, Chi-Square = 3.06,3 df, p>.10 (Q8.1h) I have a great deal of say in planning my work environment [At this time point, respondents in both work stress groups reported similar levels of influence inthe planning of their work environments, Chi-Square = 3.43, 3 df, p>10 w08 (0009) a - us 1 Ua 553) soc 802 EL wee) StL SsaNS HOM 40 a, shy to> —PaPL SILL BOL WET Lye BOS BBR SSMS OI a3ye) woe 661 vu vie 9 ty ott eae oe 0} oo Il eeL Le soc ez SSB we ce LBL SLE 56 EEL SONS WHOA a1qxap 99 u8> 10 WeBL_ OLS Sol «LUE LEY OSE oH SONS HOALMOT — ou we eo te sel see EL ssamS HOA AH loo> tort TS LERL:ELNCOE Sth STS EEL SONS HHOALMOT. Ary pom ka sic Ck REL th BIE OL 90S SL SANS HOM HEHE SHON U Ars 0 SN O89 OL TEL S61 SIE 99h BH GILSON HOA MOT] JOP aH one pom ore 901 ee 95-89% SL SLAMS HOM URL suossoap SN atROL Sh wt 19h 198 S98 WRE_— SEAS HOA NOT 27H 828 eee yee eect cee Tees cee dowrsuiutis TOK, _sOWTE/4949N _wopIeS soumpawos yo amy. ye 8903s 0m Aq apeyne uost9p pus Yo1)U0>, seas,20m Kur Wee Gor 0 ice et | oer CIZ 99 ssa YOM YEA — FuwUBd Wes Jo 3N wel 942 LE IZ 06z 9 6 TE — SANG HOM MOT YwaP IB Bann | spon. cee cle ieee tree 49) €£ SONS HOR YB —_ 0 Fuss00yD. 5N a i Ges i ch {BL SINS HOM WOT AWS EanRY | N % N % N % N oc WoL _wowye/ sexy topes smpowog 20. own, (pws) se amaCONSISTENCY AND CLARITY AT WORK The next set of questions and responses relate to the respondent’ perceptions about consistency and clarity of work. Each respondent was asked to indicate how often the following statements applied 8: .) Do different groups demand things from you that you think are hard to combine? When compared to the responses of the low stress group, a significantly greater proportion of the high stress group often find that different groups demand things that they think are hard to combine. Chi-Square = 48.99, 3 df, p<001 Q8.2b) Do you get sufficient information from line management (your superiors)? A significantly smaller proportion of the high stress workers feel that they often get sufficient information from line management, when compared with the low stress group. Chi 7.00, 3 af, p<001 quar Q8.2c) Do you get consistent information from line management (your superiors)? A significantly smaller proportion of the high stress workers feel that they often get consistent information from line management when compared with the low stress group. 50.30, 3 df, p<001 Chi-Squareee ror SOL IE OBZ SR CRY MHL TIE sa HOM NEM loo> HEEL «O9OB:SCG RTS TH KS GUE ly SANS HON MOT roc TG LRH CL«OBH MLCT AS SsaS HONN HEY loo> sels eS ELSCEZSCYCS BEE ISH Ore] Si 1 cee 6c) Oia Orie ec9e| ll s loo> —zezt BRI Eye SZ REECE) MHS SEL SLL SSNS HOM MOT oe ste ete Nie eee aouesyiudig NOL owe /A98N__wODIES sowpowog yO ay, ye ssouns 20 Ka 204 ye yam pe Kourysisuo e198,JOB INVOLVEMENT ‘The next set of questions and responses are about the respondents” perceptions about their job involvement. Each respondent was asked to indicate how often the following statements applied Q8.3a) Does your job provide you witha variety of interesting things do? ‘The high stress group reported thatthe job often provided them with a variety of interesting things to do at a similar level tothe low stress group. Chi-Square = 4.50, 3 df, p>.10 Q8.3b) Is your job boring? ‘The high stress group reported that their job was never or almost never boring at @ similar level tothe low stress group. Chi-Square = 1.61, 3 df, >.10 888 Ele SSE a Ove st ole 6 £6 6Z SANG HON UI SN tost TEE 66F st ae wee ‘v0S vs Tz ssong HOM MO] {BUUIOG Gof NOK S| zop oy stop Buns 0 Aes SIE SE 86 IE EHE BOLUS oT SHAMS HOMUBI FMM NOK aptAOHd SN vost 6b a Tui 69 SLE 895 ro 769 SSONS OA NOT gof anok s90q. Nu % oN % N % N *N WoL wom js. wopPS sompauog 290 au, 98 Seon) 200 faq woura,jonu gor ore,SUPPORT AT WORK ‘The following set of questions asked respondents about when they were having difficulties at work. Each respondent was asked to indicate how often the following statements applied Q8.4a) How often do you get help and support from colleagues? A significantly lower proportion ofthe high stress group reported that they often got help and support from their colleagues when compared with the low stress group, ChisSquare = 42.47,3 df, p<001 Q8.4b) How often are your colleagues willing to listen to your work problems? People in the high work stress group reported that they their colleagues were significantly less ‘willing to listen to work problems, than those in the low stress group. Chi-Square = 63.05, 3 df, p<001 Q8.4¢) How often do you get help and support from your immediate superior? A significantly lower proportion of the high stress group reported that they often got help and support from their immediate superior, when compared with the low stress group. Chi-Square = 81.27, 3 df, p<001 Q8.4d) How often is your immediate superior willing to listen to your problems? People in the high work stress group reported that they their immediate superior was often {ess willing to listen to work problems, than those in the low stress group, Chi-Square = 104.46, 3 df, p00 86“a oz 61 SE SEO} SIZ sans OM IH [o> shel OSHC: SIE MGY THF THD SHAS HON, MOT foc 91 eT RLS Oh ELM fos veel Gye (9 reece ait Ceye G8h cet et LiG (9 etl 69g Msgr cies geet] 2 ote: Gal yom IH loo> olrl, 9% 9E TLL THE TSS POM NOT esano909 oor tr or Sh TRF GLE OL ses HOA HTH ‘oy vodkns pu dau 998 loo> tevl tz 89 66 TTD GD SSNS HOM MOT nO OP UOYO MOH Ty N % ON soueoyuiis 160K, SOME /ABAIN __mHOPIAg sompawos eyo ‘aun, ae sea wieSOB SATISFACTION ‘The following questions were further general explorations about the respondent's job. They ‘were asked to rate their satisfaction with the following work-related issues, Each respondent ‘was asked to indicate how satisfied they were with the following. Q8.5a) Your usual take home pay A greater proportion of the high stress group was very dissatisfied with their usual take home pay when compared with the low stress group. Chi-Square = 34.00, 3 df, p<001 Q8.5b) Your work prospects ‘A greater proportion of the low stress group was satisfied with their work prospeets when compared with the high stress group. This was a significant difference. Chi-Square = 20.10, 3 f, p<001 Q8.Se) The people you work with ‘Those in the low stress group were significantly more likely to be satisfied or very satisfied ‘with the people they worked with than those inthe high stress group. (Chi-Square = $2.27, 3 df, p<.001 Q8.5d)_ Physical working conditions A significantly greater proportion of those inthe low stress group were either satisfied or very satisfied with their physical working conditions when compared to those in the high stress Square = 43.31, 3 df, p<001 group. Ct Q8.5e). The way your section is run ‘Those in the high work stress group were significantly more likely to be dissatisfied with the 9.62, 3 df, p<001 ‘way their section is run . Chi-Square 88.51) The way your abilities are used There isa significantly greater level of dissatisfaction with the way in which the respondents’ abilities are used in the high stress group compared to the low stress Chi-Square = 42.72, 3 df, p<001 Q8.5g) The interest and skill involved in your job ‘There is no significant difference between the groups in the interest and skill involved in their Jobs. Chi-Square = 3.48, 3 df, p>.10 »ue ost eto cts at ve LL SNS HOM Repeal cc ee gc otk eS GME SLR AES MOAN ARAHE PORE OO 10> 09F1 or 6S sO oo veo 106 pal vel = SSNS HON MOT HK oe ool :SCc:SCtwCNS: tL] BL Seans OMNES toe oe EERO Lis $1 ans met oclnath ee ee Oe ee suoqypuon tos EE GETS ree v9 het TE ans Ho meT.Furwoe yes oc ss LOSI BRL LTS SANS HY ss on 100> ssPl a ol rs sit ve 806 T8t Ole SANS HOA MOL aydoad a4 1 foc gtk sewee:SCCZUS: TS] THRE saNS NOMA NAH soodsoud jo> wor THT REHM] GIB TE OTT SANS HOM 20m ano, ci uu St eve 1 ves vol va se sssans 07 YEH ‘Ked wou eee eee ice le ensn 3804, NN HNN aounyiwits for _paumesia Goa paysnessia poysnes pauses 304 ‘cau, suns a0M Aa uonDHEENES Gor zrataed,ATTITUDES TO WORK ‘The next section contained questions that asked the respondents to agree or disagree with various statements about how they felt about their jobs. (Q8.6a) Ifa task has to be done well, I'd better take care of it myself {A significantly higher proportion of the high stress group agreed that if task has to be done well, they had better take care of it themselves. Chi-Square = 18.12, 3 €f, p<.O001 (8.66) I can get very upset when someone hinders me in my duties AA significantly higher proportion of the high stress group indicated that they can get very Square = 46.12,3 df, p gest Sue LS THESE fer coz SSNS HOM MOT sie ose est ae tor gst NTE TK an MOM BI eee ete eel ete en [ee Seams ony MoT sd Aron 88 09] “yes yo 2289 9 ligesi6ls 2 se ww ole th LS ss0ng 40H GBH 19809 P1110" 280P Reto eyo or eee ce oe sang Bon MOH 9G 02584) ASV EST N% ON % N % N oe soueswuiig (eos vaste __204Zesp weymowog _sosBe yeunentes aay, “own, sane 208 £4 9200 7 S9OINIY ee,‘P01 pasodins ule Iz 69 vee ae ie Se oe (7 8S ou ue eee we tee ssang Yo; or) auosod jy) Wee cic “9 Sl Sve LL ssang yrom HI, 10> ost uw tee Sty OSI 9t@_—_ssaNS HOA mr] lee eee Or acl ol Ce 0 oon 20M UBT a ee ee S HOM MOT 2108 wy ey sie est 902 So IE 86 Sz eT ssans Hom ySaHy —souloo gy sean om Bt ee SE rom wuzaeygeCh Ssam§ YON, MOT Mee aan % NN % N er) Scueuiis (80, __sovlmig]__saviemp reyuouiog seid yeyasog aarty = (10>) ep a19eyPRESSURES AT WORK “The following questions continue to explore the respondents feelings ebout their work, They were asked whet wer they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements. (Q8.74) I have constant time pressure due to a heavy workload ‘Those in the high stress group are significantly more likely to report constant time pressure due toa heavy workload compared to those inthe low stress group, Chi-Square = 153.36, 1 df, p<001 (Q8.7b) I have many interruptions and disturbances in my job. ‘The large majority of respondents in the high stress group report many interruptions and isturbances in their job, and this is significantly different to the level of reporting in the low p<001 sess group. Chi-Square = 64.73, 1 (Q8.7e) [have a lot of responsibility in my j “Those in the high stress group are significantly more likely t0 agree that their jobs have a lot of responsibility, although the level of agreement is quite high in both groups. Chi-Square = 45.04, 1 df, p<.001 (Q8.7d) Tam often under pressure to work overtime “Those inthe high stress group report that they are under significantly more pressure to work overtime compared with those in the low stress group. Chi-Square = 99.36, | df, p=.001 98-72) I have experienced or expect 10 experience an undesirable change in my work situation [A significantly greater proportion of the respondents in the higher stress group indicate that they have experienced or expect to experience an undesirable change in their work situation than inthe low stress group. Chi-Square = 49.05, ! df, p<.001 9s8.71) My job promotion prospects are poor There is little difference between the groups when asked about their prospect for promotion. ChieSquare = 0.39, 1 df, p>.10 Q8.74) My job security is poor ‘A greater proportion of workers in the high stress group of workers indicate that they feel their job security is poor compared 10 those in the low stress group. This diffe ‘marginally significant. Chi-Square = 3.10, 1 df, p=.08 (Q8.7h) I am treated unfairly at work ‘Over one quarter of those in the high stress group fee! that they are treated unfairly at work, ‘and this is significantly different to those in the low stress group, Chi-Square = 104.98, 1 df, p<001 966 We cee ee 00> lor 9% = ost LAL yom re cle Ve ee STB 30 igh eecet ae cllU act) a6le 90d 1 noes got A Oleee Cree icles eet0ss ee cel SN sol th 619 LS OR ood are spoadsoud ee Col eat aCe pom Ai to0> curl UL sol 8 aouatsndxa 0} oad 10 poouotzadxo ancy eee ou a orl cape aon union 00> art 69 NOLO Ohh pom oy aunssaud soc ae eee) ee too> cert «fst HE Lk (8901 of Kus ut we 06 of £06 BL 10> Il Ste 9b SU9 ZL sooupgimstp pu suondnssoyut Aut on Ree eeOcutee ce ote ice eopyions avon 00> 9spl SOS EL SH OL N % N ay aounayrulig 10, on sR aw, sas iow Aq 04 ye sansa praia,Q8 8a) Considering all my efforts and achievements, my work prospects are adequate ‘When considering efforts and achievements at work, a significantly lower proportion of the high stress group feel that their work prospects are adequate, Chi-Square = 10.55, 1 df, p=.001 (Q8.8b) I receive the respect I deserve from my superiors and colleagues. A significantly lower proportion ofthe high stress group feel that they receive the respect they deserve from their superiors and colleagues when compared to the responses of the low stress ‘group. Chi-Square = 56.01, 1 df, p<.001 Q8.8) I experience adequate support in difficult situations ‘Those in the high stress group are significantly less likely to agree that experience adequate support in dificult situations. Chi-Square = 124.58, 1 df, p<001 (Q8.8d) Considering all my efforts and achievements, I receive the respect and prestige 1 deserve, at work ‘Those in the high stress group are significantly less likely to agree that they receive the respect and prestige they deserve considering all their efforts and achievements at work. ChisSquare = 46:92, 1 df, p<001 98som 981089 | ‘98us04d pun yoadsas 24 2410001, ore «Sh HL TS BT sraNS HOA UY | ‘swuawanowyoe pur suoy2 100> sibl 9%) let EEL L60L “SENS HOM MO ue Bo9p1s40) 1S 8ST ZST_—_—SSAME ION YBHHA —_SuoNEMYS yOYLEP UY Hoddns 10> soz SOE SL s80H1§ BOA MOT stenbope sououodNa | sie vee oo ssong 40M WBitypuP stouodns Kw wosy 9089p. too> ol ova eB SSaNS HOM MOT Treodsosayp 99905 | ce OE 909990 SSIS THOMA HHH 00> wrt Ost EOSIN ANS HOM MOT NN % N on e104, on Sox ZOMLL Ye sans HOM Lg Y20H Je HOUMA sr ara,RACIAL ABUSE, SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND BULLYING ‘The next set of questions explored whether the respondents had been affected emotionally or physically by the issues of racial abuse, sexual harassment, and bullying at work, Q8.9a) Racial abuse at work There was litle difference showing that those respondents in the high stress group were equally as likely as those in the low work stress group to be affected by racial abuse at work, It is worth noting thatthe levels of responding overall were low, and there are low numbers of 59,1 df, p>10 ‘ethnic minority respondents in this survey. Chi-Square = (8.96) Sexual harassment ‘There was litle difference showing that those respondents inthe high stress group equally as likely as those in the low work stress group tobe affected by sexual harassment at work. Chi- Square = 2.44, 1 df, p>.10 (Q8.9¢) Bullying at work ‘There was a significantly greater proportion of respondents in the high stress group agreeing that they had been physically or emotionally affected by bullying at work at Time 2. Chi- ‘Square = 33.69, 1 df, p<001 100ze eR ST LL SS SSMS HOM YBIHE t00> ZIst LW Wh ELON) SSIS HOM MOT — HON BULKING, Tw © wet S 8 SHON THOM SN SISt 796 SPL. S'E_—«8S_—_SSANSIHOAL MO] JuDUUNSEHEY yemxag, ete 86 = Ok} SSRN HON UBETE Hom N sist $46 Ldbl, SZ RE SSMNS HOM MOT a asnge 8!9ey Niece N N souvoytutis 10d, on. x ‘Zauny, sseis 206 aq Buxsyn4 pe sussex yeRs9s 6NGE EL paras,JOB SECURITY Q8 10) Are you worried about losing your ob? There was a significant difference showing that those respondents in the high stress group were more likely to be worried about losing their job. Chi-Square = 54.49, 4 df, p<.001 12col ieee WY lee CO eich Celeetya. Ust) 1181.25.67, 95 loo> ors LI 81 Le 6B SEL 9ST ORE 97D tS N % N % N N% N Payson — pauz0M ‘pays aouvoyniis rox Apwouxa G99 We IE ION. ‘Lowy, ssans a0 A S3M98 Gor uaeFAMILY / WORK INTERFACE, ‘The next set of questions asked the respondent about how family life and family responsibilities interfered with job performance. Respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed with the following statements: 9.12) Family matters reduce the time you can devote to your job ‘There was a significant difference showing that those respondents in the high stress group ‘were more likely to agree that family matters reduced the time they could devote to ther job Chi-Square= 11.60, 2 df, p<.005 (Q9.1b) Family worries or problems distract you from your work ‘Those respondents in the high stess group were significantly more likely to agree that family ‘worries or problems distracted them from their work to some extent. Chi-Square = 34.87, 2 df, p<.001 @.le) Family activities stop you getting the amount of sleep you need 10 do your job well Family activities stopped a significantly greater proportion of high work-stressed respondents ‘getting the amount of sleep needed to do their job well. Chi-Square = 18.80, 2 df, p<.001 (Q9.14) Family obligations reduce the time you need to relax or be by yourself A significantly greater proportion of the high stress group feel that family obligations reduced. ‘the time they needed to relax or be by themselves, when compared to the responses of the low stress group. Chi-Square= 17.47, 2€f, p<.001 108so ay eich 299) vor v8 (ee Co fe ee Co 90 SL @ ote eee. | cy 21 cal ns om NUH loo> thE Is OS GEE SEL ROT SSMS HOM MOT oe 8L % Ly BL Che EEL SANS HOM UHH HOM NOK woU} NOK JEP loo> wel ov eu POS —-SLR_—_-SSANS OAL MOT] suoyqoUd 10 SoqsFOM ANE gof we 69 ic SOE EL 9°96 ZLT-_SSANE OAL HAHN sno oF aIoAap uD NOK auND soo> HLS 08 LLZ— Loy 8'99——08G_——SSANS MOA MOT — aA aOMpousioNEU Aye] Nea W % N % ON souvoytuiis —reyog, wap yeu y_ oye amos og oN au, ‘au, ye ssays How £q 298}19)0) 100 / SHE, er aged‘The wext set of questions asked the respondent about how job responsibilities interfered wth family life. Respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed with the following statements: Q9.2a) Your job reduces the amount of ime you can spend with your family AA significantly greater proportion of the high stress group feel thet their job extensively reduces the amount of time they can spend with their family, when compared to the responses ‘of the low stress group. Chi-Square= 90.51, 2 df, p<001 (Q8.2b) Problems at work make you initable at ome ‘There isa significant difference indicating that those in the high stress group are more likely 10 say that problems at work make them initable at home. Chi-Square = 251.64, 2 df, p<.001 Q9.2c) Your job involves a lot of travel away from home ‘There was a significant difference showing that those respondents in the high stress group ‘were more likely to have jobs involving alot of travel away from home, Chi-Square = 13.57, 2 f, p=001 (Q9.24) Your job takes up so much energy you don’t feel up to doing things that need attention at home ‘A far greater proportion of those inthe high stress group reported that their job takes so much ‘energy that they do not feel up to doing things that need attention at home. ChisSquare = 165.91, 2 df, p< 001 106,wot le 9ue en CS loo> 86h ETL LU RL ODE. ES BSNS HOM HOT we | 6L & soz 0996 SSIS HOM HLH. silos 9 Srl Loz «OR BPTL SANG AOA MOT 6oe 162 06 oss 8h ETL BE SSH HOM NR too> zap Oy aw Oly £69 RY ET SHS HOM MOT woe 00E zw Zor SL BOT SSANS OM UI thm puads UPD NOK a 10> YL BTL SLL 9PY 099 SEF 9hD_—_—SETIS NA NOT] HOWE 4p soNPOH Gof NOK N % N % N % WN souvoyrudig peed, reapyeaxd y___yuayx9 mos o1, rows ‘aun, ve ssans 0. a 29 Seavey pu 8 ores,IS THERE A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ASSOCIATIONS WITH PERCEIVED WORK STRESS FOR THOSE WITH VARYING WORK CHARACTERISTICS IN THEIR JOBS? ‘This section examines the associations between various characteristics of respondents’ jobs ‘and their workplaces and their perceptions of work-related stress at both time points, and also ‘examines how these relationships may change over time, ‘As well as looking at cross-sectional data for the working sample, in order to understand the relationship between work characteristics and perceived work stress, itis worthwhile looking, at the data using a longitudinal framework to see how they may change overtime, One way of looking at this data is to measure the degree of association between work characteristics Feported at Time 1, and subsequent symptoms reported at Time 2. We have sereened out Participants who have changed jobs or job role over the intervening year, so we proceeded With the assumption that work characteristics remain largely unchanged for these respondents from Time 1 to Time 2. This method is known as cross-lagged analysis, If the relationship between the work characteristic and the level of work stress is transient, we would not expect ‘any significant associations to drop out when using this method of analysis, However, if the association between work characteristics and perceived work stress is robust, we would ‘expect to find thatthe association continues tobe significant. tosHOURS OF WORK “The tables below present the analyses for the associations between work characteristics and perceived work stress for both time points, and for the cross-lagged analysis of Time 2 work sress by Time I work characteristics. Table so “Type of work characteristic ‘Significant association ‘with high work stress? Q6.1 Working hours Time I Time2 TI WC swith ws Do you work at night? Yes Yes Yes Do you do shift work? Yes No No Do you have to work long or unsociable hours? Yes Yes. Yes Do you have unpredictable working hours? Yes Yes Yes ‘WO= work characteristics WS = work sess Physical agents at work "Significant association vwith high work stress? (Q6.1 Exposure to physical agents Time Time? 11 7C with nw ‘Does your jab ever expose you to breathing fumes, dusts. Yes No No or ther potentially harmful substances? Does your job require you to handle or touch poteitially No No No barmful substances or materials? Do you ever have work tasks that leave you with a Yer Yes No ringing in your eas ora feeling of temporary deafness? ‘Do you work in an environment where the level of Yes Yes Yes background noise disturbs your concentration? WO™= work characierstics WS = work stress ‘Although we sce fairly global associations between characteristics of the workplace and perceived work stress at Time 1, and to similar extent at Time 2, the longitudinal analysis leaves a lesser set of robust associations. Night working, working long or unsociable or predictable hours at Time 1 are all associated with higher perceived work stress at Time 2. In addition, working in an environment where the level of background noise disturbs 109concentration 1s also significantly associated with perceived work stess one year after initial ‘measurement ofthe workplace characteristic, (CHARACTERISTICS OF JOB Table 52 “Type of work characteristic ‘Significant association ‘with high work stress? Q7-1 About your work and the sorts of things you have Time Time T1 WC todo oe ws ers Do you have to work very fast? Yes Yes Yes Do you have to work very intensively? Yes Yes Yes Do you have enough time to do everything? Yes Yes Yes ‘Are your tasks such that others can help you if youdonot Yes Yes Yes have enough time? ‘Do you have the possibilty ofleaming new things through No No No work? Does your work demand a high level of skill orexpertse? Yes.Yes._— Yes Does your job require you to take the initiative? Yes Yes Yes Do you have to do the same thing over and over again? Yes. “No No ‘Do you have a choice in deciding how you do your work? No No No. Do you have a choice in deciding what you do at work? No No No WO = work characterises WS work stess Jn this section on the sorts of things that participants do at work, it is clear that an identical pattem of results emerge at both time points, and also in the longitudinal analysis. Having to Work fast and work intensively has an effect on perceptions of work stress. Feeling that one ‘does not have time to do everything, and that the task at hand is one thet others cannot help with if one does not have enough time both contribute to higher perceptions of work stress. Furthermore, work that requires a high level of skill or expertise, or requires the respondent to take the initiative is also associated with higher levels of reported work stress. Interestingly, neither choice on deciding how or what is done at work is associated with work stress levels. Indeed, even if work is repetitive or does not afford the opportunity to leam new ‘things, these factors are not significantly associated with reported levels of work stress. uoCONTROL AND DECISION LATITUDE Tables3 “Type of work characteristic ‘Significant association ‘with high work stress? Q8.1 About your position at work Time Time TL WC 12 withT2 WS. Others take decisions conceming my work No No No have # great deal of say in decisions about my work No No No Thave a say in my work speed Yes Yes Yes ‘My working time can be flexible Yes Yes Yes Tan decide winen to take a break Yes Yes Yes ‘ean take my holidays more or less when I wish, Yes Yes Yes Thave a say in choosing who I work with No No No have a greet deal of say in planning my work environment No. No No WO= work characteristics WS = work stress “The data about the respondents position at work reveals very litle difference in the pattem of associations according to the time frame in which the analysis occurs, There is little association between the level of work stress and the control that respondent or others have about the work that is done. Additionally, work stress is not associated with degree of influence thatthe respondent has over their general work environment or in choosing who they work with. However, leaving these parameters of decisions about work aside, what is clear is that there are significant associations between level of work stress and decisions regurding, autonomy in managing the work that is being done. Work stress is significantly associated with ‘work speed, working time flexibility, deciding when to take a break, and being able to take holidays more or less when one wishes. unCONSISTENCY AND CLARITY AT WORK Table S4 “Type of work characteristic Significant association with high work stress? Q8.2 About consistency and clarity at work Time Time? T1WC swith T2 WS, ae Do different groups demand things from you that you Yes Yes._—=sYes think are bard to combine? Do you get sufficient information from line management Yes Yes Yes (your superiors)? Do you get consistent information from line Yes Yes Yes ‘management (your superiors)? ee WC = work characteristics WS= work suess Lack of consistency and clarity of information from differen groups or line management are significantly related to higher levels of work stress at both time points and in the longitudinal analyses. In addition, the more that different groups demand things that are hard to combine, the more likely i is thatthe respondent will also have relatively high levels of work stress, JOB INVOLVEMENT Tan ss Type of work characerinc ican ocaon with igh work stress? 98.3 About your job involvement Tine Tine? TI BC ih rs $s Docs youzjob provide you witha varieyofitesing Yes NoYes things a? Is oar boring? Ye No No WOE wk careaianiits WSs wok eies ‘The association between work characteristics conceming job involvement and perceived work Stress depends upon the time point at which the association is measured. At Time 1, a variety of interesting things to do and a relative lack of boredom were associated with relatively low frequency of cases of work stress. Both these effects drop out at Time 2. However, in the Jongitadinal analysis, it s clear that having a variety of interesting things to do in one’s job as ‘measured at Time 1 is associated with relatively low levels of work stress at Time 2, nzSUPPORT AT WORK Table 36 "Type of work characteristic ‘Significant association ‘with high work stress? Q8.4 Support at work Time! Time? TI WC vith T2 WS. low often do you get help and support from your Yes Yes Yes colleagues? How often are your colleagues willing tolistento your -Yes._—«“Yes:_—= Yes ‘work problems? How often do you get help and support from your Yes Yes Yes immediate superior? How often is your immediate superior willing tolistento Yes Yes Yes ‘your problems? Wi ‘Work characteristics WS» work stress Iki clear from the table above that having colleagues and immediate superiors who are willing to Bsten to one’s work problems and offer suppor is associated with significantly ower levels of perceived work stress. These associations are apparent at both time points end also in the {ongitudinal analyses. JOB SATISFACTION ‘Tables Ee “Type of work characteristic Significant association swith high work stress? Q85 Job satisfaction Time} Time? T1WC with 72 LL Your usual take home pay Yes Yes Yes Your work prospects ese Weel Nel ‘The people you work with Yes Yes. Yes Physical working conditions Yes Yes Yes ‘The way your section is ran Yes Yes Yes “The way your abilities are used Yes Yes = Yes ‘The interest and skill involved in your job No No No WO= work characterises WS = work stress 43(Once again, a clear patter of finding emerges about the associations between charactenstics of the respondents’ jobs in general and perceived work stress Satisfaction with usual take home ay, Work prospects, the people one works with, physical working conditions, the way one's section is ran and the way one’s abilities are used are all significantly associated with Derosived work stress in the expected direction, These findings hold across time points and longitudinal examination, Furthermore, the interest and skill involved in one’s job are not associated with work stress at all. ATTITUDES TO WORK Table 58 ‘Type of work characteristic Significant association with high work stress? (Q8.6 How you feel about your work Time? Time2 TI WC vith Rus oe Iatask has to be done well, I'd better takecareofit. Yes_—«-Yes._—=sYes. myself can get very upset when someone hinders me inmy Yes Yes. Yes duties ‘As soon as I get up in the morming I start thinking about Yes —-Yes_-—=Yes work problems When Tcome home, Ian easly relax and‘switchof Yes -Yes._—Yes. from work People close tome say I sacrifice myself too much for -Yes_—=«“Yes.—Yes my job For me, family or private life comes first, then work Yes Yes Yes Work rarely lets me go, itis sill on my mind whenIgo Yes —-Yes_—=Yex toded Every once in awhile I like it when others hold me back Yes Yes. Yes from working IFT postpone something that was supposed to do today, Yes Yes. Yes Iwill have trouble sleeping at night Wi work characteristics WS = work sues The table above indicates global associations between these work characteristics encompassing feelings about one’s job and perceived work stress, The findings indicate that those people ‘ho are ‘job-oriented’ in their approach seem to be more likely to percvive significantly higher levels of job stress in their working lives, and that this finding is robust. rrPRESSURES AT WORK Table 59 “Type of work characteristic ‘Significant association with high work stress? (08.7 Pressures at work. Time! Time? T1WC with Rus have constant time pressure due to aheavy workload -Yes._«=«Yes_—= Yes have meny interruptions and disturbances in myjob Yes. «Yes Yes: have a lot of responsibility in my job Yes Yes = Yes Tam often under pressure to work overtime Yes Yes Yes have experienced or expest to experience an Yes Yes Yes undesirable change in my work situation “My job promotion prospects are poor No No No ‘My job security is poor Ned pe 2 1am treated unfairly at work Yes Yes Yes Wi ‘Work characteristics “There is @ coherent pattem of results showing that those respondents who feel they are under pressure because of constant time pressure due to heavy workload, or are pressured to work overtime, or have lots of responsibility in their jobs, oF have interruptions in their jobs, oF perceive that they are treated unfairly at work, are significantly more likely to experience higher levels of work stress “The results indicate that those who have experienced or who are about to experience an ‘undesirable change in their work situation are more likely to peresive greater levels of work stress. However, poor job promotion prospects and job security are not associsted with job stress. usTable 60 “Type of work characteristic. ‘Significant association ‘with high work stress? .Q8.8 Do you agree with these statements about your Time] Time2 1 WC work? with Dws ees Considering all my efforts and achievements, my work Yes Yes_—Yes prospects are adequate receive the respect I deserve from my superiors and. Yes Yes Yes colleagues Lexperience adequate support in difficult situations Yes Yes Yes Considering all my efforts and achievements, receive Yes. «=sYes~=sYes the respect and prestige I deserve at work WC™= work characteristics WS = work sess ‘There is a consistent patter of results indicating tht adequate prestige, status, respect, support ‘and work prospects are all significantly associated with lower levels of work stress, cross all ‘methods of analyses 6RACIAL ABUSE, SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND BULLYING oS Table ot ee “Type of work characteristic ‘Significant association with high work stress Q8.9 Have you been affected physically or Time! Time? T1WC ‘emotionally by the following? with T2 WS Racial abuse at work Yes No No ‘Sexual harassment at work Yes No No Bullying at work Yes Yes = Yes es WC= work characterises WS work stress ‘Although there are significant effects for racial abuse and sexual harassment and their association with higher levels of work stress fora least onetime point, this finding is unreliable given the low ‘numbers of participants in some of the response categories. Furthermore, there is a ow mumber of respondents who describe their ethnic origin as other than white. ‘What is noticeable is that bullying at work seems to be consistently and significantly associated ‘with higher reports of work stress acros alltime poiats JOB SECURITY ‘Table 6 Significant association swith high work stress? Q8.10 Job security Time} Time2 TLWC swith ws ‘Are you worried about losing your job? Yes Yes Yes WO= work characteristics WS work sess ‘At alltime poists, being worried about losing one’s job is significantly associated with bigher reports of occupational stress. uwFAMILY / WORK INTERFACE Table 63 “Type of work characteristic Significant association with high work stress? ‘Q0.1 How work and family life affect each other Time! Time2 TI WC with T2 WS. a Family matters reduce the time you can devote to yourjob Yes Yes No Family activites top you geting the amount of sieep you Yes. ~Yes_-—=Yes need t0 do your job well Family obligations reduce the time you need to relax orbe Yes —-Yes._—=Yes by yourself Your job reduced the amount oftime you can spend with Yes -Yes._—Yes ‘your family WC work characterises WS = work stress = For most of the items detailed above, there is a pattem indicating that family matters reduce the amount of sleep or time that the respondent can relax, and that these factors are reflected in higher ‘Work stress. When looking atthe longitudinal analyses, an interesting effect is uncovered, ‘Job stess is more strongly associated with the impact of the job upon one’s family life and is more {important in determining job stress over time than the way in which one's family life interferes with the time one can devote to work. us‘Table 64 “Type of work characteristic ‘Significant association ‘with high work stress? (8.2 To what extent do your job responsibilities Time! Time? THWC interfere with your family life? with mews. Problems at work make you irritable at home Yes Yes Yes ‘Your job involves a lot of travel away from home Yes Yes Yes, ‘Your job takes so much energy you don't feel upto doing Yes «-Yes_—=Yes things thet need attention at home WO= work characterises WS = work stress It is clear that job responsibilities interfere with family life in a variety of ways across all time points, and that these factors are all significantly associated with higher levels of work stress. usASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN HEALTH STATUS AND PERCEIVED WORK STRESS AT TIME 1 ‘The first set of questions asked the respondents whether they had ever beea told by the doctor that they have, or have bad any of the following health problems. The respondent were asked to answer ‘yes' or no! foreach illness presented. Table 6s ‘Long term health problems by work stress Time i ~___¥esTotal Statistical — Significance Ne Ne=not sigaificant Angina Low WorkStress 33 1.13115 Ns High Work Suess 9 «13.705 High Cholesterol Low Work Stress. 1916.1 3129, Ns High Work Stress 446.2705 Diabetes Low Work Suess 47-15 3115 Ns High Work Suess 142.0703 Stroke Low Work Stress 1243103, Ne High Work Suess 34702 Heart Attack Low Work Suess 321.0 3109 Ns HighWork Suess 6 = 9702 High Blood Pressure Low Work Stress. 429135. 3I71_——ppc.00t High Work Suess 137190721 Nervous Trouble/ Low Work Stress. 586186 3159 10 Quay) High cholesterol level High chotesterol was reported by just over 6% of respondents in both work stress groups. Chi- square 0.02, 1 df, p>0.10 Que) Diabetes “There was a generally low level of diabetes across both work groups, with litle difference between them, Chi-square 0.85, 1 df, p>.10 uaa) ‘Stroke ‘There was litle reporting of stroke across both work groups. Chi-square 0.02, | df, p=>.10 aise) Heart attack (coronary thrombosis, myocardial infarction) “The rate of heart attacks as diagnosed by a doctor was low across both stress groups, with litle ai ference between them. Chi-square 0.18, 1 df, p>.10 quan High blood pressure ‘A greeter proportion of workers in the high stress group indicated that they had been told by @ doctor that they had high blood pressure compared to the low stress workers. This is a significant difference. Chi-square 14.16, 1 af, p<001 naQ1 42) Nervous trouble or depression Around 26% of respondents in the high stress group report that a doctor has told them that they ‘are or were suffering from nervous trouble / depression. This was a significantly greater proportion when compared with the low stress group (19%) Chi-square 18.47, 1 df, p<001 Qian Asthma ‘There was litle difference in the incidence of asthma across work stress groups. Chi-square 1.79, 1 df, p>.10 Qusiy Emphysema ‘The rate of emphysema as diagnosed by a doctor was low across both stress groups, with litle difference between them, Chi-square 0.67, 1 df p>.10 Quai) Bronchitis ‘There was significant difference between the work stress groups with respect to reported incidence of bronchitis. A greater proportion of the high stress group (16%) had been iagnosed, as compared to the low stress group (12%). Chi-square 8.14, 1 df, p<.005 Quay) Breast cancer ‘There was a significatly higher incidence of breast cancer diagnosis reported in the high stress soup. The finding held ater excluding males from the analysis, (Chi-square 7.47, 1 df, p=.006 Qian Other cancer There was litle difference between the groups with respect to repors of diagnosed cancer (otter than breast cancer), Chi-square 0.004, 1 af p.10 ‘The next set of health related questions asked the respondents about recurring problems that they may have had over the last 12 months, The respondents were asked to answer yes! oF ‘not foreach illness presented, 122Table 66 ‘Health problems over the last 12 months by work stress Yes Total Significance N% Bronchitis Low WorkStress 178 5:7 3146 Ns High Work Suess 53.74 713 ‘Arthritis/ Rheumatism - Low WorkSuess 382 12.2 339004 High Work Stress 107 15:1 709 Sciatica, Lumbago/ Low Work Suess 955 301 3172 <0O1 recurring backache High Work Stess 285 394 724 Persistent skin rouble Low Work Stress. 575. 18.3. 3139 NS High Work Suess 143° 209 708 Asthma Low Work Stress 278 $8 3144 Ns High Work Suess 77 108 710 Hay Fever Low Work’Stress S41 173 3129 0.02 High Work Stress 148 21.0705 Recurring stomach trouble Low Work Stress 720 22.8 3153 <001 ‘adigestion High Work Stress 249 648716 Being constipated Low Work Stress 167 5.33123 <001 High Work Suess 66 94 700 Piles Low Work Stress 450 144 3135 <001 High Work Stress 151 213 708 Persistent Foot Trouble Low Work Suess 329 10.5 3129 (0.03 High Work Suess 94 13.3 708 ‘Trouble with Varicose Low WorkStess, 120 38 3117 NS veins High Work Suess 38 54 699 Nervous Trouble or Low Work Stress 291 93 3136 <001 persistent Depression ‘High Work Stress 149 21.1 705 Persistent trouble with Low WorkStress 277 88 3138 <001 Gums / Mouth High Work Suess 115 163706 Any other recuing Health Low Work Sess 467 163 2868 <001 roblem High Work Stress_168 264 636.Qi 6a) Bronchins ‘There was a marginally significant difference between the work groups, showing that those in the high stress group were slightly more likely to have had bronchitis in the last 12 months than those inthe low stress group. Chi-square 3.26, I df, p~0.07 COR} Aathits or sheumatism ‘There was a significant difference between the work groups, showing that those inthe high ‘tess group were more likely to have had arthriisfheumatism in the last 12 months than those {in the low stress group. Chi-square 4.45, 1 df, p=0.05 Q16) ica, lumbago or recurring backache ‘Those in the high stress group were significantly more likely to report sciatica, lambago or ‘recurring backache over the last 12 months compared to those in the low stress group. Chi- square 23.28, | df, p<.001 Q1.64) Persistent skin trouble (eg. eczema) ‘There was litle difference between the groups in incidence of persistent skin trouble over the last 12 months. Chi-square 2.53, 1 df, p>.10 166) Asthma, ‘There was a marginally significant difference between the work grovps, showing that those in the high stress group were slightly more likely to have had asthma inthe last 12 months than those inthe low stress group. Chi-square 2.78, df, p>10 169 Hay fever ‘There was a significant difference between the work stress groups with respect to reported hay fever over the last 12 raonths. A greater proportion of the high stress group (21%) had been iagnosed, as compared tothe low stress group (16%), Chi-square 5.35, 1 df, p-0.05 ns162) Recurring stomach trouble or indigestion |A greater proportion of workers in the high stress group indicated that they had recurring stomach trouble or indigestion compared to the low stress workers. This is 2 significant difference, Chi-square 44.32, | €f, p<.001 Q1.6h) ‘Being constipated all or most ofthe time ‘There is a significantly greater likelihood that those inthe high sress group have had recurring or ehronic bouts of constipation over the last 12 months compared to respondents in the low _suess group. Chi-square 16.64, | df, p<001 asi) Piles ‘There isa significantly higher rate of reporting of piles inthe high stress group over the last 12 mouths compared to respondents in the low stress group. Chi-square 21.29, 1 df, p.10 uta) Sleeping pills |A greater proportion of workers inthe high stress group indicated that they had taken sleeping tablets over the last 14 days compared to the low stress workers. This is a significant difference, although the general level rate is low. Chi-square 16.84, 1 df, p<001 Qi.te) Antidepressants ‘Those in the high stress group were significantly more likely to take antidepressants over the last 14 days compared to those inthe low stress group. Chi-square 25.04, 1 df, p<001 ut Laxatives (bowel opening medicine) ‘Those in the high stress group were significantly more likely to take laxatives over the last 14 days compared to those in the low stress group, although the overall rate of reporting is low. Chi-square 3.98, 1 Af, p=0.05 nrQe) Other medicines prescribed by a doctor Those in the high stress group were significantly more likely to take other medicines ‘Prescribed by a doctor over the last 14 days compared to those in the low stress group, Chi-square 4.01, 1 f, p=0.05 is‘The next set of health questions were about more acute illnesses. They asked the respondents whether they had experienced any of the following symptoms over the last 14 days. The respondent were asked to answer yes' ono! foreach illness presented. Table 68 ‘Symptoms over last 14 days by work stress Yer Total Significance Nt ‘Cough, Catarth or Low Work Stress 1244 388 3207 <001 Phlegm High Work Stress 341466 731 Diarrhoea Low Work Stress. 297 94 3149 <001 High Work Suess 118 165 716 Heartburn, Wind or Low Work Stress 952 30.1 3166 © <00 Indigestion High Work Suess 292 404 723 Shortness of Breath Low Work Stess 428 134 3170001 High Work Stress 133 183726 Dizziness or Giddiness Low Work Stress 341108 3152 <001 High Work Suess 127 178 715 Barache /Discomfortin Low Work Stress 382 12.1 3168001 Ears High Work Stress 118 165 71S ‘Swollen Ankles Low Work Stress 147 4.7 3148 <001 High Work Stress 61 85 715 Nervy, tense ordepressed Low Work Stress. 779 247 3156 <001 High Work Stress 361 50.1721 Acold or u Low Work Stress 826 261 3165 Ns High Work Stress. 198 276 717 A sore throat Low Work Stress $08 255 3168 on High Work Stress 213 29.7717 Difficulty Sleeping Low Work Stress 1089 34:1 3191 <0 High Work Stress 387 S29 732 Pins in the Chest Low Work Stress 204 65 3152 <001 High Work Suess 91 12.7716 Backache or pains inthe Low Work Stress 1042 32.7 3191 <001 back High Work Stress 307 419733 19Table 68 (contd) _ Ye Total Significance N% ‘Nausea or vomiting Low Work Suess 168 $3 3141 <001 High Work Suess 65 9.1717 Feeling tired for no Low Work Stress 1003 316 3177 <001 apparent reason Work Stress 373510731 Rashes, itches or other Low Work Suess. 683 20.7. 315303 skin trouble High Work Suess 174 244714 Blocked or Runny Nose Low Work Stress 1006 21.8 3166 Ns High Work Stress. 246 345° 714 Headache Low Work Siress 1539 483 3188 <001 High Work Suess 436 599 728 Wheeziness Low Work Stress 301 95 3161 004 High Work Suess 94 13.1715 ‘Toothache or trouble with Low Work Sess. 328 104 3156 <001 guns High Work Suess 94 13.1715 Any other complaints in Low Work Stress. 131 43 3019, 3 the last 14 days? High Work Suess 43 63678 SSS Quay A cough, cata, or phlegm ‘There was @ significantly higher incidence of coughs, catarh or phlegm reported in the high sess group. Chi-square 15.29, 1 df, p<.001 1.80) Diarrhoea ‘Those in the high tress group were significantly more likely to report experiencing diarrhoea ‘over the last 14 days compared to the respondents in the low stress group Chiesquare 30.24, 1 df, p<.001 aise) “Heartburn, wind or indigestion ‘Those inthe high stress group were significantly more likely to report experiencing heartburo, wind or indigestion over the last 14 days compared to those in the low stress group. Chi-square 28.80, 1 df, p<.001 130Qi.86) Shortness of breath ‘A significantly greater proportion of workers in the high stress group indicated that they had ‘experienced shortness of breath over the last 14 days compared to the low stress workers. Chi-square 11.79, 1 df, p=.001 ite) Dizziness or giddiness ‘A significently greater proportion of respondents in the high stress group report experiencing dizziness oF giddiness over the last 14 days compared tothe low stress workers, ‘Chi-square 26.42, | df, p<.001 usp Earache or discomfort in the ears ‘Those in the high tress group were significantly more likely to report earache or discomfort in the ears over the last 14 days compared to those in the low stress group. Chi-square 10.28, 1 df, p=001 alse) ‘Swollen ankles ‘Those in the high stress group are significantly more likely to report swollen ankles over the last 14 days than those in the low stress group. Chi-square 17.06, 1 df, p<.001 Q1.sh) [Nervy, tense or depressed ‘Around half ofthe respondents of the high stress group report feeling nervy, tense or depressed over the last 14 days compared with around a quarter of thse in the low stress group. This is 8 highly significant difference. Chi-square 182.22, 1 df, p<.001 Quai) A.cold or fu “There was little difference between stress groups inthe rate at which respondents experienced cold or flu over the last 14 days. Chi-square 0.69, 1 df, p>.10 1as) A sore throst ‘Those in the high stress group were significantly more likely to report sore throat over the last 14 days compared to those inthe low stress group. Chi-square 5.33, 1 df, p02 Qi.si) Difficulty sleeping A significantly greater proportion of respondents in the high stress group report experiencing. difficulty sleeping over the last 14 days compared tothe low stress workers, (Chissquare 89.12, 1 df, p<.001 quay Pains inthe chest ‘Those in the high stress group were significantly more likely to report pains in the chest over the last 14 days compared to those in the low stress group. Chi-square 32.22, 1 df, p<001 Ql.8m) Backache or pains in the back ‘There isa significantly greater likelihood that those in the high stress group have had pains in the back or backache over the last 14 days compared to respondents in the low stress group. Chirsquare 22.50, 1 df, p<001 Qua) ‘Nausea or vomiting Those in the high stress group were significantly more likely to report nausea or vomiting over the last 14 days compared to those in the low stress group. Chinsquare 1421, 1 df, p<002 1.80) Feeling tired for no apparent reason A significantly grester proportion of responden's inthe high stress group report feeling tired for no apparent reason over the lst 14 days compared tothe low stress workers. (Chi-square 98.60, 1 df, p<.001 Beaus) Rashes itches, or otber skin trouble ‘Those in the high stress group were significantly more likely to report rashes, itches or other skin rouble over the lst 14 days compared to those inthe low stress group. Chi-square 4.64, 1 df, pe.03 asa Blocked or runny nose ‘There was litle difference between stress groups inthe rte at which respondents experienced ‘a blocked or runny nose over the last 14 days. Chiesquare 1.91, 1 df p>.10 Qu Headache ‘A headache was a significantly greater problem for respondents inthe high stress group over the last 14 days compared to the low stress workers. Chi-square 31.99, 1 df p<001 alas) Wheeziness ‘Those in the high stress group were significantly more likely to report wheeziness over the last 14 days compared to those in the low stress group. Chi-square 8.37, 1 df, p=.004 ust) Toothache or trouble with gums “Taose in the high stress group were significantly more likely to report toothacke or trouble with gums over the last 14 days compared to those in the low stress group. (Chi-square 23.96, 1 df, p<.001 sy Any other complaints inthe last 14 days? ‘A significantly grester proportion of respondents in the high stress group report experiencing ‘other health complaints not listed over the last 14 days compared to the low stress workers. Chi-square 4.95, | df, p=.03 Overall, respondents in the high stress group report experiencing a greater sumber of symptoms in total over the last 14 days compared with those inthe low stress group (see Table 6), 13‘The next set of results depict rates of amuety, depression and general psychopathology in the ‘sample at Time 1, as measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale ” (HAD) and the General Health Questionnaire *(GHQ). In summary, respondents in the high stress group were significantly more anxious, more depressed, and reported greater levels of general distress than those inthe low stress group, Table 69 Health questionnaire mean scores by work strese Work Stress HAD GQ Tsay Anxiety Depression Symptom Score Low Work Mean a 3a 24 416 Stress N 3222 3170 32343284 Sid. 377 2.96 3.07 35 Deviation High Work Mean 9.22 5.7 432 3.4 Stress N 728 16 78 749 Std, 4.04 341 3.86 332 Deviation Total Mean 695 3.78 255 445 N 3950 3886 3972 4033, Std, 397 Bl 3.34 3.24 Deviation Sig. Q-tailed)_p <001 <001 .10 (QUAD) High cholesterol level High cholesterol was endorsed by about 7% of respondents in both work stress groups. There ‘was no significant difference in reporting rates between these groups. Chi-square=0.61, 1df, p>.10 QL) Diabetes ‘The high stress group had significantly more diabetics. Chi-square=6.86, 1df, p=009 QL.4d) Stroke ‘The reporting of stroke at Time 2 was very low. There was no significant difference between the groups. Chi-square I.60, 1af, p>.10 (Ql.de) Heart atack (coronary thrombosis, myocardial infertion) ‘There was no significant difference between the groups. Chi-square=0.29, 1df, p>.10 Q1.4f) High blood pressure ‘There was a significant difference between the groups, indicating that a greater proportion of the respondents in the high stress group have been diagnosed with high blood pressure. Chi-square=7.60, Le, =006 (Qi.4g) Nervous trouble or depression Responses indicate that a significantly greater proportion of the high stress group have been told by a doctor that they have or have had nervous trouble or depression thea the low stress sroup. Chi-square=15.01, taf, p< 001 136QU) Asthma: ‘There was no difference between the group with regard to reported asthma. Chi-square=2.73, Lf, p=.10 Ql.4i) Emphysema Overall, reported emphysema was very low, and there was no significant difference between the two work stress groups. Chi-square=0.73, 1df, p>10 Qi) Bronchitis For this timepoint, there was no difference between the groups in reports of bronchitis. (Chi-square=I.06, Lat, p>.10 Qk) Breast cancer Breast cancer at Time 2 was extremely low, but there was a significant difference between the stress groups. All those that did report breast cancer at this time point were female. Chi- square=8.08, 1d, p=.004 QU) Other cancer For other types of cancer, there was no difference between the stress groups at this time point, (Chi-square0.170, 1af, p>.10 ‘The next set of health related questions asked the respondents sbout recurring problems that they may have had over the last 12 months. The respondent were asked to answer ‘yes! or ‘20! for each illness presented. 137Table 71 ‘Health problems over the last 12 months by work stress Yes Total Significance N% Bronchitis Low Work Stress 68 © 45 1510, 04 ‘High Work Stress 26 © 84 308 Arthritis ‘Rheumatism Low Work Stess 179 119 1510 000 High Work Suess 64 © 205 312 Sciatica, Lumbago / Recurring backache Low Work Stress 463 30.6 S11 006 High Work Suess 120 38.7310 Persistent skin trouble Low Work Suess 279 18.4 1513 033 High Work Suess 7323.7 308 Astima Low Work Stress 130 86 1512 Ns High Work Suess 35114306 Hay Fever Low Work Suess 248 1641510 Ns High Work Stress 62 202307 Recurring stomach trouble indigestion Low Work Stress. 331 21.7 1526 00 High Work Stress 107 342313 Being constipated Low Work Stress 86 = $.7 1505 Ne High Work Suess 26 © 84 308 Piles Low Wotk Stress 244 162 1508 036 High Work Suess 66 21.1313 Persistent Foot Trouble Low Work Stress 170 1131511 Ns High Work Stress 40 130308 ‘Trouble with Varicose Veins Low Work Suess 60 491502, Ns High Work Suess 10 33 305 ‘Nervous Trouble or Persistent Depression Low Work Stress 152 100 1515.00 High Work Suess 62 203 306 Persistent trouble with Gums/Mouth Low Work Stress 1218.0 1807 033 High Work Stress 36 11.8 305 ‘Any other recurring Health problem Low Work Stress 1771311353 04 High Work Suess 4 179257 138Q1.6a) Bronchitis ‘There was a significant difference between the groups, with the high stress group reporting more bronchitis. Chi-square=8.09, 1, p=004 QL.6b) Arthritis or rheumatism ‘The high stress group reported more arthritis or rheumatism than the low stress group. Chi- square=16.77, laf, p<.001 QI.6e) Sctatica, lumbego or recurring backache “There was a greater level of reporting of sciatica, lambago or recurring backache io the high stress group compared to respondents in the low stress group at time 2, ané this difference was significant, Chi-square=7.69, 1df, p= 006 (Q1.68) Persistent skin trouble (e.g. eczema) 'A greater proportion of respondents in the high stress group reported having persistent skin trouble over the last 12 months, and this difference from the low stress group was significant (Chi-square=4.54, 1df, p=.033 Q1.62) Asthma “There was no significant difference in the level of reporting of asthma over the last 12 months between the work stress groups. Chi-square=2.49, 1df,p>.10 Q1.60) Hay fever “There was no significant difference in the level of reporting of bay fever over the last 12 ‘months between the work stress groups. Chi-square=2.57, 1df, p>.10 bsQi 6g) Recurnng stomach trouble or meigestion Around 34% of respondents in the high stress group report experiencing recurring stomach trouble or indigestion over the last 12 months. This was a significantly greater proportion than the low stress group (22%) Chi-square=22.3, ldf, p<001 QU.St) Being constipated all or most ofthe time There ws no significant difference between the groups. Chi-square=3.29, LaF, p=.070 QL6i) Piles At this time point, there was a significantly higher reporting of piles in the high stress group ‘over the lat 12 months compared to respondents in the low stress group. Chinsquaren4.42, 1df, p=.036 Q1.6j) Persistent foot trouble (e.g. unions, ingrowing toenails) ‘There was litle difference between the groups in persistent foot trouble over the last 12 ‘months. Chi-square=0.76, 1df,p>.10 Q1.6k) Trouble with varicase veins ‘There was litle difference between the groups, with both groups reporting trouble with ‘varicose veins over the last 12 months at about 4%, Chi-square=0.35, ldf, >.10 QS) Nervous trouble or persistent depression ‘There was a significantly greater likelihood that those in the high stress group have bad recurring nervous trouble or depression over the last 12 months compared to respondents inthe low stress group. Chi-square=25.68, 1df, p< 001 0Q1.6m) Persistent trouble with your gums or mouth ‘There was a significant difference between the work groups, showing that those in the bigh stress group were more likely o have had persistent trouble with their gums or their mouths in {general over the lest 12 months than those inthe low stress group. Chi-square=4.57, 1df, p=.033 QL.) Any other recurring health problem ‘There was a significantly higher rate of reporting of other recurring health problems inthe igh sess group over the last 12 months compared to respondents in the low stress group. Chi- square=4.20, 1a, p=.040 “The next set of questions asked respondents about their intake of medicines prescribed by their doctor over the last 14 days, The respondent were asked to answer ‘yes! or 'n0' for each category of medication presented. The respondents were asked to exclude any contraceptive pills that they were taking. ‘Table 2. Prescribed medication over past 14 days by work stress Yer Total Significance N Painkillers Low Work Stress 308 202 1214 005 High Work Stress 860-275) 27 ‘Medicines forlndigestion Low Work Stress. 102 68 1499 High Work Stress 28 90 312 Ns Blood Pressure tables Low Work Stress 82 © 551503, NS. High Work Stress 19 6.1313 Sleeping pills Low Work Suess 24 16 1463009 High Work Stress 12,39 296 Antidepressants Low WorkStess 57 3.8 1435 ML High Work Stress 200 64 293 Laxatives Low WorkStess 31 211450 N. High Work Suess 10 33 296 Any other medicines Low Work Stress 272 196 1387 NS. 215 prescribed by a doctor igh Work Suess_ 57 ryQU 7a) Pannallers ‘A significantly greater proportion of workers in the high stress group (28%) indicated that they hed taken prescribed painkillers over the last 14 days compared to the low stress workers (20%). Chi-square=8.07, La, p=.00S QI.7b) Medicines for indigestion ‘There was no significant difference in the rate at which respondents took medicines for indigestion across work stress groups. Chi-square=.83, lf, p>.10 Qi.7e) Blood pressure tablets ‘There was litle difference in the rate at which respondents took blood pressure tablets across ‘work stress groups. Chi-square=0.19, 1df, p>.10 QI.7d) Sleeping pis ‘There was a significant difference between the groups, with the high stress group being twice likely to take sleepin pills over the last 14 days, Chi-square-6.76, 1d, p=.009 Qi.7¢) Antidepressants ‘Those in the high stress group were significantly more likely to take antidepressants over the last 14 days compared to those in the low stress group. Chi-square4.18, 1df, p=041 Q1.7f) Laxatives (bowel opening medicine) ‘There was litle difference in the rate at which respondeats took laxatives across work stress ‘groups. Chi-square=1.56, 148, p>.10 QU.78) Other medicines prescribed by a doctor ‘There was little difference between the groups, with both groups taking prescribed medication ‘other than those already described at arate of between 19 - 21%, Chi-square-0.18, 14, p>.10 182‘The next set of health questions were about more acute illnesses. They asked the respondents whether they had experienced any of the following symptoms over tbe last 14 days. The respondents were asked to answer 'yes! or no! foreach illness presented. 6Table 73 Symptoms over last 14 days by work stress ‘Yes “Total Significance N% eee Cough, Catarh or Phlegm Low Work Suess $52 359 1539 Ne High Work Suess 127 40.1317 Diarthoea Low Work Stress 175 11S 152101 High Work Suess 52168 310, Heartbum, Wind or Indigestion Low Work Stress 449 293 1534 000 High Work Suess 131 413317 ‘Shortness of Breath Low Work Stress 168 11.0 1532000 High Work Stress 66 © 212 312, Dizziness or Giddiness Low Work Stress 174 14 1527000 High Work Stress. 67 21.6 310, Earache /Discomfort in Ears Low Work Stress. 158 104 1523000 High Work Sess $517.9 308 ‘Swollen Ankles Low Work Suess 76 5.0 1520 000 High Work Suess 3411.1 306 Nervy, tense or depressed Low Work Stress 383 25.1 1528000 High Work Stress 163 522312 Acold or fu Low Work Stress 345 226 1532 Ns High Work Suess 74 23.9 309, A-sore throat Low Work Suess 385 252 1529 Ns High Work Sess 91 294 309, Difficulty Sleeping Low Work Stress S15 335 1536 000 High Work Stress 164 519 316 Pains in the Chest Low Work Stress 76 5.0 1514 000 High Work Suess. 34110 310, Backache or pains in the back Low Work Suess. 487 31.8 1531 002 High Work Stress 128 40.8 314 ‘Nausea or Vomiting Low Work Sess 90 59 1520 Ns. High Work Suess 26 85 306, 6Table 73 (coat) Yes “Total Significance Nees Feeling tired for no apparent Low Work Stress 436 283 1538-000 reason High Work Stress. 147 47331 Rashes, itches or other skin Low Work Stress 316 20.7 1528 029 ‘rouble High Work Suess. 81263 308 Blocked or Runny Nose Low Work Stress 486 31.7 1533 Ns High Work Stress 96 308 312 Headache Low Work Stress 760 496 1532.00 High Work Sess 192 61.1 314 Wheeziness Low Work Stress 99 65 1520000 High Work Suess 38123. 310 ‘Toothache or trouble with «Low Work Stress 160 105 1522004 gums High Work Stress 50162 308 ‘Any other complaints inthe Low Work Stress. 73 5.0 1461 Ns last 14 days? High Work Suess 227.7285 Q1.88) A cough, catarh, or phlegm 'At this time point, there was no significant difference between the groups. Chi-square=1.99, 1d, p> 1.86) Diarrhoea ‘Around 17% of respondents in the high stress group report diarthocs over the last 14 days ‘This was a significantly greatec proportion when compared with the low stress group (12%). Chi-square=6.58, laf, p= 01 Q18c) Heartburn, wind or indigestion A significantly greater proportion of workers in the high stress group (41%) indicated that they had experienced heartburn, wind or indigestion over the last 14 days compared to the low stress workers (299%). Chi-square=17.74, 1éf, p<.001 MsQI 84) Shortess of breath At this time point, there was a significantly higher reporting of shortness of breath over the lest 14 days by the high stress group. Chi-square=24,28, 1d, p<001 Ql.8e) Dizziness or giddiness ‘There was a significantly greater likelihood that those in the high stress group experienced bouts of dizziness or giddiness over the last 14 days compared to respondents in the low stress ‘group. Chi-square=23.60, 146, p<001 QU.80) Earache or discomfort inthe ears ‘There was a significant difference between the work groups, showing that those in the high ‘tess group were more likely to have earache or discomfort in their ears over the 14 days than those in the low stress group. Chi-square=13.96, lf, p<.001 Qi.8g) Swollen ankles ‘There was a significantly higher reporting of swollen ankles over the last 14 days by the high ‘tess group compared to those respondents inthe low stress group. Chissquare16 80, 146, p<001 QUh) Nervy, tease or depressed ‘Around $29 of the respondents of the high stress group report feeling nervy, tense or epressed over the last 14 days compared with around 25% of tose i the low stress group. ‘This was a highly significant difference. Chi-square=91.71, 1df, p<001 Q18i) A cold or fu At this time point, there was litle difference between the groups, with around 22 - 23% of the respondents in each group experiencing cold or flu over the last 14 days, Chi-square=0.27, 1df, p>.10 146QL.) A sore throat “There was no significant difference between the groups for reporting of sore throats. Chissquare=2.44, taf, p> QU.84) Difficulty seeping {A significantly greater proportion of workers inthe high tress group (52%) indicated that they had difficulty sleeping over the last 14 days compared to the low stress workers (33%). Chi square=38.09, 1, p.10 QL81) Headache ‘Around 61% of the respondents in the high stress group reported having had a headache over the last 14 days compared with around 50% of those in the low stess group. This was highly significant difference. Chi-square=13,89, 1df, p<.001 Q1.85) Wheeziness ‘There was a significant difference between the groups, with wheeziness being greater in the high stress group. Chi-square=12.27, 1df, p01 QI.81) Toothache or trouble with gums ‘At Time 2, those inthe high stress group were significantly more likely to report toothache or ‘rouble with gums over the last 14 days compared to those inthe low stress group. Chi-square=8.25, 1df, p<004 QU.8u) Any other complaints inthe last 14 days? ‘There was no significant difference between stress groups in the rate at which respondeats ‘experienced other health complaints not listed above over the last 14 days. (Chivsquare=3.44, 1af, p= 064 M43(Overall at Time 2, respondents in the high stress group report experiencing a greater umber of symptoms ia total over the last 14 days compared with those in the low stress group (see Table 7), ‘The next set of results depict anxiety, depression and general psychopathology inthe sample at ‘Time 2, as measured by the HAD and the GHQ. In summary, at Time 2 respondents in the high stress group were significantly more anxious, ‘more depressed, and reported greater levels of general distress than those in the low stress group. ‘Table 74 ‘Health questionnaire mean scores by work srest ‘Work Stress HAD HAD GHQ_14Day Ansiety Depression Symptom Score Low Work Mean 62 515 2.06 391 Stress N 1569 1372 15661396 Std. 3.09 234 3.03 294 Deviation High Work = Mean 941 7120 413 549 Stress N 318 325 316 268 Std, 3.94 261 3.62 3.06 Deviation Sig. @-tailed) <001 <001 <001 <0 See 9CROSS SECTIONAL AND CROSS-LAGGED ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN PERCEIVED STRESS AND HEALTH ‘This sotion examines the associations between levels of work stress and reported symptoms at both time points, and also examines how these relationships may change over time, ‘As well as looking at cross-sectional data for the working sample, in order to understand the relationship between work stress and health, itis worthwhile looking atthe data using a Jongitadinal framework to see how the relationship between work stress and symptoms may change over time. One way of looking at this data is to measure the degree of association between work stress reported at Time 1, and subsequent symptoms reported at Time 2. This method is known as cros-lagged analysis, Ifthe relationship between the health symptom end the level of work stress is transient, we would expect any significant associations to drop out ‘when using this method of analysis. However, if the association between work stress and ‘symptoms is robust, we would expect to find that the association continues to be significant. ‘The tables below present the analyses forthe associations between work stress and symptoms {for both time points, and for the cross-lagged analysis of Time 2 health by Time 1 level of work stress. ‘Table 75 ‘Complaint ‘Significant association ‘with high work stress? Time! Time? 12H with Th ws. re Tse 12 month health Yes Yes Yes Life stress Yes Yes Yes Hohe WS= work stress ‘The finding that those respondents with high levels of work stress are also more likely to report Poor general health over the lest 12 months, and higher levels of general life stress outside ‘work is robust over both time points. Moreover, the finding holds in the crosslagged analyses Which is a more stringent test of the association overtime. 150Table %6 ee ee ee ‘Significant association with high work stress? Ever been told by a doctor that you have: Time Time? TRH 1 with LW Angina No No No High cholesterol No No No Diabetes No Yes. No Stroke No Ne No Har attack No No No High biood pressure Yes Yes No ‘Nervous trouble / depression Yes Yes Yes ‘Asthma No No Yes Emphysema No No No Bronchitis Yes No Yes Breast cancer (all workers) Yes No No Breast cancer (women) Yes Yes No Other cancer No No No a {health WS= work stress “The most robust finding is that those who have relatively high levels of work stiess are also ‘more likely to have been told by their doctor at some point that they have been suffering with nervous trouble or depression. Ths finding held across al three types of analyses. ‘The significant associations between work stress and high blood pressure, diabetes, bronchitis and breast cancer at either time point are not reproduced in the longitudinal analyses, indicating that these findings are not robust and may be subject to other outside influences. 1sTable 77 Significant association wath hugh work stress? Suffered from in the last 12 months: Time! Time 12H 2 with TI WS Bronchitis No Yes No Arthritis rheumatism Yes Yes No Sciatica, mbago, recurring backache Yes Yes Yes Persistent skin trouble No Yes No Asthma No No No Hay fever Yes No No Recurring stomach trouble / indigestion Yes Yes Yes Being constipated Yes No Yes Pies Yes Yes Yes Persistent foot trouble Yes No No ‘Trouble with varicose veins No No No ‘Nervous trouble / persistent depression Yes Yes Yes Persistent trouble with gums / mouth Yes Yes Yes (Other recurring health problems Yes Yes Yes Whe Wis work ses At Time 1, the number of responses to most of the health symptom categories inthe last 12 ‘months were directly associated with the level of work stress of the respondents. Indeed, a similar patter of results was obtained at Time 2 ‘However, the longitudinal analyses revealed that the more robust associations between chronic ‘health symptoms over the last 12 months and work stress focused upon complaints involving ‘the gastro-intestinal system (recuring stomach trouble / indigestion, piles, persistent trouble ‘with gums / mouth) those involving pain in the spinal musculo-skeletal system (sciatica, tumbago, recurring backache), and various other recurring health probless. 182‘Significant association ‘with high work stress? ‘Taken in the last 14 days prescribed bya doctor: Time! ‘Time? 2H with IWS Painkillers Yes Yes No Medicines for indigestion Yes © No -No Blood pressure tablets No No No Sleeping pills Yes Yes_—(No ‘Antidepressants Yes -Yes_—Yes Laxatives Yes No No (Other medicines prescribed by a doctor Yes No No wealth WS= work stress ‘Time 1 analyses revealed an almost global association between relatively high levels of work ‘stress and the ingestion of various classes of prescribed medication over the last 14 days. At time 2, the associations were limited to a higher frequency of taking painkillers, sleping pills ‘and antidepressants if respondents described themselves as igh in work stress. ‘The more robust longitudinal analyses revealed that significantly greater proportion of those high in work stress at Time 1 were taking prescribed antidepressants at Time 2. 133Table 78 ‘Significant association with high work stress? Any of the following in the last 14 days: Time! Time2T2 with TLWS. se Cough, catart, or phlegm Yes No No Diarrhoea Yes = Yoo Yes Heartburn, wind, indigestion Yes Yes Yes Shortness of breath Yes Yes Yes Dizziness or giddiness Yes Yes Yes Earache or discomfort Yes Yes Yes Swollen ankles Yes Yes Yes Nervy, tense or depressed Yes Yes Yes Cold or fu No No No Sore throat Yes No No Difficulty sleeping Yes Yee Yes Pains in the chest, Yes Yes Yes ‘Backache or pains inthe back Yes Yes Yes ‘Nausea / vomiting Ye No Yes Feeling tired for no apparent reason Yes Yes Yes Rashes, itches / other skin trouble Yes Yes. Yes Blocked or runny nose No No Yes Headache Yes Yes Yes Wheeziness Yes Yes No ‘Toothache or trouble with gums Yes Yes Yes Any other complaint in lat 14 days Yes No No Helealih WS> work sess At both Time 1 and Time 2, an almost global pattem of associations between high levels of ‘work stress and increased level of symptom reports forthe last 14 days is found. There is little difference between these two time points. The cross-lagged associations show that the associations between high levels of work stress and acute symptom reports can be organised around several themes. The first is a theme of Sastro-ntestinal complaints (diarrhoea, heartbum, wind, and indigestion, nausea / vomiting, ‘oothache or trouble with gums). The second is one of fatigue, teasion and anxiety (nervy, tense or depressed, headache, difficulty sleeping, feeling tired for no apparent reason, shortness ‘of breath, dizziness or giddiness) A third theme could be considered tobe a general category ‘of pain (backache or pains inthe back, pains in the chest, and earache or discomfort). Lastly, there is @ group of symptoms that do not seem to fall into a natural group, but are nevertheless 136associated with high levels of work stress across time; rashes, itches / other skin trouble, a blocked or runny nose, and swollen ankles. ‘Table 80 Significant association ‘with high work stress? ‘Health Seale Time! Time? 2H with TAS. HAD anxiety Yes Yes Yes HAD depression Yes Yes. Yes GHQ Yes Yes Yes 14 day symptom score Yes Yes «Yes. beak WS= work stress ‘There are strong associations between high work stress and relatively high reports of anxiety and depressive symptoms as measured by the HADS, general psychopathology as measured by the GHQ, andthe total number of acute physical symptoms over the last 14 days, at both time points. These findings remain robust in the longitudinal analyses. 135ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN WORK STRESS AND HEALTH STATUS FOR THOSE THAT DO NOT HAVE HIGH LEVELS OF GENERAL LIFE STRESS ‘These analyses enable us to ascertain what Level of association is found when those with high ‘eneral life stress are excluded from the investigation of the link between work stress and ‘alt. It s boped tht this method enables us to establish a better idea ofthe impact of work ‘tres alone (apart from life stress) upon health ‘This section repors the associations between work stress and chronic symptoms (have you ver been told by a doctor that you have had a particular illness and symptom reports over last 12 months), acute symptoms (symptoms over the last 14 days), prescribed medication, and scores on the GHQ and HADS scales (measuring general psychopathology and anxiety and depression). ‘At each separate time point, only those respondents that were ina paid job and answered the ‘estos for that die point alone were included in the analyses. For the change analyse, Tespondents were categorised onthe basis oftheir Time 1 work stress scores, and only those ‘who were employed a both time points were included in the analyses. 136ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN HEALTH STATUS AND PERCEIVED WORK STRESS AT TIME 1, EXCLUDING THOSE WITH HIGH LIFE STRESS (One of the primary sims of this research was to investigate the degree to which work stress alone is associated with health status. One way of looking at this issue was to look at the associations between those with low and high work stress and their health status, after eliminating those respondents with high life stress. In this way, we are able to see how those with high work stress (and thos Jow general life stress) difer in their health status from those ‘workers with both low work and general life stress. ‘Summary of findings Is there a significant difference in health status betweea those with low and high work stress? ‘Comparing original Time 1 analyses with analyses excluding those with high general life stress ‘there is sil difference inthe level of reporting of general health over the last 12 months once ‘we have excluded those respondents with high levels of general life stress Table st ‘Complaint Timed Time 1 excluding high Life stress 12 month health Yes Yes Life stress Yes 5 as?‘Tables “Ever been told by a doctor that you have: Timer Time t excluding high life stress fe stress ‘Angina No No High cholesterol No No Diabetes, No No Stroke No No Heart attack No No High blood pressure Yes Yes Nervous trouble / depression Yes Yes Asthma No No Emphysema No No Bronchitis Yes Yes Breast cancer (all workers) Yes Yes Breast cancer (women) Yes Yes Other cancer No No oO Looking at the results above, the exclusion of individuals who work but who have high life stress seems to make litle difference to the patter of associations between high and low stress ‘and disorders with which the respondent has been diagnosed by a doctor. Table 83 ‘Suffered from in the last 12 months: Timet Time ‘excluding high life stress ee Bronchitis No Yes Arthritis / rheumatism Yes No ‘Sciatica, lumbago, recurring backache Yes Yes Persistent skin trouble No No Asthma No No Hay fever Yes Yes ‘Recurring stomach trouble indigestion Yes Yes Being constipated Yes Yes Piles Yes Yes Persistent foot trouble Yes No Trouble with varicose veins No No Nervous trouble / persistent depression Yes Yes Persistent trouble with gums/ mouth Yes Yes ‘Other recuring health problems Yes Yes i ee 138‘When considering the reporting of various classes of symptoms over the last 12 months iis ‘clear thatthe exclusion of respondents with high life stress makes relatively litle difference to the pattems of associations, ‘Table 84 “Faken in the last 14 days prescribed by Timed Timed doctor: ‘excluding high life stress Painkillers Yes Yes “Medicines for indigestion Yes Yes Blood pressure tablets No No Sleoping pills Yes Yes ‘Antidepressants Yes Yes Laxatives Yes No (Other medicines prescribed by a doctor Yes No “The exclusion of high general life stress respondents makes litle difference to the pattern of associations identified between prescribed medication ingestion over the last 14 days and level of work stress. 159Table 85 ‘Any of the following in the last 14 days: i Tia Tinet Time excluding high life stress OO Cough, catart, or phlegm Yes Yes Diarrhoea Yes Yes ‘Heartbura, wind, indigestion Yes Yes Shortness of breath Yes Yes Dizziness or giddiness Yes Yes Earache or discomfort Yes Yes Swollen ankles Yes Yes ‘Nervy, tense or depressed Yes Yes Cold or fu No No Sore throat Yes No Difficulty sleeping Yes Yes Pains in the chest Yes Yes Backache or pains inthe back Yes: Yes ‘Nausea / vomiting Yes Yes Feeling tired for no apparent reason Yes Yes Rashes, itches / other skin trouble Yes No Blocked or runny nose No No Headache Yes Yes ‘Wheeziness Yes Yes Toothache or trouble with gums Yes Yes ‘Any other complaint in last 14 days Yes Yes nS ‘Considering the reporting of various classes of symptoms over the last 14 days, i is clear that ‘the exclusion of respondents with high life stress makes relatively litle difference to the pattems of associations 160‘Table 86 Health Scale Timer Time? excluding high life stress HAD anxiety Yes Yes HAD depression Yes Yes GHQ Yes Yes 14 day symptom seore Yes Yes “The exclusion of high general life stress respondents makes litle difference tothe pattern of associations identified between the scores on the various bealth indexes and level of work stress. 161ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN HEALTH STATUS AND PERCEIVED WORK STRESS AT TIME 2, EXCLUDING THOSE WITH HIGH LIFE STRESS ‘One of the primary aims of this research was to investigate the degree to which work stress alone is associated with health status. As at Time 1, one way of looking at this issue isto look ‘at the associations between those with low and high work stress and their health stats, after ‘eliminating those respondents with high life stress. This way, we are able to see how those with high work stress (and thus low general life stress) differ in their health status from those Workers with both low work and general life stress. ‘Summary of findings | there a significant difference in health status between those with low and high work stress? ‘Comparing original Time 2 analyses with analyses excluding those with high general life stress there is no difference in level of reporting of general health over the last 12 months once we hhave excluded those respondents with high levels of general life stress, Table 87 Gong laint ei Tomplaint Time? Time? excluding high life stress ite stress 12 month health Yes Yes Life stress Yes : aTable 88 Ever been told by a doctor that you have: Time? Time? excluding bigh life stress Angina No No High cholesterol No No Diabetes Yes Yes Stroke No No ‘Hear attack No No ‘igh blood pressure Yes Yes ‘Nervous trouble / depression Yes Yes ‘Asthma No Yes Emphysema No No Bronchitis No No ‘Breast cancer (women) Yes Yes Other cancer No No Looking atthe results above, the exclusion of individuals who work but who have high life stress seems to make little difference tothe patter of associations between high and low stress ‘and disorders with which the respondent has been diagnosed by a doctor. 163Table 89 ‘Suffered from mi the last 12 months: Time? Timed excluding high life stress SO Bronchitis Yes Yes ‘Arthritis / rheumatism Yes Yes Sciatica, mbago, recurring backache Yes Yes Persistent skin trouble Yes: Yes Asthma No Yes Hay fever No No ‘Recurring stomach trouble indigestion Yes Yes. Being constipated No No Pites Yes No Persistent foot trouble No No ‘Trouble with varicose veins No No Nervous trouble / persistent depression Yes Yes Persistent trouble with gums / mouth Yes Yes Other recurring health problem Yes No — ‘When considering the reporting of various classes of symptoms over the last 12 months, it is lear that the exclusion of respondents with high life stress makes relatively ltl difference to the patteras of associstions. There are exceptions, for example the association between the reporting of piles and work stess is no longer significant once those workers with high life stress are excluded from the analysis Tae “Token nthe last dye presabed by» Tine Haw — doctor excding igh ese eset Painkiles Ye Ye Medicines fr indigestion No No Bod restr bss Ne x Sleeping pls ve No Antidepressants Ye No Laxatives Ne No Other medicines preset bya doctor Ne No ‘The exclusion of high general life stress respondents makes some difference tothe patter of ‘ssociations identified between prescribed medication ingestion over the last 14 days and level of work stress. Use of sleeping pills and anti-depressants no longer show significant ‘differences between the groups when thote with life stress are excluded.Table 91 ‘Any of the following in the last 14 days: Time? Time? excluding bigh Tite stress Cough, catart, or phlegm No No Diarthoea Yes Yes Heartburn, wind, indigestion Yes Yes Shortness of breath Yes ‘Yes Dizziness or giddiness Yes Yes Earache or discomfort Yes Yes Swollen ankles Yes Yes ‘Nervy, tense or depressed Yes Yes Cold or fu No No Sore throat No No Difficulty sleeping Yes Yes Pains in the chest No Yes Backache or pains inthe back Yes Yes ‘Nausea / voriting No No Feeling tied for no apparent reason Yes Yes Rashes, itches / other skin trouble Yes No Blocked or runny nose No No Headache Yes Yes ‘Wheeziness Yes ‘Yes Toothache or trouble with gums Yes No ‘Any other complaint in last 14 days No Yes Considering the reporting of various classes of symptoms over the lat 14 days, i s clear thatthe ‘exclusion of respondents with high life stress makes relatively litle differeace to the patteras of associations, Table 92 Health Seale Time? Time? ‘excluding high life stress HAD anxiety Yes Yes HAD depression Yes Yes GHQ Yes Yes 14 day symptom score Yes Yes ‘As at Time 1, the exclusion of high general life stress respondents makes lite difference to the pattem of associations identified between the scores on the various health indexes and level of ‘work stress 6sDESCRIPTIVE COMMENTARY OF ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN SELECTED HEALTH-RELATED BEHAVIOURS AND PERCEIVED WORK STRESS AT TIME 1 ‘The first set of questions asked the respondents about their participation in sports or general activities. The respondents were asked to indicate the frequency in which they engaged in QBatay How often do you take partis sports or activities that are mildly energetic (eg. walking, woodwork, weeding, hocing, bicycle repair, playing darts, ‘general housework)? The results at Time 1 show that those with low levels of work stress are significantly more likely to engage in mildly energetic forms of activity than those with high levels of work stress. Chi-square 23.72, 3 df, p<001, B.1b) How often do you take part is sports or activities that are moderately ‘energetic (e.g. scrubbing, polishing the car, chopping, dancing, golf, cycling, .10 166wt sel Lys toh oT OL GL aL TIL SSaMIS OMA HLH N ELic 8S OWL «= «TOT EIS. RL OSS HOL OLE SSA HOM MOT snou0B ott, out VRC soz EES LOR ASK ssamS HOAN HLH o> ale Dh FOZ 6G LE LOTT: GL_« 9 SHAS HOA MOT —_sHDBUDU AforEsapOW Ines w Ss EES SBE SSA HON UBIET loo> —o6le SE wl €9 102 LZ 8B OZ] BUGIS HOA HOT onaBiou APH, ~~ Naess N % N % N % ON tpuoua samp aoa pom 240m 20 499s aouvsyiulis 101, 4989 Aypivy /4989N 0) 3900 ogy _ FBI 1O99UQ__ sO ¢ {ay ye sans 0M fq 90018 e628,3.Ga) How many hours of sleep do you have on an average week night? ‘There isan overall trend indicating that those with higher levels of work stress are likely to sleep for fewer hours on an average week night than those with lower levels of work stress Chi-square 61.34, 4 af, p<.001et vee es soe eee eee ELON SAMS HOME o> este se civ onc) yst och) ck ee SOR TL om % ON % N % ON % ON % NO” — aoweyuiig yey ——_sinong nog mage imouto : 1 atu. ye ss9uns oom &a pfu yom 40d does Jo 10H, rom‘The next section of the questionnaire asked the respondents about their eating and drinking habits, Reported in this section are the responses to questions about breakfast habits and patterns of alcoho! consumption, 3.58) How often do you eat breakfast? The clearest trends ia habitually skip breakfast, and that a greater proportion of the low work stress group eat breakiast each and every day. Chi-square 11.58, 4 df, p<.0S table indicate that those with high work stress are more likely to 3.sb) How often do you eat breakfast cereal? In similar fashion tothe pattems for breakfast in general, the clearest trends inthis table indicate ‘that those with high work stress are more likely to habitually skip breakfast cereal, and that a ‘seater proportion of the low work stress group eat breakfast cereal each and every day. Chi- square 19.70, 4 df, p<001 170Gre TIL OSL SEC OL WSL SIL EOL COL 9ST COL SsanS HOMME loo> ze OST««GIB: CT: CWL:«CELI:C SOS WSL LES TOL czy SENS HOM MOT LoL 9b) EEE S61 OL OS! TIL 08 09 TI 96—SSRNS HOA HBIH SO> ELZE GOH EET TRI Los VEL Ob «BLT LH IE SSMS HOM MOT epg Nese jee Nene NieeeceN ‘qeaizo weyye019 wa nak op UayO MOH aasepyraig 19 NOK op UO NOH ae syp9m wana apo sop step 40 wey _sounoytuiis 110, kona OW _900 sr 2200 _ 1 aun, ye $50.35 4208 kg $6198,is) (On average how often do you drink during the week? ‘Those in the high work stress group drink alcohol significantly more frequently on weekdays (QMfonday to Thursday) than those in the low work sress group. Chi-square 22.34, 3 df. p<001 sy (On average how often do you drink during atthe weekends? ‘Those in the high work stress group drink alcohol significantly more frequently on weekends (Friday to Sunday) than those in the low work stress group. Chi-square 8.2 2 df, p<0S meu espuayson 4} —_ayuae Bump yup N06 op tayo Noy 38E:0N0 UC zsh OT GIL Ssans HON me ce LL 09 so> wie EBL 09D OR SLI GS_—_—SEANS THOM MOT ~ N % NT % NOON = — _aoueaywiis OL siep CV siep 1 2B0ON _ _ 1 om yess yu00 £4 se BuNHOEP PUOHPON 1621081 ee cle ast OTL GME: BIT LGN SOG HON AHL oo> see 8 Br SIL SLE OSE «OLE HE SIT SONS HOM NOT] opHoyO Wor aEIONE Neos N %_N % WN % NW ~~ — dis tog, step " séepe ssepzt JON _ 1 amy, ve ssans 204 q sige Surya CEPyAaA 96208Table 98 Total weekly alcohol units intake by work stress at Time 1 Mean oN Std, Deviation Weekly alcohol units Low Work Stress 10.82 2201 1059. intake High Work Stress 11.64 498 11.05, Mann-Whitney U Test, 10 Although those in the high work stress group drink more frequently on both weekdays and weekends, there is no significant difference between the work stress groups in the selfreported ‘amount of alcohol consumed per week overall, 178@3.10) Do you smoke cigaretes now? + ‘Those with high work stress are significantly more likely to smoke cigarettes than those with low work stress. Chi-square 9.17, 1 df, p.005 Table 99 ‘Current cigarette smoking by work stress at Time 1 Time No otal Significance Do you smoke Low Work Stress 886 27.3 2365 72.7 3251 <005 cigarettes now? High Work Suess 244 328 500 67.2 744 ‘The tables below present the summary for the analyses for the associations between work ‘characteristics and health related behaviours for both time points, and for the change analyses of ‘Time 2 health related behaviours by Time 1 work stress. Table 100 “Type of health related bebaviour ‘Significant association with high work stress? TimeI Time2 12 RBs IWS Mildly energetic activity Yes Yes Yes “Moderately energetic activity Yes No No Vigorous activity No No No Hours of sleep 5 Yes Yes Yes Eating breakfast Yes No No Eating breakfast cereal Yes No Yes Drinking alcohol - weekdays Yes Yes No Drinking aleohol - weekends Yes Yes No ‘otal alcoho] units consumed in past week No Yes No Smoking cigaretes Yes No Yes nsIn terms of general activity, there isa trend indicating that those people with low levels of work stress engege in mildly energetic forms of exercise more frequently than those with high work stress. However, the analyses of the data overtime indicate no significant differences berween the groups for moderately energetic or vigorous forms of activity, ‘Those with high stress are likely to report geting fewer hours of sleep on weekdays that those ‘with low levels of work stress. This finding holds across both time point, and for Time 1 work stress predicting Time 2 health related behaviours, Although there is no significant difference between the work stess groups in the reported frequency of eating of breakfast in general across ime points, there is a significant difference in the reported frequency in eating of breakfast cereal ‘There are no clear patterns in differences in the consumption of aleoholic drinks when looking at Time 1 work stress and its relationship with behaviours at Time 2. However, there isa trend ‘indicating that those with high work stress are more likely to smoke cigarettes than those with low work stress, 176PERCEIVED CHANGES IN HEALTH AND STRESS OVER THE LAST 12 MONTHS, PRODUCTIVITY AT WORK, AND INJURIES, HOSPITAL VISITS, AND SICK LEAVE, ‘This section looks at Time 2 responses to @ series of questions addressing the perceived changes in health and stress in respondents’ lives over the previous 12 months. Further, it examines bow ‘they perceive the link between work stress and its relationship to the causation or exacerbation of poor health, It also examines the frequency of injuries, visits to hospital and their GP, days, taken off as sick leave, accidents and productivity at work. Only the data for those indicating that they were in paid employment at Time 2 are presented. Qa (Over the past 12 months, how would you say your health in general bas changed? ‘The data below show that those who have indicated that they have high work stress at Time 2 are significantly more likely o perceive their heath as poorer than 12 months ago, than those ia the low work stress group. Chi-Square = 51.29, 4 df, p<.0001 142) In general, how have you found stress in your job change over the last 12 ‘months? ‘The data present a clear pattem a expected. Those who rate their work stress as high are significantly more likely to feel thatthe level of stress in their job has changed for the worse. “However, a sizeable proportion of those with low levels of stress also feet that their jobs have also become litle more stressful than 12 months ago. Chi-Square = 283.14, 4 df, p<0001 ua) How have you found stress in your life change over the last 12 months? Overall, those with higher levels of work stress at Time 2 are significantly more likely to perceive their lives outside work to have become much more stressful than 12 months ago. Chi- Square= 48.63, 4 df, p<.0001 7sie sie ev wl ove 899) IZ Tessas mio 1000> —gebl_ EL SEE pOS OLE BSS SI NETH sag HON Ne N29 eee sisson insu ainssonns ou 0m on ssa, ainsans sousoynuitig reo, wea amy on S301 on 1 aun, ye sso 9200 Aq (z aun, ye posnseau st) supuow Z1 986] 24) 4940 $59118 HOM u S9BUEYD paAt>424 zor siaes. 21 pau sey p00 ‘uy yey ano Kes sie 8% 6 TST BH OLE LIT ELE BILL SANG HOM. UFIHL NOK pynom moy ‘sypHOW tooo> ESI ry 9 BL Lee HS SEB LET WOE Eby aS HOM MOT I sed 9 4980 N % ON % % ON % N % N nq = 23uey 2 2810 28108 aouvoywuis TeOL, paw oN, OW 1 9 ye 550195 pom (zou. F8 pauMsEaU Se) syuoU! Z} Ie] aq) 1940 YWEDY UH SAHUEYD paxtDI04 rove,eu fe syquous \. esquow Ole OF OF Ih OSE POE SH LLL LE STB SSANS THOM ULE s59z18 Pune nok 1000'> £9 16 UEP FOY DOLL SSSR SANS HOM MOT —24R| OH N% ON % N % N % oN % N nessa sayssanys nyssouns aout 240u ouey> ss] aayssns aouvoutuis 104, son ¥v on. ammy S301 2m, 1 owns, ye ston 420m qc out poanseons se) sqpuow ZI 86] 94) 4940 S90) Nw sfuED p2A0:24 £01 1061DOES WORK STRESS CAUSE ILL HEALTH, OR MAKE ILL HEALTH WORSE? RETROSPECTIVE PERCEPTIONS OF THE SAMPLE ‘This section reports answers to Questions 8.11: Thinking about the past year, have you suffered from any illness that you think was caused, or made worse by work? Time | Those in the high stress group are significantly more likely to agree that they have suffered from an illness that was caused by, or made worse by work over the last yea. Chi-Square = 249.97, 1 df, p<001 ‘Table 104 Perceptions ofl-health that may have been caused or made worse by work stress at Time 1 Yes No “Total Significance N % ON % ON ‘Thinking Low work 590 18.1 2661 81.9 3251 = <001 about the past stress year, have you Highwork 334 454 402546 736 Suffered from stress any illness that you think was caused by, ormade worse by work? Time 2 ‘Those in the high stress group are significantly more likely to agree that they have suffered from an illness that was caused by, or made worse by work over the last year. Chi-Square = 97.06, 1 af, p<.001 180Table 105 ‘Perceptions ofl-heslth that may have been caused or made work by work stress ‘at Time 2 Yes No Total Significance ee Nee IN Thinking «Low work 255 «1781175. 82.2-1430<001 about the past sires year,have you High work 130 422 178 «57.8 308 suffered ftom stress any illness that you think ‘was caused by ormade worse by work? Table 106 ‘Perceptions of il-health that may have been caused or made worse by work ‘stress at Time T Time? Time? T2with Tws “Tinting about the past year have you suffered Homany Yes Yes Yeo illness that you think was caused, or made worse by work? WS work sess In sum, it is clear tht the perception of the respondents in general i that high levels of work stress have caused ill health and / or exacerbated pre-existing il health 181How productive or efficient do you feel you are at work? (Time 2 only) ay How productive or efficient do you fel you are at work? ‘The table below clearly shows that there is litle difference between the work stress groups with regard to their perceptions of their work productivity or efficiency. (ChisSquare = 4.06, 4 df, p>.10 182pom weir ok oa nos op sug 10 (eG celeste Orie Crliems GMC C6 es ce ees Gree ill 5 ssamg 8098 aH} aanOnposd ore Si Ost GLE BR GEL OTE HEE EBT ESM HOA MOTT oH N % N % NW % ee upoad ‘oananpoud appnposd sapomposd aaqpaposd souesyiuiis (OL, spurs ine peynousos We ye 30N aun, ve ssons 40% Eq 208 78 KOUDHUFR/ Lor 148‘This set of questions at Time 2 asked respondents to think about work-related accidents and ‘health problems, and issues related to these. The response period was defined as within the last 12 months, and each question had several response options Q1.102) How many accidents requiring medical attention have you hed in the last 12 months (at work)? ‘The distribution of scores shows that the great majority of respondents indicate that they had no accidents at work that required medical atention. Although the chi-square statistic shows @ significant difference between work stress groups, the low number of responses in some of the cells makes this an unreliable result. Chi-Square = 7.97, 3, p<0s Q1106) How many accidents requiring medical attention have you had in the last 12 months (at home)? ‘There was no difference between work stress groups concerning the rate of accidents at home that requited medical attention. Chi-Square = 1.33,3 df, p>.10 iss