Effects of Working Environment and Socioeconomic Status on Health Status in Elderly Workers: A Comparison with Non-Elderly Workers

Bokim Lee

doi:10.12799/jkachn.2017.28.4.472

Journal List > J Korean Acad Community Health Nurs > v.28(4) > 1058490

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Lee: Effects of Working Environment and Socioeconomic Status on Health Status in Elderly Workers: A Comparison with Non-Elderly Workers

Original Article

J Korean Acad Community Health Nurs 2017;28(4):472-481.

Published online: 12 December 2017

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12799/jkachn.2017.28.4.472

Effects of Working Environment and Socioeconomic Status on Health Status in Elderly Workers: A Comparison with Non-Elderly Workers

Bokim Lee

Department of Nursing, University of Ulsan, Ulsan, Korea

Corresponding author: Lee, Bokim Department of Nursing, University of Ulsan, 93 Daehak-ro, Nam-gu, Ulsan 44610, Korea. Tel: +82-52-259-1283, Fax: +82-52-259-1236, E-mail: bokimlee@ulsan.ac.kr

Received 4 August 2017 Revised 23 October 2017 Accepted 19 November 2017

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study were to compare working condition, socioeconomic status, and health status between elderly and non-elderly workers and to examine the influencing factors of health status according to age groups.

Methods

This study is a secondary analysis of data extracted from the 2014 Korean Working Conditions Survey. For the present analysis, 15,980 elderly workers over the age of 55 and 32,037 non-elderly workers under the age of 55 were selected.

Results

The prevalence of subjective unhealthy status and poor mental health were significantly higher among the elderly workers than the non-elderly workers. The elderly workers were more likely to have lower level of education and income than the non-elderly workers. They also reported less support from colleagues and managers, however, have more decision authority. Among the elderly workers, long working hours, awkward posture, physical environmental risks, quantitative demand, decision authority, social support, age discrimination, education level, and income level were significant predictors of subjective health status or mental health.

Conclusion

For keeping elderly workers healthy and productive, work environment needs to become more age-friendly. An age-friendly workplace may include: accommodative support, workers’ participation, minimization of environment risk, etc.

Keywords: Aged, Workplace, Socioeconomic factors, Health status

References

1. Statistics Korea. Population projections for Korea: 2015-2065. Statistics Report. Daejeon: Author;2017. Feburuary. Report No.: 11-1240000-000125-13.

2. Ministry of Employment and Labor. 2015 Survey report on labor conditions by employment type. Labor Condition Report. Sejong: Author;2016. June. Report No.: 11-1490000-000336-10.

3. Statistics Korea. Monthly report on the economically active population survey. Employment Report. Daejeon: Author;2017. October.

4. Kim YS, Kim BH, Kim HM. A study on occupational accident of older workers and vulnerable working condition. Health & Social Science. 2014; 35:309–329.

5. Choi SH. The economic review for industry safety and health for ageing society. The Journal of Korean Association Occupational Therapy Policy for Aged Industry. 2014; 6(1):1–12.

6. Lee BI. Job and life satisfaction of nonstandard workers in South Korea. Workplace Health & Safety. 2013; 61(8):355–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/216507991306100806.

7. Eurofound. Sustainable work and the ageing workforce. Research Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union;2012. https://doi.org/10.2806/42794.

8. Taimela S, Läärä E, Malmivaara A, Tiekso J, Sintonen H, Justén S, et al. Self-reported health problems and sickness absence in different age groups predominantly engaged in physical work. Occupational Environmental Medicine. 2007; 64(11):739–746. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2006.027789.

9. Porta M. International epidemiological association. A dictionary of epidemiology. 6rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press;2014. p. 343.

10. Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute. The user manual of the 4th Korean Working Conditions Survey Data. Mannual Report. Ulsan: Author;2016. April.

11. World Health Organization Regional Office For Europe. Well-bing measures in primary health care/ The depcare project. Report on a WHO Meeting. Copenhagen: Author;1998. February. Report No.: EUR/ICP/QCPH 05 01 03.

12. Debrand T, Lengagne P. Working conditions and health of European older workers. Working Papers. Paris: IRDES Institut for research and information in health economics;2008. February. Report No.: DTN8.

13. Niedhammer I, Chastang JF, David S. Importance of psychosocial work factors on general health outcomes in the national French SUMER survey. Occupational Medicine. 2008; 58(1):15–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqm115.

14. Leoni T. What drives the perception of health and safety risks in the workplace? Evidence from European labour markets. Empirica. 2010; 37(2):165–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10663-010-9129-0.

15. Shirom A, Toker S, Berliner S, Shapira I, Melamed S. The effects of physical fitness and feeling vigorous on self-rated health. Health Psychology. 2008; 27(5):567–575. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.27.5.567.

16. Grimshaw D. What do we know about low wage work and low wage workers?: Analysing the definitions, patterns, causes and consequences in international perspective. Working Papers. Geneva: International Labour Organization;2011. Report No.: ILO Conditions of Work and Employment Series No.28.

17. Yun HS. Changes in the relative importance of the minimum wage, income support and employment support programs. KDI Focus. 2016; 71:1–7.

18. Jones MK, Latreille PL, Sloane PJ, Staneva AV. Work-related health risks in Europe: Are older workers more vulnerable? Social Science & Medicine. 2013; 88:18–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.03.027.

19. Kim JH. The experience of ageism and meaning of aging among the Korean elderly by qualitative analysis. Korea Journal of Population Studies. 2015; 38(1):69–104.

20. Virtanen M, Ferrie JE, Singh-Manoux A, Shipley MJ, Stansfeld SA, Marmot MG, et al. Long working hours and symptoms of anxiety and depression: A 5-year follow up of the WhitehallII study. Psychological Medicine. 2011; 41(12):2485–2494. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291711000171.

21. Lee YJ, Kim HL. Influences of working conditions and health status on absence due to sickness in health and medical related workers. Korean Journal of Occupational Health Nursing. 2016; 25(3):216–226. https://doi.org/10.5807/kjohn.2016.25.3.216.

22. Choi ES, Jeon KS. The impacts of psychosocial work conditions on self-rated health among Korean Workers. Korean Journal of Occupational Health Nursing. 2016; 25(4):300–310. https://doi.org/10.5807/kjohn.2016.25.4.300.

23. Kim MK, Chung WJ, Lim SG, Yoon SJ, Lee JY, Kim EK, et al. Socioeconomic inequity in self-rated health status and contribution of health behavioral factors in Korea. Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health. 2010; 43(1):50–61. https://doi.org/10.3961/jpmph.2010.43.1.50.

24. Gonzales E, Marchiondo L, Ran S, Brown C, Goettge K. Age Discrimination in Workplace and its Association with Health and Work: Implications for Social Policy. Boston, MA: Boston University, Research Brief 201502;2015. p. 4.

25. Lee BI. Gender differences in psychosocial working conditions and psychological well-being among Korean interactive service workers. Korean Journal of Occupational Health Nursing. 2015; 24(2):132–141. https://doi.org/10.5807/kjohn.2015.24.2.132.

26. Yi YJ, Jung HS. Analysis on female workers' job stress in scales and retail industries. Korean Journal of Occupational Health Nursing. 2009; 18(1):22–32.

27. Yoon BJ. Differential effects on self-rated health by socioeconomic class. Journal of Health Informatics and Statistics. 2016; 41(1):35–42. https://doi.org/10.21032/jhis.2016.41.1.35.

28. Handy JA. Maintaining family life under shiftwork schedules: A case study of a New Zealand petrochemical plant. New Zealand Journal of Psychology. 2010; 39(1):29–37.

29. Lee SH, Moon EY, Kim BR. A study on family policy for baby boomers in Seoul. Research Report. Seoul: Seoul Foundation of Women & Family;2014. December. Report No.: 2014-Policy research-06.

30. Baek JT, Cho YC. The relationships between emotional labour, depressive symptoms and presenteeism among counselors in call centers. Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society. 2015; 16(6):4086–4097. https://doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2015.16.6.4086.

Table 1.

Differences in General Characteristics & Socioeconomic Conditions by Age of Subjects

Variables	Categories	＜55 (n=32,037)	≥55 (n=15,980)	x² (p)
Variables	Categories	n (%)^†	n (%)^†	x² (p)
Age	Range (Min~Max)	16~54	55~98
Age	M±SE^†	40.3±0.10	63.6±0.52
Gender	Male	15,920 (49.4)	8,209 (51.6)	20.13 (.148)
Gender	Female	16,117 (50.6)	7,771 (48.4)
Occupation	Managers Professionals	770 (2.6) 2,603 (8.9)	309 (2.5) 234 (1.8)	12,085.75 (＜.001)
	Technicians and associate professionals	1,688 (5.7)	219 (1.7)
	Clerks	7,003 (26.3)	497 (4.3)
	Service workers	5,707 (16.3)	2,388 (15.5)
	Sales workers Skilled agricultural and fishery workers	6,584 (17.4) 739 (1.2)	2,315 (13.3) 4,644 (17.6)
	Craft and related trades workers	2,985 (9.4)	1,024 (7.8)
	Plant and machine operators and assemblers	1,910 (5.8)	815 (6.0)
	Elementary workers	1,957 (6.3)	3,531 (29.4)
	Armed forces	75 (0.2)	0 (0.0)
Employment type	Permanent	17,901 (63.6)	3,016 (26.5)	5,431.47 (＜.001)
	Temporary	4,905 (15.6)	3,271 (27.7)
	Others	9,231 (20.8)	9,693 (45.8)
Education level	≤Elementary school	232 (0.6)	5,502 (28.3)	13,729.79 (＜.001)
	Middle or high school	14,961 (43.3)	8,830 (60.0)
	≥Community college	16,598 (56.1)	1,505 (11.6)
Income level (10,000 won)	＜100	2,803 (8.1)	5,591 (32.9)	5,424.51 (＜.001)
	100~＜200 200~＜300	10,006 (31.4) 9,283 (31.1)	5,246 (36.6) 2,279 (15.7)
	≥300	8,671 (29.4)	1,942 (14.8)

^† Unweighted number, weighted percent, weighted mean.

Table 2.

Differences in Working Conditions by Age of Subjects

Variables	Categories	＜55 (n=32,037)	≥55 (n=15,980)	x² (p)
Variables	Categories	n (%)^†	n (%)^†	x² (p)
Work schedule	Night work	2,692 (8.0)	1,342 (10.4)	68.36 (.002)
Work schedule	Shift work	2,394 (7.7)	962 (8.8)	16.01 (.180)
Long working hours		9,164 (25.4)	5,012 (31.9)	200.18 (＜.001)
Working posture risks	Tiring/painful positions	9,311 (28.3)	6,458 (38.7)	485.01 (＜.001)
Working posture risks	Carrying/moving heavy loads	5,675 (16.4)	4,120 (24.4)	407.57 (＜.001)
Physical environmental risks		13,917 (41.8)	9,375 (56.5)	838.46 (＜.001)
Work intensity	High speed	7,778 (24.4)	3,114 (20.6)	80.13 (＜.001)
	Tight deadline	7,370 (23.8)	2,666 (19.0)	128.17 (＜.001)
	Quantitative demand	17,016 (58.2)	7,541 (55.7)	22.51 (.017)
Decision authority		14,668 (44.9)	8,622 (50.3)	110.07 (.001)
Social support		14,216 (62.6)	3,040 (47.6)	448.50 (＜.001)
Psychosocial risks	Handing angry clients	2,346 (7.3)	756 (5.2)	66.54 (＜.001)
	Job stress	7,616 (26.0)	2,831 (20.1)	164.66 (＜.001)
	Demands for hiding emotions	7,901 (26.7)	2,812 (21.0)	154.13 (＜.001)
Workplace violence	Physical violence	155 (0.5)	48 (0.4)	4.15 (.139)
	Sexual harassment	149 (0.5)	33 (0.2)	15.73 (.001)
	Bullying	45 (0.2)	16 (0.1)	1.24 (.305)
	Age discrimination	1,279 (4.8)	763 (6.5)	60.34 (＜.001)

^† Number and proportion of exposure workers, unweighted number, weighted percent.

Table 3.

Differences in Health Status by Age of Subjects

Variables	Categories	＜55 (n=32,037)	≥55 (n=15,980)	x² (p)
Variables	Categories	n (%)^†	n (%)^†	x² (p)
Subjective health status	Healthy	24,113 (77.5)	7,150 (48.5)	3,755.18 (＜.001)
Subjective health status	Unhealthy	7,476 (22.5)	8,504 (51.5)
Mental health	Good	17,939 (56.8)	6,766 (44.0)	624.12 (＜.001)
Mental health	Poor	13,815 (43.2)	9,052 (56.0)

^† Unweighted number, weighted percent.

Table 4.

Results from a Multiple Logistic Regression Analysis

Variables	Subjective health status				Mental health
		＜55		≥55		＜55		≥55
	AOR	95%CI	AOR	95%CI	AOR	95%CI	AOR	95%CI
Night work (ref: no)	1.20	1.05~1.36	1.28	0.94~1.73	1.06	0.92~1.22	0.85	0.66~1.09
Shift work (ref: no)	1.00	0.84~1.19	1.12	0.92~1.38	1.06	0.93~1.22	1.11	0.82~1.49
Long working hours (ref: no)	1.20	1.04~1.38	0.98	0.82~1.17	1.31	1.16~1.48	1.30	1.08~1.57
Tiring/painful positions (ref: no)	1.88	1.65~2.13	1.48	1.25~1.75	1.07	0.95~1.20	0.85	0.70~1.03
Carrying/moving heavy loads (ref: no)	1.03	0.92~1.16	1.02	0.83~1.25	0.99	0.87~1.13	1.02	0.84~1.24
Physical environmental risks (ref: no)	1.16	1.03~1.30	1.17	0.98~1.39	1.07	0.93~1.23	1.21	1.03~1.43
High speed (ref: no)	0.96	0.81~1.13	1.17	0.90~1.52	0.91	0.79~1.05	0.98	0.73~1.33
Tight deadline (ref: no)	0.97	0.84~1.11	0.79	0.62~1.03	0.85	0.74~0.98	0.81	0.59~1.11
Quantitative demand (ref: no)	1.21	1.08~1.35	1.19	1.05~1.35	1.57	1.34~1.82	1.66	1.42~1.95
Decision authority (ref: no)	0.92	0.80~1.06	0.87	0.78~0.96	0.92	0.83~1.02	1.03	0.89~1.20
Social support (ref: strong)	0.89	0.79~1.01	0.83	0.71~0.96	0.62	0.52~0.73	0.54	0.44~0.67
Handing angry clients (ref: no)	1.07	0.86~1.33	1.10	0.80~1.51	1.18	0.93~1.50	0.87	0.64~1.18
Job stress (ref: no)	1.23	1.03~1.47	0.97	0.79~1.18	0.92	0.80~1.07	0.87	0.72~1.06
Demands for hiding emotions (ref: no)	1.13	0.96~1.32	0.98	0.81~1.19	1.14	0.93~1.39	0.90	0.72~1.14
Physical violence (ref: no)	1.12	0.59~2.11	0.50	0.21~1.22	1.93	1.08~3.44	1.28	0.49~3.31
Sexual harassment (ref: no)	2.08	1.29~3.36	0.76	0.24~2.44	1.84	0.71~4.79	1.41	0.67~2.99
Bullying (ref: no)	3.99	2.26~7.04	1.38	0.21~9.12	1.78	0.63~5.06	0.65	0.13~3.21
Age discrimination (ref: no)	1.55	1.29~1.87	1.54	1.19~2.00	1.32	1.03~1.68	1.29	1.03~1.61
Education level (ref:≥Bachelor's degree)
≤Elementary school	2.36	1.63~3.41	2.03	1.47~2.80	1.40	0.89~2.22	1.26	0.87~1.81
Middle or high school	1.37	1.21~1.56	1.33	0.97~1.82	1.10	0.97~1.25	1.13	0.88~1.45
Income level (10,000 won) (ref:≥300)
＜100	0.88	0.70~1.12	2.06	1.48~2.88	0.91	0.75~1.11	1.28	0.97~1.68
100~＜200	0.97	0.83~1.13	1.47	1.15~1.86	1.12	0.99~1.27	1.16	0.92~1.46
200~＜300	0.91	0.79~1.05	1.01	0.80~1.28	1.01	0.89~1.13	1.14	0.87~1.48

Adjusted: gender, occupation, employment type; Dependent variable reference category: healthy, good; ref=reference; AOR=Adjusted odds ration; CI=Confidence interval.

TOOLS

Similar articles